I can only offer a conjecture as to how an Ordinariate will be established, what are the stages, but I would imagine the following based on the elements we have. I have often wondered if the present groups of Anglicans would be dissolved and the individuals of which they presently consist would join the Ordinariate and be received into the Catholic Church as in former times. That would not agree with what Archbishop Hepworth has often said — that we will be received collegially, together and each of us protected by our unity.
- The first stage is obviously what the Canadian church has done, write to Cardinal Levada and ask for the Ordinariate. The request is a communal and ecclesial way of being Anglican Catholics in communion with the Holy See, at once treasuring the full expression of catholic faith and treasuring our tradition within which we have come to this moment. This would imply the local TAC entity being taken into consideration collegially. Time taken: done in the case of Canada.
- As Rome has taken two years to reply to the petition signed by all the TAC bishops in Portsmouth, I would doubt that any visitations or further collating of information would be necessary. However, Rome would have to consider other requests from Anglican groups on the same territory, and if those other Anglican groups have the same level of commitment as the TAC, one would think there would be a meeting between the TAC group, the other Anglican group(s) having made a similar application and Cardinal Levada. This meeting would begin to organise the practical aspects. Time taken: one to two months.
- Practical problems to be sorted out. Fr X was once a Roman seminarian but originally an Anglican. Fr Y has done two years of theology by correspondence courses. Fr Z (not Zuhlsdorf) only has five lay people attending his chapel. Time taken: a few weeks to eternity
- The combined groups of Anglicans would have a meeting and nominate three clerics to form the initial governing Council, and propose someone to be nominated by Rome to be the Ordinary. Time taken: a few hours at most.
- Cardinal Levada has the decree of canonical erection written up and meets with the proposed Ordinary (or another chosen by Rome from the petitioning group's clergy) and the provisional governing Council. They all make a profession of faith or an oath confirming that they accept all the doctrines contained in the Catechism. They sign the decree of canonical erection. Time taken: a single meeting.
- The Ordinariate now exists and can legitimately call to Orders. Dimissorial letters are issued for the ordinations of the following priests …….. and the Episcopal consecration of Ordinary-elect …………… . Time taken: a few weeks to book a bishop to confer the ordinations and a suitable church.
- The Ordinary and the priests ordained or regularised by Rome will then receive the professions of faith of the laity and admit them to the Sacraments as recognised to be valid by Rome. The Ordinary and his Council would have the power to decide which priests are accepted, leaving only cases of matrimonial irregularity or excommunication cases reserved to the Holy See. Re-ordaining those who haven’t been “re-done” by a Catholic bishop. Time taken: as long as needed.
- Everybody lives happily ever after.
PS. Of course, that's only the canonical part. There will then be sorting out the finances, human resources and "plants" — the business of developing parishes, schools and seminaries, sorting out the liturgy. I'll edit this posting as comments come in to say what I have forgotten and what seem to be likely.
Related posts:
When we met with Cardinal O'Brien and his Vicar General and Chancellor (Fathers Kerr and Robson) in December '09 we were told that the CDF would select the Ordinary from the Presbyteral College of the petitioning group. Either way the group ends up with an ordinary.
All sounds very good, Father. I do hope you are correct.
I do like the neatness of your conjecture. It seems very reasonable. I have suspected and you substantiate my suspicions that, personnel-wise and clerically speaking, the Ordinary will be given great latitude and the final say (barring messy marriages and Romans who abandoned Rome's communion) as to who is "in" and who is "out" (or rather who needs some "on the job" training).
I am very interested as to what the petition sent to the CDF by the ACA HoB and the Anglican Use representatives said. Did their petition propose three men for Ordinary? Did it ask for clarification on liturgy or specifically request use of a known "Anglican" liturgy or text (i.e. English Missal, BCP Office, Coverdale Psalter, etc.)? Did they propose a name for the Ordinariate?
It will be interesting to see what happens. But in the meantime, however, life goes on. There's nothing more that most of us can really do now except to pray, and – if necessary – to seek to calm the fears of any who are unsure. Unfortunately, as much as I want to know the mechanics of what we're doing (out of pure excitement), too much speculation about it may only serve to make some people more nervous. We've done our part. In the meantime, I suppose we have to continue doing what we've always done.
In some ways, I suppose it's kind of like a couple who have just gotten engaged. There's been a proposal, and she's accepted – but a date hasn't been set for the wedding, or any plans made. The thought of the wedding is exciting, and maybe a tad frightening – and by the time the wedding happens, there's been so much nervousness, and fighting about who should sit where at the reception… But in the meantime, the bride and groom likely have school, or jobs, and have to find a way of taking care of themselves – even though they may be spending every waking moment thinking about the wedding day (or night, perhaps)…
Father:
Where do you see catechesis with the Catholic Catechism coming into play before full implementation? I understand your points about collegiality and communion, but there must be, in my mind, an individual formation component. When I joined the Roman Church, I was required to participate in the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA), even though I had been formed for many years in the Anglican Church. While the Anglican Catholic bishops are very familiar with the Catechism and have given their assent, I am quite sure that very few parishioners have had any serious exposure to it and dedicated catechesis. Thanks and very excited about what is happening.
How many cradle Catholics know the difference between a Sacrament and the back end of a bus?
Seriously, I think most TAC faithful have general knowledge of Catholic doctrine. Like priests and all us us, learning is something of a lifetime. I don't see TAC faithful being made to go to RCIA classes, though future instruction for children and adults might be inspired by what is worthwhile from that source.
There may be directives for doctrinal catechesis, but that would be within the Ordinariates. I hardly see it being any other way.
Father Chadwick your comment about cradle Catholics Sacraments and the back end of a bus is naughty – but funny. I find most of what you write fascinating but you need to remember our enemies read the blog as well.
Do you expect the first Ordinary to come from those who are just now being received into full communion with the Catholic Church, or will he be a former Anglican (like Bishop Alan Hopes in England, for example) who was an Anglican clergyman but has been in full communion with the Catholic Church for many years? Where someone like Bishop Hopes is available, it would seem to me more likely that Rome would chose someone who could step in immediately, start reconciling people en masse and ordaining/incardinating clergy without the necessary delay involved in vetting someone who hasn't been in full, visible communion with the Catholic Church up till now. The vetting process for a priest before he is elevated to the episcopacy generally takes several months, and that's for someone who has been a Catholic priest for many years. Or maybe that's already been going on?
My understanding from our meeting with Cardinal O'Brien was that the Ordinary needed to be called from the Presbyteral Council of the petitioning group. This would make it impossible for Alan Hopes to be the Ordinary as he is not part of the proposed English Ordinariate. Clergy in the Ordinariate will be in that Ordinariate as in the Military Ordinariates. They will not be incardinated into a diocese.
Tim,
Just an insight into our parish experience regarding catechesis. We have slowly and surely worked with the CCC over the past couple of years, endeavoring to demonstrtate to our folks that what they already believed (for the most part) was more fully explained in the Catechism. As they were made aware of this it was easier to deal with the more unfamiliar issues because there was a familiarity with the content of the CCC. Initially, we didn't refer specifically to the CCC, but as time has progressed we have come to the point at which we are directly dealing with the Catechism.
It has been quite obvious since 2007 that the TAC was following a very specific ecumenical trajectory. Consequently, there should already have been specific preparations made to facilitate our people's understanding, and that understanding should have particularly dealt with matters regarding the CCC.
Thanks for your comments. I do think a concentrated period of catechesis into Catholic doctrine would be advisable. While Fr. Chadwick's point about the back end of a bus is taken, this is not simply a recognition of what already is WRT communion, but it is a definite assent and movement towards full union, so a period of preparation and special education seems apropos and timely. As much as I am very fond of my Anglican Catholic friends, there is no question that with the diversity of Prayer Book, Calvinist and "other" predilections in the Anglican Catholic Church, a period of intense education (such as taken on by Fr Holiday) seems like a good idea for the purposes of unity. And I would say this to all my Roman brethren as well – take up the opportunity to attend and engage RCIA even for old timers.
There are better resources out there for learning what the Church teaches, than the RCIA course per se.
Father Corapi's series on the CCC is hard to beat – but a little pricey.
Another great resource is: http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/sheen.htm and is totally free.
SWR
We really shouldn't refer to RCIA as being appropriate in any way for a person who has been baptized and raised in the Christian faith. It is the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults — in other words, it is intended for a person coming to the Christian faith from some other religion, or from no religion. That certainly does NOT describe Anglicans.
Well, ok, maybe it would describe some of the new-age TEC-types…
I would recommend a book by Peter Kreeft called "Catholic Christianity". It follows closely the CCC, but with a lot of apologetic and explanatory material.
Fr. Anthony-
As much as you enjoy conjecture, I’m awfully curious; how is it that the CDF will appoint someone who has never been Catholic as the Ordinary? One day you are in the TAC and the next you are the equivalent to a bishop in the Catholic Church. Yes, yes, I know TAC affirms the Catechism, but it is one thing to affirm it as an outsider and quite another to practice it as an insider. So that nobody either confuses or tries to twist what I am saying, let me be clear: I am not saying that the existing leadership of the TAC (or any other Anglican clergy) is not qualified. I am asking; is it prudent? Incorporating Anglican patrimony into the Ordinariate will be easy compared to learning to live the Catholic faith. It is not like riding a bike; it’s more like learning a new language.
No matter how hard anyone tries, you cannot imagine what your new Catholic faith will be like until you walk in those shoes. I converted over three years ago and the biggest shocker was simply learning to think Catholic. Take for instance the death penalty; while it could be argued that the Catholic Church has nuanced its position since the time of JPII, if you dig deep enough into catholic social teaching, then you begin to understand why the Catholic Church opposed the death penalty even for Saddam Hussein. Catholic social teaching in regards to money and our attitudes towards the poor are radically different than our Anglican patrimony.
I think we need to ask a very serious question; will an Ordinary who has never experienced Catholicism from the inside be capable of being an effective Catholic Ordinary (read as bishop)? As much as everyone in the TAC wants to bring their leadership intact into the Catholic Church I honestly wonder if it will be a disservice to the long-term success, and the greater good of the Ordinariate. Many countries will eventually have more than one Ordinary (USA, Canada and England). Why not learn to walk before running? St. Paul does tell us to lay hands on no one hastily. We have to have an Ordinary, but are there other alternatives? Remember, the greater good of the Ordinariate is at stake.
I’m not about to get out the Canon Law book, but perhaps there is a way for an Ordinary to be appointed who has Anglican patrimony (one of the flying bishops or priests from our shared tradition) that would only serve for a period of a year or two. Perhaps as a qualification this man would have to be a practicing Catholic for at least “X” years. There are numerous qualified men who fit this bill. To complement this appointment there would also be a successor appointed at the same time (I forget the technical term). The idea is to allow the newly converted Ordinary in waiting (the successor) to learn the ropes of Catholicism without the pressure of trying to perform two jobs at once, leading his flock and learning to be Catholic.
This is a serious issue, so I am asking both a serious and a reasonable question. Please respond accordingly.
Blessings,
Clark
Clark,
I suspect that our beloved Holy Father and the CDF under Cardinal Levada will have already thought through the concerns that you raise and many more that most of us would never think of. We must remember that this Work is one of the Holy Spirit in answer to much prayer. What we are asked to do is offer it up and let God work.
Be blessed.
In response to Clark:
First of all, all I am trying to do is to be helpful, so that we can all see clearly. I have no claim to infallibility, but I do have a certain amount of logical thought.
I know the old stuff about having to be a Catholic for two years before you do anything, just going to Mass and being a committed Catholic in a parish: Catholic Action, the Scouts and all the rest. If this is what is intended, the Apostolic Constitution would have instructed all interested Anglican priests and lay people to convert individually to their local parishes – and then only in some years hence would some kind of special jurisdiction be considered. All the “non kosher” people would simply be deep-sixed, and only the “pukka” people would be allowed in the “Ordinariate Club”, presumably run by snotty Englishmen who will keep the riff-raff out.
The existence of the Apostolic Constitution and the kind of rules we find written indicate that this will be something serious and demanding – but it will involve creating the Ordinariates from presently Anglican (extra and intra mural) material in a much nearer future. Ecclesiastical jurisdictions are not abstract, but they are collections of real people. Now who jumped on the train first? Or have we got beyond talking about railways and who gets the prize for winning the 100-yard sprint or the game of Musical Chairs?
Being a Catholic isn’t rocket science. It involves belonging to the Church, doing the same weaving about the hierarchy as in the Anglican setup. I know this sounds irreverent, but this is reality. I get sick and tired of hearing “convert talk” about joining the “perfect society” and all the hypocrisy around it. There is a properly founded sense of filial obedience and faith in the Church’s teaching, but there is also the manly dissidence that caused the need for Summorum Pontificum (Paul VI intended to deep-six the old Mass). Living in the Church is no more than living in the Church. A Catholic is a Catholic like an Anglican is an Anglican or a Methodist is a Methodist. Let’s just get real. I know we’re knocking on the door, but as men, not wimps and little kids afraid of getting their bottoms smacked.
This stuff is going to have to be done quickly enough for it to be any use. Let it drag out for years, making people become parish Catholics in the present situation, and the Ordinariate scheme is more useless than nipples on a boar! Let’s try being a little less sanctimonious, and people might trust us more!
OK, perhaps Rome might put in Catholic bishops who have been Catholics for 30 years. If that’s the intention, then it should have been said last October. Then we know that the Ordinariates, as Cardinal Kasper said, have nothing to do with the TAC or Forward in Faith. The Ordinariates could have simply been set up by Rome with everything written in stone, and clients invited to nibble at the hook. Perhaps it’s all about converts who have hung on over the years. Let’s keep playing Pass the Parcel. Eventually the music will stop. That didn’t happen. Rome is waiting for us to take the initiative.
Nice try at raining on the party, but the glove just doesn’t fit. Yes, it is a serious issue, and so is the terminal decline of the Church in Europe and other places, and America too in time, showing that Anglican convert talk about perfect Churches doesn’t correspond with reality. There is always the possibility that the “others” (certain Continuing Anglicans if you haven't got the hint) are right… Whatever happens, I won’t be joining “them”.
You've probably guessed. I feel somewhat "pissed off" today, and I wrote my article to try to get some positive reactions – and get my (and other people's) thinking a little straighter.
Honestly, I think part of the point is to get people who actually don't "think Catholic". Obviously they need to be sufficiently well trained in Catholic theology to avoid entering into error, but part of the point of emphasizing Anglican patrimony is to express the unity of the Church outside of uniformity.
Following the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church, through the Council of Trent, took perhaps a step too far in trying to ensure that all Catholics worshipped, thought, and practiced the faith in the same way, and stamped out genuine, authentic, and wholesome traditions in the name of uniformity. I think part of the reason Benedict was such an early supporter of the idea of a 2nd Vatican Council was he saw it as an opportunity to revive more of the Church's history and mission, parts that had been suppressed. I think part of the reason he has generally been seen as a critic of the Council since its reforms is that it was simply used to enforce a different style of uniformity.
Benedict seems to be genuinely interested in allowing the fullness of the Catholic tradition to reign freely, without allowing for error or dissent. I think his Ordinariate scheme for the Anglicans is one way he hopes to achieve his broader goal of unity rather than uniformity. So I should think that having Ordinaries who don't necessarily "think Catholic" is actually part of the overall rationale behind the decision.
Seth-
This is the sort of reasoned and thought out response I was hoping for. Do you have any additional thoughts along these lines?
Blessings,
Clark
Fr. Anthony-
I think you worked yourself up in a dither for no real reason.
You should know from my posts that I try to raise both serious and relevant questions. I have never posted anything that could be inferred as "raining on the party." I usually throw rather good parties. But seriously, could you please answer the question instead of throwing stones? And, if you don't feel my question is either serious or relevant, then could you please provide both a theological and pastoral response?
Blessings,
Clark
I was going by the fact of the Apostolic Constitution not having asked for individual conversions prior to setting up Ordinariates in two or three years time. That might happen. Then I suppose it won't matter to any of us….
Clark,
I hear your concern about learning to "think Catholic". This is something that our bishops have talked about – that our dialogue (which has been going on for a number of years now, with this end in mind) involves us learning to ensure that we do indeed think with the Catholic Church, and that we learn to live out our Anglican identity in a way that places the Catholic Church first and foremost – rather than making the unity of the Church subject to our Anglicanism!
As far as who the Ordinary should be, well, that depends on whether an ordinariate is some sort of new creation, or if it is really and truly a way for a group of Anglicans (an existing ecclesial body) to be reconciled with the Holy See. It isn't the Vatican cooking up some scheme to steal Anglicans away, and to create something that looks Anglican. It's to allow existing parishes and dioceses to be reconciled with Rome – and of course, to allow the formation of new ones – but this isn't about creating some new competing jurisdiction from scratch.
Really, though, all that's necessary is to consider the following rhetorical question:
Can you imagine what would happen if Rome told Eastern Orthodox Christians that in order to be reconciled with Rome, their bishops would not be eligible for any leadership position until they had been in full communion for several years?
Michael-
The difference is that Rome considers the Orthodox to be a church with valid bishops, not "separated brethren" or an ecclesial body with a special relationship (the Anglican Church). So actually, if reunion did happen with the Orthodox their bishops would automatically be bishops in the Catholic Church and Catholic bishops would be bishops in the Orthodox Church. The same is not true with Anglicans.
Blessings,
Clark
Thanks, Fr. Chadwick for posting and doing your part to "keep hope alive." (I hope no one minds a Jesse Jackson quote.)
In defense of Clark, I too have thought about someone like the former bishop Steenson becoming a fitting ordinary. Maybe, we are thinking along parallel lines because we are from the "TEC direct" convert part of this future ordinariate. I remind myself, however, that TAC has done the heavy lifting and that I need to learn as much about Anglo-Catholicism as I do about pre-Vatican II Catholicism and the contemporary Catholic Church.
We need each other. You and other traditionalists are bringing forward treasures that need to be shared with others. Some of us formed more in the contemporary TEC and Catholic Church have gifts as well, including connections with many who have no sense at all of Continuing Anglicanism. I sense that we have different emphases when we say Anglican Catholic.
I wish things were completely settled in the TAC so we could all begin to coalesce around that structure– get to know each other, begin to pray and study together, begin to serve together. I hope that day is soon.
Steps 3 to 7 interest me greatly and I am sure they interest many in TEC and ACNA, too. (I pray that my own bishop will hear the call) Then, things will really get rocking! What will the ordinary do with all the priests?
Still, I see that at this point everything concerns "groups of Anglicans" not individual Anglicans, laity or clergy, and that the already converted and the yet to be converted TEC, ACiC, CoE, ACNA folks aren't provided for, yet.
Anyway, if any of you readers are here in Southern California send me a message. I hope we can meet up at the Religious Education Congress in Anaheim. Let me introduce you to some of these folks that we hope to be part of– I'll introduce you to folks that think we traditionalist Anglicans coming their way have horns and pointy tails. Maybe, we can sing "Holly, Holly, looou-ya, holly, holly, loooou-ya" together, hear the Cardinal preach at his last congress and then drink a beer. All of us together, soon to be part of one Church.
Peace to all of you from the City of Our Lady Queen of the Angels.
Fr. Bill
Fr. Bill-
You are right that all of us must learn from each other. I have previously noted that there is a distinct difference between a TEC and TAC Anglican patrimony. It will be very interesting to witness the Holy Spirit work things out as Fr. Keith intoned.
Blessings,
Clark
Clark, the way I understand things is that Rome is looking for a corporate reunion and this would involve keeping the hierarchies of the Anglican bodies intact as far as is canonically feasible. They aren't stupid in Rome, and know full well that if "outsiders" are parachuted in as ordinaries this would create enormous unease amongst the Anglo-Catholic faithful and many would be deterred from coming. The aim of this exercise is to make it as easy as possible for as many as possible to come home – it is not a trap where all the rules change and promises broken once they've got their feet inside the door. I'm sure the Holy Father is not blind to the possibilities that will open up to other Reformation communities if the Ordinariates work well and are seen to work well. There is much at stake here with implications that reach far beyond the current participants and all those who just happen to be alive now.
Also they are not being asked or expected to cease doing what they are doing, change everything and adopt a completely new phronema in order to fit in with the way Catholics think. There will be some changes, of course, to ensure validity and orthodoxy of rites etc., but the deal is that they are meant to preserve, and I would venture nourish and cultivate, the patrimony and spirituality that they are bringing with them which is compatible with the Catholic Faith (i.e. most of it.). They are not being asked to ditch all that so that they can fit in with the local Catholic dioceses. To draw on Cardinal Levada's analogy of the symphony orchestra, the Church is gaining more depth in the strings section, so the last thing she is going to ask of them is that they all start playing woodwind.
Although the Ordinariates will not form a sui iuris Church like the Eastern rites do, for all practical purposes they will probably operate like one on a day-to-day basis. I'm sure that Rome will be looking for the new arrivals to sort out their own leadership, and will only get involved to help with sorting out problems when it has to. The Catholic Church has always grown by creating and mess and then tidying it up later, rather than by trying to stop a mess happening in the first place. This is all going to be very messy for a while, but, please God, it will be positive mess.
Clark,
The issue here, of course, with the TAC is that our orders are somewhat different from the Anglican Communion; I believe they derive primarily from the PNCC, and other bodies that are seen by Rome as having valid apostolic orders. Most Roman Catholics I've talked to about this do feel that our sacraments are probably valid; at the very least they regard that it has always been our intention for them to be so.
There will be debate over this for years, as there has been for years over the orders of the Anglican Communion. But suffice to say, I don't think we're coming into full communion with Rome because we see a defect in our sacramental life. Rather, we see in our sacramental life an unavoidable vocation towards "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church". Our celebration of the Eucharist is what constitutes an ecclesial life that is local, but also inseperable from the life of the Catholic Church as a whole. Therefore, I believe that it is precisely our sacramental life that has led us to this point – and the ministry of our bishops has been a primary element of this, as they have fulfilled their vocation to seek to preserve the unity of the Catholic Church. In doing so, many of our bishops have been willing to lay down the exercise of their episcopal ministry, in order to fulfil their responsibility as shepherds – to ensure that their people are indeed part of the one flock. In my mind, it is this sacrifice on the part of our bishops that most clearly confirms that God has used their episcopal ministry as a means of grace.
I am almost ROFL about "thinking Catholic," whatever that means. After covering the Catholic Church as a journalist for the past 6 years, I am amazed at the diversity that passes for "thinking Catholic."
Actually there is room for Catholics to disagree on the death penalty or on just war doctrine. And Catholics can be left or right on economic issues, too. They are not supposed to disagree on abortion, but my oh my they find ways to do that and quite publicly and scandalously.
We at our little TAC were rooting for Cardinal Ratzinger in the conclave before he got elected pope, but I heard a Canadian archbishop had to convene a meeting with deacons and priests to settle them down because they were so upset that Ratzinger had been elected. How's that for thinking Catholic? But they are Catholic, even if they don't like this particular pope. We are entering into a huge family that does a lot of brawling. Just in the newspapers that I write for there's a huge spectrum of opinion, but they are all Catholic. Shoot, I was at a Catholic University where Hans Kung came to speak and he got a standing ovation from the faculty! How's that for thinking Catholic?
From my standpoint as a journalist, I'd say that our bishops and our clergy stack up pretty well from a Catholic standpoint.
They love the Holy Father. They love the Church. They have praying for this for a long time.
Deborah
Father Phillips:
Is there an organization to which donations, large or small, can be made to assist in setting up the ordinariate in the United States, or to assist in founding ordinariate parishes? I live in the Washington, DC area, and I hope that there will be enough interest to start a parish here.
I quite appreciated Fr. Chadwick's response to Clark, in fact I cried out "bull's eye" upon reading it.
Unfortunately there are going to be little Clarks everywhere who believe they can help us to "think Catholic" because they've "been there and done that." Problem with such silliness is that this is not what the Pope has asked for nor is it what he expects from us Anglo-Catholics. We are of sterner stuff than this and don't need hand-wringing pharisees to guide us.
And what is it to "think Catholic?" Balloon Masses? Arm's of praise during the Our Father? Singing On Eagles' Wings? Eating the Lord's Body as though it were chips and dip? Bull-dyke nuns administering the Chalice? Girl altarboys? Or just getting it right about the death penalty?
With all due respect, please, get a clue Clark.
Fr. LR-
I can understand that you might not appreciate my line of questioning, but since when is asking a tough question unreasonable? Is this how you would respond to a parishioner who asks a question you obviously don't agree with? The last time I was addressed like that by a priest I was on my way out the door of the Episcopal Church. If we cannot have reasoned discussion together what is the point?
Blessings,
Clark
I find it hard to believe you are so naive. Whatever your experience as an Anglican was you seem to think that it is the universal experience of others and therefore deserves grave consideration. Hogwash. I don't think you understand the character of Anglo-Catholics to whom the AC is addressed. By and large we are more "Catholic" than 95% of Catholics. And can't you take an upbraiding for your silliness? You wouldn't even be worth addressing on the topic you raise except that you represent a goodly number of folks holding the same prejudice; all of whom need to be told to "put a sock in it." Anyway, I somehow suspect that your experience with the Episcopal priest, though unpleasant, was based on a completely separate set of circumstances. I believe that you are misrepresenting yourself.
Thank you to everyone for the many reasoned, theological and pastoral responses.
In keeping with the line of thought from Fr. Anthony’s original post and my subsequent query, Deacon Augustine’s response appears to have captured the essence of the question as it relates to both the appointment of the initial Ordinaries and the functioning of the Ordinariate. As my attorney likes to say, “that is the point of the exercise.”
As I already stated, there was no agenda or intention of controversy. I think it is important to ask reasoned, if not difficult, and perhaps uncomfortable questions as we move forward. Many of us have not been either privy or a part of the various discussions regarding the implementation of AC. Those from a TAC background are fortunate to be able to approach the process as a body. Those of us from TECUSA are generally looking at this as individuals. There is a difference in both perspective and background. It appears that there is acknowledgement of these differences. This is an important point pastorally as we move forward.
Blessings,
Clark
PS-James we might have to take the train back and forth between DC and Hampton Roads for fellowship if we are the Lone Rangers in our respective areas. I too will gladly contribute to the Ordinariate.
James, as far as I know, there is no such organization at this time.
I know I sound like a broken record, but when an Ordinary is appointed, all this can and will be set in motion.
Certainly, our parish will be giving substantial financial support to the Ordinariate when it's established, and I hope much of that will be used for the establishing missions and parishes in as many places as possible.
All is well. The comments today are from those who truly love the church. Just like a family that truly loves each other. Families can be messy. Remember Saints Augustine and Jerome they fought because they love God.
I'm learning a lot from this thread, including a better understanding of how TAC views itself. As always, your bishops have my respect and all the faithful have my admiration for sticking it out these three decades.
But, you know what? Referring to any Sister as a bull dyke is wrong. (Saying it in front of me is fighting words; same if you insult our Mother) Denigrating women and girls assisting at the altar or administering the Chalice as a Eucharistic Minister is wrong. Disagree if you will, but don't belittle your sisters in Christ. And what is with directing nastiness at Clark? Every time he says something contrary we have Girardian stoning of the scapegoat.
Fr. Crosbie pointed out that others read this blog, too. He mentioned enemies: if you want to turn your would be friends and fellow Catholics into enemies keep up the gratuitous insults. It would be very easy for your words to make it into wide circulation and nobody would benefit from that.
Peace
Fr. Bill
"Saying it in front of me is fighting words; same if you insult our Mother," "denigrating women and girls" you obviously have trouble ascertaining the truth. I would guess that you're ECUSA, right? Please, get a grip on yourself Fr. Bill.
Is this helpful?
I find the rather snide and sneering references to cradle Catholics who are supposed to be as dumb as rocks, and to clown masses and the like, as rather uncharitable and offputting. There are more and less orthodox and knowledgeable Catholics, as there are more and less orthodox and knowledgeable Anglicans. All the laity in TAC may be well catechized and all the clergy may be paragons of orthodoxy, but the Holy See may not know that for sure and needs to make sure those chosen for the position of Ordinary and the priesthood are solid as far as doctrine is concerned. There will have to be some sort of vetting and background checking. In areas where TAC parishes will make up the bulk of those entering the Ordinariate initially, it would make some sense that probably the Ordinary might come from TAC, but I understand that the Ordinariate is open to all former Anglicans, not just TAC, and even those who want to or who have converted individually, so I don't know why individual priests in the latter category cannot be considered. Of course a lot will depend on how the initial ordinary is chosen, i.e., whether temporary governing councils will be set up or whether the Holy See will just appoint the initial ordinaries. Once the governing council and its statutes are set up, then things will just take their course naturally in accordance with AC.
An obvious point, I hope: make contact with the local Roman clergy (if you haven't already) – with whom very soon you are to be in full communion – and establish friendly relations (perhaps over looking some of their funny ways), which will certainly help to dispel their ignorance and prejudices!
Furthermore, in many instances, it will be a really good idea to begin negotiations about finding a time to make use of some local church for Mass, etc.
(In the case of the local TAC congregation, they perforce have their Sunday liturgy in a local Scout Hall, or otherwise at their pastor's home on weekdays – so it will be greatly helpful to them to politely sound out the local Roman priests about these matters.)
Some important cultural points: (1) most Catholic priests are not worried about incoming married priests, but will not be used to the idea, and may be diffident at first, not knowing what to expect; (2) nearly all Catholic priests celebrate public Mass daily (except on Monday, the priest's day off!), and several times on Sundays in order to supply all the Masses in the local area, so they will be curious to know if the incoming clergy will be daily celebrants – and if, just perhaps, they might get some help supplying a parish Mass…
To establish friendly relations on the level of the clergy, and of course on the level of the laity, would be excellent.
Be prepared for honest misunderstandings and fears to come to the surface, and overcome these in love.
Thank you Joshua.
The bit about the TAC worshipping in halls etc is a bit naughty.
I am not TAC but the Traditionalist Anglicans in Edinburgh already worship in a local Catholic Church . We have our own FiF churches in other towns and a rather large parish church in Dumfries.
Friendly relations is Scotland are already established- despite the best efforts of the bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church.
Very glad to hear this! I was delighted to hear of Cardinal O'Brien's generous offer of that Edinburgh church, well in advance of whatever will transpire with a Scottish or UK Ordinariate. Perhaps next time I'm in Scotland (from whence my forebears came) I'll be able to join you for worship…
Sorry to be "naughty", but certainly in some farflung parts of the world the TAC is reduced to such expedients, as the price of their principled separation from the corrupt Anglican "mainstream". One great benefit of coming into full communion will be the very real interchange of aid and assistance – an incoming priest can help assuage the burden of local Roman clergy, just as the latter can provide material assistance (including an altar if need be) for the former.
The Scottish and English hierarchies have always been separate so it would make no sense to have a "UK" Ordinariate. Much more likely, given the numbers involved north of the border, is Scottish mission parishes affliated with the English Ordinariate(s). Then again maybe there will be a separate Scottish Ordinariate.
Apologies in advance for stating the obvious, and lecturing my betters!
It is very troubling to see in fighting within this website. I am sure that others will use it to show disunity within our movement to Rome.
I was in TEC and converted when the first priests helped to establish the Pastoral Provision. I belonged to an Anglo Catholic parish and the transition to a Latin Rite parish was difficult in some ways, but I knew that I could say with all sincerity I was Home. My parish is very traditional and I am happy there, but look forward to the opportunity of worshiping in a Catholic church with all the Anglican traditions again.
I left TEC before all the innovations were there and to be honest haven't seen any balloon Masses etc. in the Catholic Church.
We all have our own ideas of how we would like the liturgy for the Ordinariate to be. I know that I would not like it to be from the BCP only. We used the Missal when I was an Anglo Catholic. We must be patient and see what Rome gives us. I am sure that however the liturgy evolves we can all adjust. The important thing is we will be worshiping Christ in the Eucharist with many of our prayers and hymns. It is human nature that not everyone will be satisfied no matter the form.
I feel very positive that Pope Benedict will make sure that whoever the Ordinariates chosen will be from either clergy who are already within the Anglican Use or those within TAC etc. who understand the needs of Anglicans coming into the Church.
I have always thought as a Catholic and found within the Catholic Church a feeling of great communion with all Catholics that is difficult to put into words.
Let us not give fodder for our enemies and from what I have read there are many. We must love one another with the love of Christ.
Balloon Mass. Rock-n-roll Mass. Crockery Mass. "Youth Mass." Call it what you will. They do exist and they concern prominent individuals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67Lom28KSlg
Following the Protestant Reformation, the Catholic Church, through the Council of Trent, took perhaps a step too far in trying to ensure that all Catholics worshipped, thought, and practiced the faith in the same way, and stamped out genuine, authentic, and wholesome traditions in the name of uniformity. I think part of the reason Benedict was such an early supporter of the idea of a 2nd Vatican Council was he saw it as an opportunity to revive more of the Church’s history and mission, parts that had been suppressed. I think part of the reason he has generally been seen as a critic of the Council since its reforms is that it was simply used to enforce a different style of uniformity.
Perhaps what is meant by Anglican patrimony is really pre-reformation patrimony.
Not to raise a naughty question again but, actually, given Archbishop Hepworth's predictions that no ordinariates will likely be erected until Advent or later (he said Christmas, I believe), there is some time to get the liturgy right . . . .
As a Latin Catholic, I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of the incomers just continuing with unapproved texts. Perhaps the months ahead will afford an opportunity at least to settle interim liturgies for use. Just a suggestion . . . .
P.K.T.P.
You dont really get it do you. The whole point of the Anglican Ordinariate is that it will be Anglican in its identity. One part of that must be the language and the liturgy. Glad to say that the decision on liturgy will be made by people far higher up the chain than us. I use the English Missal but others use the BCP. I would be surprised if the 1662 made it for approval but there are no real problems with the 1928.
"Archbishop Hepworth’s predictions that no ordinariates will likely be erected until Advent or later (he said Christmas, I believe)"
Could you please give us a source for this? No mention is made of the year – 2009, 2010, 2035 or 2459.
Even if Christmas 2010 is the ballpark, this is the first I have heard of this.
This whole thread has revealed to me a certain number of things:
The necessity of the Ordinariates being in clerical hands. It might be better for the Ordinariates to be formed the Roman way, in secret and without any consultation with the laity, but this is a trait of the post-Tridentine Church that is having to be broken by the paedophile scandal. The problem here is not the pervert priests themselves, but the elite and secretive clerical culture that give so much leverage to the Church’s enemies motivated by atheism and ideologies. I would prefer the laity to be consulted, and I think our own TAC lay people are sensible enough. But if we get the armchair canonists – Oscar Wilde said something like the worst thing in the world being an ignorant man, not knowing he is ignorant and trying to teach everyone else his ignorance! It would be intolerable.
Several tendencies within the ‘regulars’ of this blog. It is obvious that The Anglo Catholic was set up by clergy and faithful of the TAC, and we have gone out of our way to have contributions from clergy and laity presently in the Anglican Communion (Canterbury / Lambeth) and from the existing Anglican Use parishes so beautifully exemplified by Fr Phillips. There, we are very unified in our resolve to work together and build something beautiful and new.
However, there is a background of sneering Anglican Communion clergy and people, of converts who “converted properly” having voluntarily trashed their entire Anglican background or felt duty-bound to do so, for whom the Ordinariates would be an affront and a reproach. There are also people from the other Continuing Churches, the most rude and offensive have been carefully kept away. Bishop Peter Robinson has commented occasionally. He doesn't agree with the Ordinariates or our going over to Rome, but he is a good Christian gentleman and he is able to reason things out. There have been attempts by hostile people – secular humanists, Catholic and Anglican liberals to get their oar in. Allowing them to express their hostile opinions would do incalculable harm here.
Fundamentally, we have one tendency that wants the Ordinariates to work in spite of our human imperfections and, in some cases, lack of experience of Catholicism as lived in the Church today. This tendency is working hard to keep together in view of the common goal. The other tendency is here to combat the Ordinariates, to make us all wait and submit to abstract requirements (that have not come from the Church authorities), and perhaps to make the Ordinariate scheme fail through attrition. I suspect they are mostly individuals who converted to Catholicism some time ago and have trashed their Anglicanism, and are now either traditionalists or model American ‘neo-conservatives’. Some are liberals and some are continuing ‘classical’ Anglicans afraid that their work will crumble to nothing. I think the worst by far are the neo-conservative apologists.
Visions of the Church, what she is and what “she should be” are contrasting. I have written numerous times about the spirit of pre-Tridentine Catholicism, which of course no longer exists because it largely depended on the collaboration of the local Kingdom, aristocracy and feudal lords. The equivalent today would be a union between the Church, the political ruling class, bankers and big business. I don’t think the latter would be very attractive. There is more of a feeling for diverse Catholicism here in Europe than in the Anglo-Saxon world. I have noted how critical the then Fr Ratzinger was during Vatican II regarding the old Holy Office and Cardinal Ottaviani. That consideration affects the present.
The totalitarian vision of the Church is one expressed by some of the 'apologist' people who comment here, down to details like the use of the death penalty in the USA and who to vote for in the Presidential election. Politics apart, the most intolerant kind of Catholicism I have known other than ‘affirming’ liberalism is neo-conservatism. It isn’t just American, but the ‘apologetics’ culture of Catholicism in London. It has a very nasty taste, and it doesn’t characterise the Church of today. It is also the ‘Hispanic fascist’ culture of Opus Dei and the Legionaries of Christ. If you not suffering atrociously, you’re not holy. It's almost an 'Orwellian' vision of a kind of Catholicism that crushes the person in a kind of ecclesial monophysicism (divinity absorbing and 'eating' humanity).
I see Catholicism as an accumulation of all human cultures that have contributed to spreading the Gospel message, through Hellenism, the Classical world, the Middle-Ages, the Renaissance and humanism, the nineteenth-century mania for grandness and technical prestige, and finally the nihilism of our own time. We certainly need diversity since the collapse of the twentieth century ideologies.
If the vision of the neo-conservative apologists must prevail, which I believe it won’t, then I would have to join the ranks of those who politely answer – Thanks but no thanks. But for me, it is Yes and thank you, because the Church is not that of the 'apologists'.
"I'm for Chadwick" "I'm for Clark" "I'm for Benedict!"
Anyone for Christ?
Is this topic healthy ? Or dangerous?
I begin to wonder myself, and woke up this morning considering the idea of scrapping the post and the entire thread.
I agree that I would hate to have 'fans'. People can do that on Facebook, a fatuous waste of time. Also, I write things here not for people to be Chadwick fans, but because I think I can do some good somewhere despite shouting into the wind. Nothing new under the sun…
But, we are adults. I assume we are all for Christ, but there are hard realities for us all to think about.
If it were possible to have Christ and not bother about the Church, and if thereby Christ would not become a vain myth, I would be the first to opt for that happy solution. But the Church is the Sacrament of Christ, and only through the Church does Christ mean anything. He meant it that way.
I wondered if The Anglo Catholic was healthy or dangerous, but I am told it has done a tremendous amount of good. So we carry on.
As Msgr. Burke of the CDF said to me a few days after Anglicanorum coetibus was made public, "At the beginning, things will be messy."
A truer statement was never made.
I am grateful to Fr Chadwick, as always, for stating his arguments so clearly, but without the doubts expressed by Clark this discussion would not have been half so illuminating. The subsequent remarks about "thinking Catholic" touched on a vital aspect of the whole subject, and I am sure Seth has got it right. I am not adding anything, just saying that a bit of disagreement should not be avoided for the sake of raising the "tone". It is very important and helpful to know what does worry people.
(OT Fr C., but I am moving to Pickering next month, and was interested to learn of your family connection.)
Thank you for the kind words. I have had some correspondence with Clark, and he is a very pleasant and genuine fellow. We seem to understand each other well, and I publicly apologise for any hurt I have caused him through my brutal and dry responses.
As I said to him – "Like Don Camillo, I tend to get a little edgy when Peppone decides to build the Casa del Populo just in front of the church".
I would like to echo Fr. Anthony in his response and offer my thanks to all who participated in this thread. I do think it is important to realize we are all playing for the same team, even when we vigorously disagree (which is OK, but let's have a heavy dose of charity). In spite of the disagreements, I can assure everyone that I have very thick skin; but I can't figure out how to insert that darn smiley face:)
Fr. Anthony and I have corresponded on other matters previously and are growing in our friendship. We genuinely like each other in spite of the spilled ink. (Proverbs 27:1, "Iron sharpens iron, and one man sharpens another"). We're just trying to figure out when and where we can share a meal and toast the Ordinariate.
Blessings,
Clark
Don't scrap this thread! It is so entertaining. And please, folks, lighten up and learn to roll with the punches. What a dull, dull place this would be if everyone were nice all the time. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
And now it is time for me to "spank" Fr. Anthony for this:
"Politics apart, the most intolerant kind of Catholicism I have known other than ‘affirming’ liberalism is neo-conservatism. It isn’t just American, but the ‘apologetics’ culture of Catholicism in London. It has a very nasty taste, and it doesn’t characterise the Church of today. It is also the ‘Hispanic fascist’ culture of Opus Dei and the Legionaries of Christ. If you not suffering atrociously, you’re not holy. It’s almost an ‘Orwellian’ vision of a kind of Catholicism that crushes the person in a kind of ecclesial monophysicism (divinity absorbing and ‘eating’ humanity)."
Hey!!!!!! I am an American by birth and a pre-Obama American–who loves American's founding documents. And I could perhaps be described as a neo-conservative in that I am a former radical progressive who got mugged by reality. I am also pro-Israel, another tenet of neo-conservativism. I am highly distrustful of big welfare state solutions and find there is more fascism on the left than on the right. We on the "neo-conservative right" want limited government and strong civil society with lots of intervening institutions, strong families, and strong churches and civic organizations, and a virtuous populous who does not need a savior state. Uh, last time I looked, that is the opposite of fascism which sees—whether on the left or the right, government and "the people" all merged into one pernicious bundle.
And Opus Dei? I love Opus Dei and many of my friends are in Opus Dei and they are not Spanish fascists at all. The folks I know are wonderful Catholics and very, very kindly disposed towards us, I might add. They do wonderful work in forming the Catholic faith of their members and friends and sending them out to live godly lives in the midst of the world.
I even have a good friend in Rome who is, I believe, a Legionaire of Christ and he's terrific and very, very supportive of the TAC, I might add. (Not crazy about their founder, though)
So even if I am a Fr. Anthony Chadwick fan on this blog I vehemently disagree with him on the above. But hey, he lives in France, where anti-American stereotypes must float like the fog in Normandy. So we have to assume the continental vapors have temporarily caused him to take leave of his senses.
(I hope you can see without an emoticon that I am affectionately teasing you, Fr. Anthony and everyone else who gets upset easily. My goodness, get prayed up folks!)
And Facebook! How could you criticize Facebook?
Next, he'll be going on about Twitter, too. But hey, Father Z is following me on Twitter. How cool is that?
Deborah
As you say, Deborah, roll with the punches and be prepared to learn from people who know better.
I have become very cynical about politics of any kind. If you got to the inside of me, you would find fairly "anarchist" convictions. However, on account of sin, anarchism can never work as a real political manifesto, so governments, laws, policemen and all that are necessary. Both left and right are putting the State above the person, so that is the essential definition of fascism. Welfare states cost an incredible amount of money, much of which is wasted. Here in France, we have to support the cost of people who go to the doctor for the slightest thing. I have to be nearly dead before seeing a doctor!
I'm ready to take back my words on Opus Dei and the Legionaries if you find them kind, tolerant, well disposed to "others" and genuinely pious. I tend to be influenced against America in this country – but at the same time, Europe is becoming a monster. My native England keeps Europe at arm's length, and even Blair's New Labour clubbed with Bush rather than go along with the Franco-German club.
We live in such a bloody world. I find it difficult to know who to believe and who's on the side of the Angels.
Facebook? I already have about 200 'friends', and I would have double that number if I accepted them all. All those invitations to be someone's fan bore me to tears. As for "being poked on Facebook" – ugh! The only thing I use Facebook for is looking for people I have lost contact with. They can usually be found through searching Facebook's database.
Twitter? The birds do that outside my window – it's nearly spring.
and to borrow Fr Z's – o{]:¬)
Fr. Anthony
Living in France must make it very difficult to think straight about America. I am sure the French are just as hospitable to the Americans they actually meet as they are to the English, but impersonal anti-Americanism or Anglo-Saxonism permeates the atmosphere. It is probably just envy.
"It's not that they're wicked, or naturally bad;
It's knowing they're foreign that makes them so mad."
(Listen here – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh-wEXvdW8)
Apparently this link doesn't work. Here is another try:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=the+english+are+best&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a
(It was my mother's favourite song)