Listening to some of the talks at the recent conference at Pusey House, Oxford, I was left quite saddened by some of the reflections of Fr Philip North, a priest on the Team Ministry of Old St Pancras and northern London. The big question is knowing whether the present ministry of Anglican parochial clergy is "transferable" to a Roman Catholic context in an Ordinariate. The question can be asked about whether an Ordinariate in England would be viable, or whether there should simply be a choice between staying in the Church of England (with less and less integrity as the Anglo-Catholic position becomes decreasingly tenable) or individual conversion as if there had never been Anglicanorum Coetibus.
The things that I heard Fr North say made it plain to me that his idea of ministry would be a form of post-Vatican II mainstream Catholic ministry using the institutions of the Established Church for the sake of having credibility and access to parishes, schools and other such things seen as tools of evangelism. It would very much seem to me that his parish ministry has no distinctive notes in terms of liturgical use whatsoever. He would certainly be using the modern Roman rite exactly as in the Westminster Archdiocese parish next door. Without the Establishment, or the Catholic dioceses in England which has become a “second establishment”, no ministry is possible. Now, don't get me wrong. I'm not insinuating any bad faith on the part of this certainly excellent parish priest! But, his way of thinking and mine are not the same.
The big question about an Ordinariate in England, for Fr North, would be that of having an undefined and marginal ministry, being seen by people as “something apart” and thus less effective in the task of evangelism. I wonder how far this attitude is widespread among other Anglican clergy who are aware that there is a point beyond which they cannot remain in the Anglican Establishment. Perhaps, some of our English readers could comment.
An important point of Benedict XVI’s Papacy has been missed, that of reaffirming Catholic identity. It is precisely this point with English Anglo-Papalists. To some extent, any particular identity has been voluntarily relinquished to become absorbed in mainstream English Catholic culture or the lack thereof. To the extent that this notion reflects reality, the only reason such Anglo Catholics would think either of joining an Ordinariate or converting individually in the old way would be because women “bishops” would be the cut-off point, and they would be compelled to make a choice between their conscience or their career. There is also the question of being employed by the Anglican establishment. These clergy would no longer have a house, a salary or a pension – and this would create a situation of crisis in their families. These are not good times to have a sensitive conscience, rather than see the priestly ministry simply as a career and that God, theology and spirituality are irrelevant compared with defending one’s lifestyle. Most of them are trapped and must assume their "job" until they can retire on a full pension and begin to enjoy the luxury of having a conscience.
It might seem sanctimonious of me to say these things, already said elsewhere, since I am a TAC priest living in my own house, self-employed and without anything resembling a parish ministry. I could join an Ordinariate with nothing to lose and everything to gain. I do understand the problems for the Church of England clergy, but they should have seen it coming and would have done better not to commit themselves to ministry in that ecclesial context. I would be tempted to say that they made their bed and should sleep in it.
Why did Anglicanorum Coetibus ever see the light of day? In Fr North’s view, it should never have happened. It is also the view of many Catholic clergy in England, whether motivated by liberalism, commitment to ecumenism as under the the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity or simply satisfaction with the status quo. Why was it necessary? I believe the key to understanding this question lies in Summorum Pontificum and the decision by the Holy Father to initiate a dialogue with the Society of St Pius X in view to a normalisation of those bishops and priests, who are still canonically irregular to this day. The problem is diocesan bishops. Very few diocesan bishops show any sympathy or understanding with those who want a distinctive liturgical use or corporate identity. The Pope, by virtue of his primacy of jurisdiction, can short-circuit diocesan bishops and create exempt jurisdictions to allow what the local Bishop would forbid for reasons of ideology, hostility, narrow-mindedness or prejudice. It is nothing new. There have been exempt religious orders for centuries (the Orthodox Church calls them stavropigial monasteries), and prelatures like Opus Dei that have their own non-territorial bishops.
The whole question here is not parish ministry but a pastoral outreach to groups of Anglicans who have called for help from the Papacy because they have been ignored or snubbed by the local bishops. There may be good and bad reasons, but all too often, it is because the local Bishop thinks any variation from “standard conformity” is wrong and should be snuffed out. These aspirations to diversity and identity are human and a part of us all. We belong to a country and a culture, not to an anthill of identical clones all exactly the same as each other. This diversity is what makes life worth living. I noticed that Fr North conceded a sop to the Continuing Churches and the TAC, recognising that the Ordinariate was the right solution for us. Nobody ever said that the Ordinariates would replace “classical” ecumenism and individual conversions to those attracted to the parochial ministry of the English and Welsh dioceses. For those who wish to fit in or permanently relinquish the priestly vocation, fair enough. It is a free world. The Ordinariates were designed to add to the Church's toolbox for gathering in the strays and lost souls, and those who had been rejected by those whose duty should be to include them. If Anglicanorum Coetibus occupies a parallel position with Summorum Pontificum, it is to some extent a liturgical identity that is in question. It is tempting to say that Catholic traditionalists have greater liturgical coherence than Romeward-bound Anglican groups. Most traditionalists conform to the 1962 Roman liturgical books, but some also want the old local rites and special rites of religious Orders like the Dominicans and Carmelites. There is an aspiration to diversity there too.
Had this liturgical identity not been in consideration, there would not have been “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”. Now, the English Anglo-Catholics, other than the “eccentric” Fr Hunwicke, mostly would simply conform to what the local Catholic parish is doing. Those of us, for whom the Ordinariate is really intended, want the older forms: either parts of the Prayer Book tradition incorporated into a revised Anglican Use liturgy yet to be approved by Rome – or the possibility to recover the pre-Reformation tradition through the traditional liturgies of the Latin rite like the Use of Sarum or the extraordinary form of the Roman rite in the beautiful English translations we have, as an alternative to Latin.
We don’t have the large stable parishes of the Church of England. We also don’t have the enormous financial overheads they have to assume or church buildings built for congregations of hundreds. Our chapels and freelancing make it possible to adapt and create something new, perhaps more adaptable to modern pastoral requirements than the old Victorian and medieval parish structure. I would hope the radically new vision of the Ordinariates could find a way to finance and reuse some of the old parish churches rather than become resigned to their being demolished or put to secular use – or turned over to other religions like Islam.
Some people have only lived in conformity and in the long grey line, and will never understand the new needs and new conditions to which the Petrine ministry is adapting. This is also the case for many Vatican men, career men and little more than civil servants with a religious gloss. Some of us have suffered marginalisation, being snubbed and rejected, and some like Saint Paul have been beaten and shipwrecked! We all have different experiences, and one size does not fit all. I constantly return to the theme Nicholas Berdyaev found in the French author Léon Bloy – Souffrir passe, avoir souffert ne passe jamais. The kind of vision needed to get Christianity out of the mess it is in is the kind of suffering we on the front lines have gone through. Those who have just been through the system, followed and conformed like trainee Army officers at Sandhurst, will never get it. This isn't something you learn in seminary!
Perhaps there will be Ordinariates everywhere in the world where they will have been received with joy and gratitude – everywhere except England, where the Holy Father’s gesture would have been met with cynicism and bitter gripes. Maybe Mary’s Dowry is destined to go its way towards dystopia and endless winter. England seems determined to die and lose everything we ever had. I was born in that country, yet felt compelled to come and live in France decades ago. France is also a godless and faithless land, but there seems more hope and more space to escape from the demons that invade our lives. People over here, at least, are not fixed in that numbing conformity that has killed our soul.
I wait and pray, with faith and hope. Maybe England is little more than a distant dream, but it is a dream. That’s something…
Related posts:
"Why did Anglicanorum Coetibus ever see the light of day?"
Praised be to God that it did no matter what the naysayers say. Anglicanorum Coetibus belongs to centuries and not just months and years.
"Some of us have suffered marginalisation, being snubbed and rejected, and some like Saint Paul have been beaten and shipwrecked! We all have different experiences, and one size does not fit all."
Many graces have and will come about from your being shipwrecked. In the year of St. Paul my daughter and I went to St. Paul of the Shipwreck in San Fransisco in a poor section of town. It was so full of life and vibrancy. I had loved the name of the church but I had been meditating on Paul's shipwreck after seeing the faith of the people of Malta 2000 years later. It is gift of St. Paul's ministry.
All good points, to be sure. But as the life of the Ordinariates develops I have no doubt that views will change.
With apologies to William Blake
"I will not cease from mental fight
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
'Til we have built Catholic England
In Foreign green and pleasant lands"
My understanding is that the main question discussed at the meeting at Pusey House was: What is the patrimony that Anglicans can bring with them into a an ordinariate? The answer seemed to be "very little", because most are already using the Roman Missal in one of its forms and it is unlikely that they can bring very much in the way of buildings. In these circumstances, some would ask: "Why not convert individually in the usual way?"
Indeed, hundreds of clergy have done just this in the last 20 years. However, we should not forget that there is a small group belonging to the TAC who have already applied to have an ordinariate and, no doubt, many more who still belong to the Church of England will want to join an ordinariate.
You are absolutely right. The Apostolic Constitution is for the TAC, those who want to go over from the CofE and keep a particular identity, and for former Anglicans who are now Catholics but would like to return to their roots.
The possibility of "converting individually" has not been abolished. It remains an option for those who want it. What gets up my nose is people who say there should be no Ordinariates, and that there should be no alternative to "converting individually".
That in a nutshell is what I really wanted to say.
It will all come out of the woodwork when the Ordinariate is established. Until then, nothing moves except for those who are still drawn to individual conversion – because what they are going to is exactly the same as what they are coming from.
At the recent Pusey House conference (on Anglican Patrimony) Fr Philip North's was rather a lone voice. He was speaking from his experience in a large North London parish where he is able to use all the advantages of being part of the Established Church in his very effective ministry. He also made it clear that he thought any provision for traditionalists would probably be quite inadequate, and that he would become a Roman Catholic. For him, though, individual conversion was the option which seemed best at present.
I am sure he is right, that being "the church" in a parish has given us great advantages in the past. These, though, are rapidly diminishing. It is quite as likely now that the press will seek the views of a Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster as it will those of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Parish boundaries, which used to ensure that we had a ministry to a whole area and not just to Anglicans within it, have been increasingly disregarded; not least by our bishops, who happily support church plants from other, usually Evangelical parishes, with no regard for the parish priest who is being planted – or rather supplanted. Even our Church Schools are under threat, with politicians increasingly ready to speak from a secular standpoint. As for Bishops in the House of Lords, even if their Lordships' House survives I think it will do so without the Noble Prelates.
Fr Philip was unable to see the advantage of the Ordinariate. But then, he has never worked in a 'middle England' parish, where the occasional churchgoers are more attracted by what they remember of the Prayer Book services of their youth than by any modern rite, whether Roman or Anglican.
Most important of all, to me, is the fact that the Holy Father has made this offer to us. If Fr Philip and those like him want simply to join the Catholic Church, they will be made very welcome, I am sure. Equally, though, I believe many in the Catholic Church want a genuine injection of Anglican patrimony; not just the Prayer Book, but our Hymnody, our care over the Liturgy (whatever words are used), and above all our Pastoral Method – which is, I believe, also what Fr Philip values.
I fear many in the States (and not only there) tend to read press accounts of events and accept them as accurate and balanced. So much more was said, even at the Pusey House Conference, than was reported. I found the atmosphere upbeat and encouraging, and I believe many will come to see that the Ordinariate is a great opportunity for Catholic Evangelism – I hope too that Fr Philip might recognise that, once the Ordinariate is under way, and will choose to join us in it. +Edwin
May I second what Bishop Edwin has said. It's quite false to say that the conference gave a single answer to the question, and that that answer was “very little”, though that is how many commentators (who were not there) have summed it up.
One wonders why such a verdict has been given. Axes to grind? A desire to dismiss the ordinariate idea? Incompetence?
If we're not careful this verdict will become the conventional wisdom, not just about this particular event, but about the English situation generally, and prove very difficult to escape from.
I would also strongly agree with the good Bishop's report. I don't know whether the audio files included the questions which followed Fr. North's paper, but after a pretty stunned silence the questions were certainly in disagreement with his position – as was (anecdotally) the after-conference supper at which I was present.
I think that the other point to be made, to which Bishop Barnes alludes in the last sentance, is that the Ordinariate is a significant unknown and it will be what we make of it. It is incumbant upon us to take the Holy Father's great offer and to try and prove him right that there is a significant legitimate patrimony which we can successfully bring to a diverse yet wholly orthodox Catholicism.
I agree emphatically with everything Fr. Chadwick writes (even including his mentioning of Opus Dei, for, in his context, it will do, even though it is not the sort of structure that is useful to ensure the needed diversity). In fact, I could have written the same arguments in my own words. It is why I have worked so assiduously over the years for 'particular church' structures dedicated to those attached to the 1962 Mass in Latin. In 2002, we finally achieved the first of these in the Campos, Brazil. In fact, While the Campos is tiny, covering only one out of 262 diocesan territories in one country, what is important that it was a precedent; it was the first personal particular church. As such, it is the juridical model for the new Anglican ordinariates (even though the Armenian ordinariates are closer de facto). Those who think that the military ordinariates are the closest models are dead wrong, for reasons I have explained before. I'm not saying that, 'without Campos, there could have been no A.C.' But I do think that the Campos precedent of 2002 provided a model and a justification.
As Fr. Chadwick rightly points out, these new structures must be centred on liturgical and ritual identity. This is why I have harped on this subject so much. I apologise for being so insistent so often. Of course, it is true, that it will take time and careful consideration before a coherent liturgical praxis emerges for the new ordinariates. That would be true in any case. It was frustrating to me that the TAC did not do much more since its foundation in 1991 to prepare the way. But I do believe that the Rome of 2010 will be amenable to a fitting and inspiring liturgical norm for the new structures. This is thanks directly to the person of Pope Benedict XVI, who, I think, never wanted to leave his old job at the C.D.F. when he was elected to the new one! Hence he appointed an old pupil and friend at the C.D.F., someone who would be particularly sensitive to his approach. This is why the situation for a new Anglicatholic liturgy is not the same as it was in 1983, one year before even the first incipient indult for the 1962 Roman Mass.
Owing to the measures taken since then (viz. in 1984, 1988, 2002 [Campos] and 2007), it is now possible for Rome to conceive a marriage between the ancient Roman Missal and the Anglican prayerbook tradition. Thanks to "Summorum Pontificum", in particular, the various prayers of the 1962 Missal are now considered standard parts of the current Roman Liturgy. This means that they can be combined with the treasury of Anglican prayers. No longer is it necessary to intrude Bugnini's compositions and borrowings directly into every new liturgical initiative.
I do not entirely understand Fr. North's perspective, since the ordinariates are very flexible and will be able in practice to work in and through Latin Catholic parishes. Part of the difficulty is financial, although A.C. at least does provide very generous provisions to accommodate the new clergy. I think that the problem is mainly psychological. In England, unlike the dominions and the U.S.A., there is this sense that one needs either to be working under the bishops of His Holiness and through his established parishes, or else one needs to be working through those of Her Majesty. The two are parallel sources of stability that are recognised by lay faithful and convey a sense of security. This is very culturally English but not all that Christian: there is no security sub luna. The ordinariates are a bit more daring.
Fr. Chadwick is absolutely right in asserting that the problem for Latin traditionalists has been the failure or unwillingness (as the case may be) for their local bishops to appreciate their very sincere perspective. Some bishops have been generous but there is a tendency simply not to understand the aspirations of traditionalists. The shepherd must know his sheep. The ordinariate structure is a bold and imaginative endeavour on the part of the Holy Father, and I hope that the same sort of solution can be applied widely for those attached to the 1962 Latin Mass.
P.K.T.P
I think the main reason the TAC bishops did so little to establish a uniform liturgy was due to the lack of authority and knowledge. Many of our bishops feebly attempt to establish liturgical norms in their diocese but with little success, mainly because the only manner in which one can learn to say Mass as they say it is to watch and imitate them. None of them, that I know of, actually follows a known ritual text be it Fortescue, O'Connell and Lamburn or be it the rubrics printed in the Missals consistently. They suffer from the same "As You Like It" liturgical abuses as the Roman Church albeit more conservatively – they simply are not physically capable of, or are stubbornly unwilling to, “say the black and do the red” (or whatever that famous blogger says).
I have always strictly followed the order of Mass as laid down in the English Missal (ditto Missale Romanum) and am treated as a red-headed-step-child as a result – I was once even disciplined by a bishop for following the book. On the brighter side of things, I believe the problem will be quickly solved once an Ordinariate is established because the vacuum of authority will have been filled. The approved Anglican liturgy, whatever it may be, will have the authority of the Pope behind it. Yes, our bishops have verily failed to establish liturgical uniformity; it was because they lacked authority to enforce uniformity. And I would guess that most of them say Mass differently today than they did back in 1991; going through many transitional periods in between. The thing that we can thank them for is that they held together the priests and people of the TAC, bringing them to this historic moment. That is how they'll be remembered; that is except for those who like Ephraim being harnessed for battle draw back and suffered the coward's portion.
It really is truly miraculous. The good that will come from the TAC will have eternal value.
"The thing that we can thank them for is that they held together the priests and people of the TAC, bringing them to this historic moment."
We pray for grace to suffer for the sake of Christ. Like Peter we may deny him three times. We pray for strength for the journey.
"That is how they’ll be remembered; that is except for those who like Ephraim being harnessed for battle draw back and suffer the coward’s portion."
Thank you Father LR for these insightful comments.
An universal EF ordinariate is a political hot potato for the trendy bishops of the Church. The present Pope I don't think will go along that route now that the schismatic SSPX hasn't really gotten back on the boat despite concessions by the Holy Father. The solution my dear Peter is to let the younger more traditionalist and what I would call "Benedictine" clergy take over. These priests and future bishops may not all go for a wider celebration of the EF (most likely they will celebrate the OF in the Extraordinary way), but they probably will allow the celebration of the EF in their dioceses once they are raised to the episcopacy. It is just a matter of time. By then the schimastic suspicion against the EF traditionalists will be largely gone!
The SSPX started out with some very legitimate reasons, notably the liturgy at a time when Paul VI was zealously following orders from men like Cardinal Villot to abolish the old liturgy and allow the worst abuses to go unchecked (other than issue a few documents, even some inspired teaching).
Things in the Church are changing for the better with Benedict XVI, as they begun to change under the John Paul II pontificate. Most of the more serious abuses are a thing of the past in most places and the tendency is a return to orthodoxy and sound liturgical practice – brick by brick.
As things improve in dioceses like Vaduz in Liechtenstein, Fréjus and Toulon in France and American dioceses like Lincoln, Nebraska, things are indeed turning round with the younger clergy. Many more dioceses are changing under the leadership of good and orthodox Catholic bishops.
The Society of St Pius X seems for the most part in the grip of an ideology similar in some ways to Jansenism and the conspiracy mentality. These two things drive men to schism, and ultimately to evil.
I pray for the reconciliation of all Christian communities with the Catholic Church, but I don't think it will ever happen with the SSPX, not because Rome doesn't want to bend over backwards to help in every way possible, but because the SPPX has more or less become a totalitarian cult.
I hope there will be more traditional Catholic dioceses and priestly societies in the Church, so that SSPX priests can move over with no difficulties of conscience.
If the SSPX likes the wilderness, so be it. You can take a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. I see the SSPX end up like the Old Catholics of Utrecht. Perhaps they'll be ordaining women in 50 years time!!!!
I agree with some of Fr. Chadwick's analysis here but not all of it. I think that the Society has some very serious theological concerns that need to be addressed for the good of all the Church. The problem is that many in the curia, including the Pope himself, agree in part also but not in full with the Society's positions. The Pope is willing, I think, to allow the Society to hold all its current positions, but he is not prepared to rule out certain other theological perspectives for the faithful to hold as options. Therein lies the problem. It cannot, in my view, be solved in the foreseeable future. But it can be solved in the fullness of time. Frankly, I happen to agree with the Society's theological stance, even though I think it better in current circumstances to avoid attending Society Masses. But I do think that it is Rome, not the Society, that will have to make the needed concessions, esp. on religious liberty. Realistically, this cannot happen until the present crew at Rome is long gone: too much pride is at stake. Men who have built their careers by advancing the sixties errors will nev-ah admit to error!
Therefore, no deal and no regularisation will occur in the foreseeable future. but leaving things as they are is not acceptable to Pope Benedict XVI. His predecessor began the process in 2002 of recognising that Society Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation for faithful, something that curialists and local bishops had repeatedly denied since the 1970s. This change in course is no accident, Fr. Chadwick! The Pope wants to include the Society whether it will come to the well to drink or not! Before the horse can get to the water whcih he plans to refuse, little Josef Ratzinger runs up with a bucket and lurches the water right into the horse's mouth! The crucial step is for Rome to admit publicly and at law what it has now repeated many times in private letters of the P.C.E.D. to faithful: that Slociety Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation to assist at Mass.
There will be no regularisation for the foreseeable future but the Pope will declare the Society to be Catholic. He might even grant its priests full faculties on the grounds of 'probable doubt' in a case of an honest belief that there is an emergency.
When regularisation finally does come some decades from now, a hardline group within the Society will refuse it. This always happens when two bodies merge. Are all the continuers coming along with the TAC? Not. Did all continuers manage to form a united front? Not.
P.K.T.P.
Dear Mr. Vallejo:
I could write at great length about this but I don't want to hyjack this site. There is a real possibility for a universal ordinariate (or personal diocese or archdiocese or apostolic administration at first, more likely) but also an impediment against this in conditions stipulated by concordats signed between the Holy See and France, Austria, Poland, and a few others. It could still be done by making exceptions for those countries and granting each of them its own ordinariate. Don't rule this out. S.P. has hit the wall and the Pope knows that he must do more. Another possibility is ordinariates for countries having a large number of Latin Masses.
The case of the S.S.P.X should be considered separately. There can be a universal ordinariate for the existing approved traditionalist societies and orders, one not including the S.S.P.X. The S.S.P.X will likely get its own separate structure when the time is right (as it has its own affilates, such as the Dominicans of Avrillé), and the time is not right yet. However, what the Pope may do in the case of the S.S.P.X is publicly to recognise what Rome already admits privately, that Society Masses fulfil the Sunday obligation. I think that this is acoming soon, and it will make an enormous difference, especially if he grants or recognises faculties for them at the same time: watch what comes with the Society's current rosary crusade. This would unleash the Society on the bishops, thereby pressuring them to implement S.P. just to keep the S.S.P.X at bay in their dioceses. This Pope has cleverly set the stage. He is five steps ahead of his bishops in this game of chess.
One sign that particular churches or a church (eg. personal diocese or personal apostolic administration or personal ordinariate) may be acoming is the fact that the Sons of the Holy Redeemer (formerly Transalpine Redemptorists) still have no canonical form after endless months of waiting. Why not just give them one? Is it because Rome wants to integrate them and others (e.g. F.S.S.P., I.C.R. and the other thirty-some approved societies and orders) into something larger? (Perhaps I should shut my big mouth.)
The Anglican ordinariates are a precedent and a preparation for Latin Mass particular churches of one kind or another, just as the Campos personal apostolic administration prepared the way for the Angliclan ordinariates. This Pope is getting the faithful–and the bishops–used to the idea that local bishops do not have exclusive authority in their own bailiwicks. Pace 'collegiality', the Pope's authority is not only plenary and supreme but also universal and immediate (cf. Pastor Æternnus). We now have Anglican ordinariates, military ordinariates, Eastern-Rite jurisdictions everywhere in the West, and the Campos personal apostolic administration. While Opus Dei's structure is not a particular church equivalent in law to a diocese, that group has two tandem structures (one society of the faithful and one prelature) that, working together, also get it around the bishops to a large extent.
What's another personal structure between friends?
P.K.T.P.
Father, I love your excellent and insightful posts. You always manage to hit the the nail right on the head.
What about closed churches?
Father Chadwick said: "I would hope the radically new vision of the Ordinariates could find a way to finance and reuse some of the old parish churches rather than become resigned to their being demolished or put to secular use – or turned over to other religions like Islam."
The Church of England puts on disuse about 10 churches per year and sells them (see http://www.cofe.anglican.org/about/diocesesparishes/rcsale/ ).
I hope like the Father that some of them will be bought by Anglo-Catholics. With the precedent of St Agatha Portsmouth, it could be done. Also, the Ordinariate will need a cathedral (and FiF's one, the crypt of an Old-Catholic church will not fit the job, I think), and perhaps a big disused church (big churches are generally not sold when disused because nobody wants them) could be purchased.
There are also some disused RC churches, and some of them, with a lot of chance, could be given to the Anglican Catholics.
The problem is: Will the commission charged by the CoE to select the recipients of those churches accept the Anglican-Catholics' petitions? Father Chadwick perfectly knows what he's speaking about: I have seen in France in the diocese of Pontoise an ex-parish church (Ste Genevieve, now the Qûba mosque) given to the local muslims even though the SSPX had asked for it it because of the narrow-mindedness of a bishop stubbornly thinking that non-Christians are closer to the Truth than "schismatics". Things of that type will, I'm afraid, certainly come from the CoE establishment.
Pax et Bonum
We pray that the “schismatics” come home. Schism is consistent with the hermanuetics of rupture at a more basic level than any of the liturgical abuses after Vatican II.
St. Cyprian of Carthage (Died 248 A.D.) said "who is so insane with the madness of discord, that either he should believe that the unity of God can be divided, or should dare to rend it— the garment of the Lord— the Church of Christ?"
Much of the Church in Northern Africa was divided by heresy and schism it did not well withstand the Arab conquest in the 7th century.
I take it for granted that the Church of England would not sell to an Ordinariate. It would be madness to buy, as with it would generally come the secular obligation to maintain a "listed building" to the standards imposed by the local planning authority – an annualised expense similar to that of a stipendiary priest. Such resources as we will have would be far better directed to the training of new clergy. Initially, what will be welcome is the goodwill of the Catholic hierarchy so that we can share underused Catholic churches.
Of course, it may come to pass that the Church of England collapses and the state perforce takes over the maintenance of the historic buildings. If so, we would look to have equal rights of access to them.
Indeed, I see disestablishment around the corner and the spectre of a British Republic (I am a monarchist). This would spell the separation of Church and State and the appropriation of Church property by the State.
It happened in France in 1905. The cathedrals belong to the State and the parish churches to the municipal authorities of each town and village. They are allocated rent-free to the Catholic diocesan associations. If a church is redundant and unused for a given length of time, it can be taken back by the public authority, allocated to another religious group, demolished or turned over to secular use – or sold to a private buyer.
We in the Ordinariate can forget about busloads of people flocking in, any more than the Summorum Pontificum masses. We will need small churches, not big ones. Medieval churches are more solidly built than Victorian ones. The smaller and simpler the building, the cheaper to maintain. In France, the secular authority takes care of the fabric of the building. It is for the group using the church to take care of the utilities and furnishings.
Perhaps we could look forward to a system like that in England, but if we get a repeat of 1905, the secularists this time would certainly be more radical than the French anti-clericals.
Perhaps keeping the Monarchy and disestablishing the Church of England would be the best thing, and let the churches become public property "of the people". Who knows?
Fr. Chadwick is certainly right that the faithful are not flocking to Latin Masses under "Summorum Pontificum" (S.P.). I only add that the problem is that the bishops have the juridical and financial means to keep attendance low. They do it by assuring poor hours for traditional Masses in bad neighbourhoods, and by limited numbers of Masses and assuring poor venues interiorly. The road ahead is long and hard. A collapse of Modernism may be the only way we shall prosper. In the case of England, that can be helped by disestablishment.
P.K.T.P.
'I hope like the Father that some of them will be bought by Anglo-Catholics. With the precedent of St Agatha Portsmouth, it could be done.'
Just so that we all know….St Agatha's Portsmouth is not owned by The Traditional Anglican Church, nor The St Agatha's Trust, so no precedent has been set. The Church of England will not sell any of its redundant church buildings to to The Traditional Anglican Church. Fr Michael Gray is right, far better to put our financial resources into the training of Clergy and I also suggest the provision of an Anglican Ordinariate Seminary, whilst asking to share Catholic parish churches or by bringing back to life redundant Catholic Churches.