This article from the Church Times (UK) sent to me by Fr Ian Westby (TTAC-UK). Mention is made of the TAC Bishops’ meeting in Rome after Easter. It’s surprising to see that publication (Church of England) as positive as this towards the TAC. I see Ordinariate in the title in the singular. I suppose the author would have the English Ordinariate in mind as there will be several Ordinariates in the world.
I reproduce quoted direct speech from the Archbishop in bold print.
Ordinariate: the sceptics ‘are eating humble pie’
by Bill Bowder
A meeting of bishops who have petitioned the Pope to be received into full communion while retaining an “Anglican” identity is to take place in Rome in Low Week.
It would be the culmination of the response to Benedict XVI’s Apostolic Constitution (Anglicanorum Coetibus) to establish personal Ordinariates for former Anglicans, Archbishop John Hepworth of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), a Continuing Church, said on Wednesday.
He was due in Rome in three weeks’ time for a meeting with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) after a series of regional TAC synods, and would then, two weeks after Easter, meet most of the bishops who had petitioned the Pope to make their formal response on the Ordinariates.
“The ball is in our court. We asked for this and this is what we got. This is becoming Anglican Catholics, not Roman Catholics,” Archbishop Hepworth said, speaking from Australia.
The letters from the Vatican replying to all those who had responded to the Pope’s offer had now been received. He had followed that with a pastoral letter to TAC members last week.
“After an introduction about church unity, we talk about our original meeting with the CDF. They gave us advice and we followed it. A team of Roman Catholic bishops and scholars were helping us to reflect on unity. They provided a critique of the TAC, and we quote some of that back to them. The TAC wants to achieve communion while ‘maintaining those revered traditions of spirituality, liturgy, discipline and theology that constitute the cherished and centuries-old heritage of Anglican communities throughout the world’.
“So our way of doing theology is there, as is our way of discipline. Our group will have the right to elect our bishops. We asked the CDF for election by council. They laughed at us at first, but we got it. We are also working with a commission with Forward in Faith to produce our liturgy. We signed the Catechism as ‘the most complete and authentic expression and application of the Catholic faith in this moment of time’.
“We did that to put our commitment beyond dispute, but we did not have to agree to Apostolicae Curae [which declares Anglican orders absolutely null and utterly void], because that is not in the Catechism.”
A consultation was taking place on “reordination in the TAC context”. “We separated from the Anglican Church. Some left because of sacramental and doctrinal issues, and have got lost. We chose to take up ARCIC [the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission], and we have got what we wanted. People who said we could not are having to eat humble pie, and I am sinfully enjoying that.”
The Archbishop said that he was issuing TAC’s original 2007 petition to the CDF at the same time as his pastoral letter.
In his letter, he writes: “Re-ordination is an issue because the Church requires absolute certainty in the matter of future sacramental life. I have been told that the TAC should understand this because we ourselves moved beyond the Anglican Communion in order to ensure the validity of sacramental life. Rome is now seeking the same assurance.”
The Apostolic Constitution “speaks of Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church. There at the outset are the three critical factors: Anglicans, full communion and Catholic Church.”
You know, the election of the bishop does exist in the Roman Catholic Church: In Switzerland, because of the old democratic tradition of this country, all bishops are elected by the canons of the cathedral, as it used to be in the Middle-Age. The election has been oppened with Vatican II to some more priests of the diocese (the election of Swiss bishops is explained here: http://www.bistum-stgallen.ch/front_content.php?idcat=55). The Oriental Patriarchs also are elected by an independant Synod. That's why election of Bishops in the soon-to-be Anglican ordinariates does not seem so foolish as it is said to Rome.
I was in Fribourg when Rome nominated Archbishop (as he is now) Wolfgang Haas (a conservative) to be Bishop of Chur. The system there is 3 candidates are proposed by the Cathedral Chapter, and Rome normally selects the first. The progressives put pressure on the Swiss Confederation and Rome was under diplomatic pressure to remove Bishop Haas and put someone more "acceptable" in his place. John Paul II gave in to this pressure and cut off a small part of the Chur Diocese and made it into the Archdiocese of Vaduz, Liechtenstein. Archbishop Haas is still Archbishop of Vaduz.
Conventions for electing and ratifying diocesan bishops in different European countries are generally defined by concordats or other formal agreements between the Church and the state concerned.
Many of the current problems in the Church come from bishops with progressive ideas being proposed to a weak Apostolic Nuncio and the appointment just being rubber-stamped by Rome.
If the election of bishops is unaffected by the Modernist or "cultural Marxist" ideology, then it can be a good thing and work as a check against putting too much authority in the hands of the Pope alone.
All-in-all an excellent article with heartening, witty and informational statements by Abp. Hepworth.
Only one thing gave me pause for concern – the mention that "We are also working with a commission with Forward in Faith to produce our liturgy." To my knowledge FiF (at least in the UK) is pretty well enamored with the Novus Ordo liturgy and uses it almost exclusively. FiF here in the US is pretty much in the same liturgical boat. I really don't like the thought of giving up the Anglican Missal for the Novus Ordo.
Are we in the USA the only ones who still use and love the measured and poetic cadences of Elizabethan English?
The only thing that interests me in all this is the Liturgy. Abp. H. is now revealing that the TAC is working with FiF on a Liturgy. This scares me a bit because FiF uses the N.O. I just cannot understand that, having worked for so many years so that, ideally, I would never have to attend an N.O. again as long as I live.
I pray that the TAC will not get stuck with a requirement to take anything–not one word–that is found only in the N.O.M. There should at least be options to prevent that.
P.K.T.P.
As important as the discussion concerning the liturgy may be, we must not lose sight of the fact the the crux of the matter is restoration of communion with the Holy Father.
100% agreed, Fr. Holiday – which is why I haven't weighed in on any of the previous liturgical discussions.
That said, this particular statement concerns me because it is a direct indicator from the Primate about liturgical direction rather than the speculations of fellow bloggers.
I'm not entrenched in one liturgical camp – in our parish we celebrate the liturgy according to several forms. I am all for a diversity of liturgy as long as said variants have an historical basis.
I think we're seeing here in microcosm the problems present in the macrocosm which is the Catholic Church. If the Apostolic Constitution had been addressed exclusively to the TAC we probably wouldn't be discussing many of these things. But it was addressed to the Anglican diaspora and instead we find ourselves going through the problems of "blended families." What do we keep of our family traditions – what can we give up and not stand to give up? The Romans are going through this same thing watching us coming in with our "patrimony."
In the end all will be well because our Lord watches over His Church and His prayer, the deepest desire of His Sacred Heart, will be fulfilled – "ut unum sint."
Indeed.
While I sympathize with Mr Perkins, just because he has many cogent reasons for not wishing for the Novus Ordo, it is not for him to overlook the fact that the Ordinariates, being part of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, ipso facto may use either the Ordinary Form of the Mass (as those from a FiF background may well prefer) or the Extraordinary (which in practice will not appeal to many: I only know of a very few Anglicans who celebrate the Mass in Latin).
However, as Anglicanorum cœtibus puts it,
"Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared."
It would seem that the intention is that, without excluding use of the Roman Rite, the Pope intends all that is good, true and beautiful in the Anglican liturgical Patrimony to be preserved, "as a precious gift… and a treasure to be shared" – so we pray that the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition (BCP's, Anglo-Catholic Missals) may be in due course, prudently but speedily, be approved by the Holy See.
Given that it has been the Anglo-Catholic tradition to supplement the BCP with prayers taken from the traditional Roman Rite, whether from the Use of Sarum or of Rome itself, it would seem that it would be devoutly to be hoped that this is approved.
The days of the 1980's, when Fr Phillips et al. had to accept the Novus Ordo offertory prayers for the B.D.W., and had to fight for the inclusion of the Roman Canon in traditional hieratic English, are now over, and the prospects for at the very least a B.D.W. Mark II are good.
It seems there is a threefold division here:
1. Those who already use the Novus Ordo;
2. Those who use Prayer Book forms (albeit supplemented from Catholic sources), to whom an improved B.D.W., adapted to fit local traditions (in Canada, the much-loved 1962 B.C.P., in the U.S., their 1928 B.C.P.), would be to maintain their customs;
3. For those who are "Missal" Anglicans, essentially the Roman (Sarum?) Missal done into Cranmerian English, with some favourite B.C.P. prayers included.
I should add a fourth (!) option – as one of the FiF UK flying bishops opined, not all of modern Anglican liturgy is to be rejected: there is gold amid the dross, and those preferring option 1. above may still wish for some supplementary prayers and rites (perhaps for marriages and baptisms?).
"This is becoming Anglican Catholics, not Roman Catholics."
What is the point of this statement? Why did he feel the need to highlight this point?
Anyone who is willing to come into communion with Rome will hopefully not take umbrage at being called a "Roman Catholic."
By the term Anglican Catholic, Archbishop Hepworth obviously means for Anglicans brought into communion with the Pope exactly what Byzantine Catholic means to a Catholic who belongs to a tradition that was once dissident Eastern Orthodox. It refers to the rite and cultural tradition.
In the same way as Ukrainians and Melkites are in communion with Rome, the Anglican Ordinariates will be in communion with Rome and thus Roman Catholics. But if Roman Catholic means being of a specifically Italian culture (actually I love Italian culture!) and forsaking our English culture, then we are Anglican Catholics rather than Roman Catholics. The Pope himself is a German Catholic and profoundly marked by his own Bavarian culture, perhaps something that helps him sympathise with our "English" ways and our patrimony.
What will draw us together will simply be being Catholics.
These labels are sometimes misleading, and it is important to try to read the best of intentions. Thank you for asking an explanation.
A further thought on numbers 8 and 9. Perhaps the modifier we are all looking for is "in communion with the Apostolic See (Bishop of Rome, Roman Pontiff or however else one might want to express it)."
As Father stated, the Pope himself is a German Catholic. But there are other "German Catholics" in Germany who are not in communion with the Apostolic See (Utrecht, Old Catholic, possibly Lutherans). There are French Catholics who are not in communion with the Holy See (followers of Abp. Lefebreve). So, it is not the single adjective before the word "Catholic" which is of as much importance as the adjectival phrase following: "in communion with the Holy See." Thus we can easily be "Anglican Catholics in communion with the Holy See" as distinctive from "Anglican Catholics" which may continue to be found in the CofE, TEC, the continuing bodies, etc.
I hope this makes sense and doesn't just further muddy the waters.
Since the FIF group uses the Novus Ordo Mass, I see no point in them coming in to the Church through the Apostolic Constitution for Anglicans bringing their Patrimony and Treasures. Why would they since they already use the Roman Rite? It doesn't really make any sense. They should as individuals go to the nearest Latin Rite Catholic Church and join RCIA.
Either they choose to bring all of the Anglican traditions and liturgies into the Catholic Church or they don't. I have been concerned about this since I heard they use the NO. As far as I know in the US Anglo Catholic parishes used an Anglican/American Missal for Mass. It has been years since I attended an Episcopal church (Anglo Catholic) so I have no idea whether they still use the Missals. The Anglican Use priests are the ones who should play in large role in the choices for a revised liturgy as they were involved from the beginning over 28 years ago and already had ideas that differ from Romes on the BDW.
If you want to be Catholic and attend NO Masses then please please just join your local parish and don't interfere with Anglicans who actually want to bring their wonderful Anglican Patrimony into the Catholic Church.