Br. Stephen of the Cistercian Abbey of Our Lady of Spring Bank has written to commend the following piece, which, doubtless, will provoke much debate here on The Anglo-Catholic and elsewhere.
Br. Stephen's aim is to underscore genuine personal conversion as the proper motivation for an individual's participation in the anticipated personal ordinariates, and, in doing so, he takes a deliberately modest view of the scope and significance of the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution.
The great weakness of the ethnic parish metaphor, it seems to me, is its failure to account for the breadth and depth of the Anglican Patrimony, which far surpasses the significance of the cultural eccentricities of Polish, German, or Italian Roman Catholic communities. Though Anglican churches may in some sense be "defective," the treasures of Anglicanism are genuinely ecclesial contributions to the Universal Church which the Holy Father has recognized "as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared."
* * *
Ethnic Parishes for Anglicans: A Provocatively Modest View of the Ordinariates
When I worked with prisoners and their families, I learned the importance of expectation management: Never excite extravagant hopes based on wishes if there are too many unknown factors that could line up to produce despair when a more measured initial response might have produced only slight disappointment. I begin to worry, in the case of the Anglican Ordinariates, that too many hopes are being excited in the absence of many facts and a wishful reading of those that are known such that, when all of the details are eventually known, the failure of these more optimistic readings to have been the case may cause some people to despair or even to feel that they have been actively misled by the Holy See. I sensed a bit of this sort of disappointment in the Internet reactions when yet another well-placed Catholic official made it clear that celibacy would be the norm within the Ordinariates during the recent Anglican Use conference in Newark.
I am not saying that all or even any of what follows is the way that things will fall into place for the Ordinariates, but I do think, based on official documents and statements to date, that the following are all plausible interpretations of how the Ordinariates might function within the larger Church. My purpose here is to paint a minimalist vision of the Ordinariates so that people can ask themselves if they would still want to be a member of such a body. Obviously, as a former Anglican turned Roman Catholic monk, I think that the answer should still be yes, but I think that it may be healthier to assume the minimalist scenario and then to be pleasantly surprised if some things turn out differently rather than to be cast into despair if the rosiest possible picture fails to materialize.
Let me start with a quote from Fr. Basil Maturin, the great Anglo-Catholic convert of a century ago, who, unlike most of his fellow converts of that era, never tried to stampede Anglicans who were looking Romeward to cross the Tiber. Instead, in The Price of Unity, he encourages people to convert only when their conscience will not allow them to do otherwise. He says,
Go and live where the Church is at the lowest and the scandals are real; if you cannot keep your faith in Rome in the face of all such things you do not really believe in her.
And here, I expect, I will meet my first objections. Some will say, “But we’re not converting, we’re entering Communion.” My reading of the documents says that conversion is what is being asked. It is being asked as pastorally as possible and with all due respect for the riches of the Anglican patrimony, but members of the Ordinariate are being asked to enter full, visible communion with the Universal Church from bodies that the Holy See does not recognize as properly constituted churches. To enter an Ordinariate is to believe that you are currently a member of a body that is defective in some way that the Catholic Church is not. True, this is a package tour with a protected enclave waiting on the other side with many familiar furnishings, but it remains a new ecclesiastical address and you can only get there by the narrow gate of conversion or, in the traditional idiom, which we current and former Anglicans love, by making your submission to the Holy See.
And here, I expect I will meet a second set of objections: “But we’re not becoming Roman Catholics. The Ordinariates are for Anglican Catholics.” To this I would say, based on my reading of the official documents issued to date, it depends on what you mean by “Anglican” or, perhaps better still in this case, “Anglo-.” If one uses the term as it would be used of a “Greek Catholic” or a “Ruthenian Catholic,” clearly that is not the case, though generous provisions have been made. If, however, you are using the term “Anglo-Catholic” in the same way as one might say “Polish Catholic” or “German Catholic,” meaning, in the U.S. in particular, a group that has been granted parishes in which special safeguards have been enacted to protect a cultural and linguistic patrimony, I do think it is fair to speak of “Anglican” or “Anglo-” Catholics.
And here I expect I will meet a third objection: “But our bishops are being given hats and sticks so we must be something more than ethnic parishes.” In an Anglican understanding, that would be true, but that is not necessarily the case among the Orthodox or within churches under the Holy See. Perhaps someone else can flesh-out all of the implications of a mitred archpriest in Orthodoxy, but let me give three examples from the Latin Rite where hats and sticks do not a bishop make. First, we have the case of the Cardinal who is not a bishop, but is entitled to pontificals. Cardinal Dulles, who received the red hat in recognition for his work as a theologian, would be a prominent American example. Second, we have the historic example of the highest grade of monsignor, the protonotary apostolic, who until 1969 was entitled to the mitre and ring and to celebrate Pontifical Mass. The third example, and I think this is perhaps the closest, is the territorial abbot or abbot nullius, who, though not necessarily a bishop, wears full pontificals in recognition of his governing a specific territory attached to his abbey and is a member of the local conference of bishops. North Carolina’s Belmont Abbey would be a famous American example of this type of jurisdiction from the past while Subiaco in Italy would be a notable contemporary example.
Historically, hats and sticks always mean honor, but they do not always mean full or even partial jurisdiction and clearly, from these examples, hats and sticks do not a rite make. Add to this the fact that while the Apostolic Constitution and the Complimentary Norms make the Ordinary’s membership in the local episcopal conference explicit, they do not make reference to a body of these ordinaries with governing or even deliberative functions and it seems reasonable to infer that the Ordinary is more like someone with delegated authority over a national enclave of especially privileged ethnic parishes than he is like a bishop of a (forgive the term) uniate church. The Rt. Rev. Msgr. Graham Leonard, sometime Anglican Bishop of London, might be a better model for Anglican Bishops who enter the Ordinariate but are not the Ordinary than the various grades of eparchs of the Oriental Churches. That is still a great honor and an incredible act of love and respect on the part of the Holy Father.
Being a member of an ethnic parish (or “personal” parish, as they are now called), albeit one with some very special dispensations, is still a very generous offer. As in a German, or Italian parish, there will be special safeguards that protect an Ordinariate parish’s historic patrimony from the majority culture and, as a double safeguard, these parishes will be governed by an Ordinary in sympathy with that heritage. (I am reasonably certain that more than one person at the Vatican and the USCCB wishes in hindsight that something similar might have been done to prevent the Polish schism in the U.S. Church in the 19th Century.) But, like those other ethnic parishes, those in the Ordinariate will be expected to be active cooperators in the life of the local diocese. I worry that too many people see this as a threat rather than an opportunity. To be a member of the Ordinariate means to engage with the richness of other ethnic and historic traditions within the Catholic Church. The documents to date seem to say that there will be no standing alone or going one’s own way. In addition to the Holy Father and the London Oratory, members of the Ordinariate will be in full communion with bingo, the chicken polka, the St. Louis Jesuits, and all of the other things that some Anglicans like to look down their noses at.
To be an Anglo-Catholic of the Ordinariate will be no more or less special, in the larger scheme of things, than to be an American Polish Catholic belonging to a personal parish. In fact, it seems that those who belong to ethnic minorities within the Catholic Church in the U.S. might feel a bit slighted that they were already in full communion with the Holy See and received so little while Anglican converts are receiving so much. Anglicans looking at the Ordinariates who are tempted to think that they have been given too little might do well to remember the parable of laborers who came at the end of the day and received the same wage as those who worked through its heat.
Some Ordinariate parishes will no doubt face mistrust and even, perhaps, hostility at various levels in the local diocese to which they will belong. Were that not the case, these elaborate canonical safeguards would not be necessary. I think that it is best not to minimize this potential reality and, instead, to trust that grace and steadfast witness will make the Ordinariate parishes come to be seen as wonderful places in the wider diocese as seems to have been the case of most of the current Anglican Use parishes, which were given no canonical safeguards when they made their leaps of faith.
Obviously, the ethnic parish metaphor is not perfect in its parallels, both because of the generosity of the provisions made by the Holy See and because global Anglicanism holds within itself the treasures of many cultural patrimonies, but I think that this more modest vision of how the Ordinariates might be understood will temper the potential wind of despair and allow those considering this option to weigh their choice with a most Anglican sobriety.
Let me close with a thought exercise that parallels my opening quote from Fr. Maturin. Do you agree with this statement:
I believe that to join an Ordinariate is to promise before God that, when I am traveling and not able to attend an Ordinariate parish on Sunday, under pain of mortal sin I will assist at a folk Mass with streamers and liturgical dancers, if that is all there is to be found, in order to fulfill my Sunday obligation.
That’s the somewhat provocative crux of what I understand it to mean to join an Ordinariate and I think that this is the level of love for the Catholic Church you will need to have or to hope to be given by grace to be happy over here. You have to have come to love the idea of the Catholic Church in its fullness more than the reality of the Anglican patrimony at its best. You need to strongly suspect that there may be something ontologically present in a progressive, praise-band parish in a scandal-ridden Roman Catholic diocese that is lacking in Anglicanism’s greatest shrines, because, contrary to what may seem to be much visual evidence to the contrary, the former is a constituent member of the body in which the fullness of the Catholic Church subsists while the latter is not.
If those words seem overly jarring or exclusivist to you (and remember I am speaking here to those who are actively considering conversion, not to Anglicans who are not interested), I suggest that you think carefully about your reasons for considering converting. If it is to escape the turmoil of Anglicanism, it will not be worth the dislocation that goes with it. If it is out of a desire to validate or improve your ecclesiastical standing, I assure you that the Roman Catholic Church can teach you humility in ways that you have never imagined. If you are entering the Ordinariate, it needs to be because you have come to believe what the Catholic Church says about herself in spite of the ten times a week you will be reminded how much the Church on earth falls short of the ideal in heaven.
I know that this is a time of pain in many parishes and dioceses. There is a great temptation to paint the best possible picture of the Ordinariates so that as many people as possible will make the journey together and the pain of separation and loss will be minimized, but I do not know that this approach will serve souls best in the long-term. The Holy Father’s offer is open-ended. It is perhaps best that some should come now and that others come later, when, like St. Thomas, they may touch and see, rather than for those who are eager to come now to pressure friends who doubt into a disappointment that may lead them to reject the Catholic Church permanently should it turn out that things are different after all.
I may be wrong in every word that I have written about the future implementation of the Anglican Ordinariates and will be glad if I am, but I still think the exercise of thinking of yourself as a member of an odd sort of ethnic parish in a church that doesn’t quite know what to make of you is worthwhile. What I have outlined above is provocatively modest, but a pessimist can only be pleasantly surprised.
Related posts:
My observations
1) Conversion is required for Communion. Anglican Catholics are coming into communion. Righto! Of course there will be conversion. How this conversion will go is definitely different from how others convert and come into communion. There are many ways to come home as Prodigal sons and daughters. Even Latin aka Roman Catholics are called everyday to conversion.
2) It is correct to describe Anglicans in the Catholic Church as Anglican Catholics in the same general sense that the Ukrainians are described as Ukrainian Catholics. But the Anglicans are by historical circumstances part of the Latin Church. It may be that Rome does not recognize the Anglican Church as a sister church but we are sure that the Second Vatican Council did recognize that the Anglican Communion occupies a special place since many elements of catholicity have been conserved. This recognition was not extended to any other separated western church.
3) Married Anglican bishops who will act as ordinaries cannot be Catholic bishops IN DEFERENCE to the Orthodox. But some Vatican insiders have said that Rome was indeed inclined to give an exception but if not for Orthodox concerns. Nevertheless, it was extremely gracious for the Holy Father to find a way to recognize the past ministries of Anglican bishops, thus the right to wear their mitres and chimeres. But an unmarried Anglican bishop can be made a Catholic bishop.
4) On attending a happy clappy Mass: To me that's the price of legitimate liturgical diversity. But what is importance is unity in the essentials, diversity in those that are not and charity in everything else.
5) The ministry and care of the Bishop of Rome teaches us humility in ways we never could have imagined.
About your item number 2, Ben:
Rather many Latin Rite Catholics won't see it that way at all. Some Anglicans have persisted in calling themselves "Anglo-Catholics," as though they were just a "flavor" of genuine Catholic, even while they have insisted on being outside the boundaries of the Church in union with Rome. This just doesn't work historically or theologically and you may be very tactfully called on it when you enter the Catholic Church.
People coming into the Ordinariate will be heartily welcomed for a lot of reasons, but they will be converting to Catholicism. There's no "qualified" Catholic to it, no "I'm a Catholic, but not a Catholic" to it. They will be expected to enter the Catholic church as Catholics. They will be ethnic Catholics to be sure–we have a lot of those and we love them. They will be in a protected area to be sure–but we have those too in our Eastern rites and they add to the richness and glory of the Church just as the Anglican practices will.
In the end, the Ordinariates will be what those within them make them. For some, I'm sure that the ethnic parish model will apply: a gradually dwindling and aging group, having an honourable place in the church and an important place in the life of its membership, but not having much direct influence outside that parish. For others -and the flourishing of some Anglican Use Parishes in the USA seems a model here- they will not revolutionize the Church, but they will provide a vibrant place and religious culture which will draw new souls to Christ. Who knows? The establishment of the Ordinariates is indeed risky. But if we trust that to be in full communion with Rome is to be, finally, where God's Church is, then those risks and their outcomes will serve to glorify God.
"…under pain of mortal sin I will assist at a folk Mass with streamers and liturgical dancers…"
Been there, done that.
I don't think anyone converting to the Anglican Ordinariate in the Roman Catholic Church will be surprised by such abuses – disgusted, yes – but surprised, no. The bottom line will be whether, within the Ordinariate, we get to continue certain Anglican ways of doing things and a married priesthood is a part of that; still I don't see a conflict with maintaining the norm of celibacy while making exceptions in legitimate cases for married men as many of the initial priests of the Ordinariates will evidence.
I agree with much of what Brother Stephen has written, but caution any and all, in agreement with Christian, that the analogy of ethnic parishes is not quite exact. In fact, the ordinariates to be erected under Anglicanorum Coetibus are like many different communities within the Church–and will also be unlike each of those communities in many ways. Understanding them is akin (yet another analogy that will fail in some ways ; ) to apophatic theology.
When the Holy Father issued Summorum Pontificum he engaged in a bit of creative law making; the Missal issued by Pope John XXIII was declared an alternate use of the Roman Rite, on an equal footing with the Missal of Pope Paul VI (depsite a different calendar, rubrics, and provision for ministers, etc). This still hasn't been worked out in a neat way (how, after all, is that we have subdeacons ordained in the traditionalist societies when the subdeaconate has been supressed?), but it is working to do what the Holy Father wanted: the establishment of the right of all Latin Church priests to offer Mass according to the older Missal, and for that to exercise a beneficial effect on the celebration of the new Missal.
Bishop Arrieta hinted at the kinds of canonical conniptions that a document like AC gives a canon lawyer; it is also no neat package, but not through accident. The Pope, as supreme Lawgiver in the Church, is using the law to accomplish a pastoral purpose, because, as canon law itself recognizes, the salvation of souls is the supreme law.
And so we have the ordinariates:
like ethnic parishes, but more than ethnic parishes in that they are governed by an ordinary other than the diocesan bishop;
like parishes entrusted to religious, but also other, in that not only the clergy but also the people are (or can be) members of the ordinariate;
like a pan-national diocese, but unlike a diocese in that this "diocese" has a councile which submits a terna of nominations to the Holy See for selection of an ordinary;
like the personal prelature of Opus Dei, but unlike it, having parishes and being national in character rather than worldwide;
and so on, with similarities to the Eastern sui juris Churches, societies like the U.S.-based Society of Our Lady of the Holy Trinity, to Easter Rite ordinariates, to military ordinariates.
And yet, unlike them all as well. A unique structure within the Church to serve the pastoral needs, and to allow Anglicans who enter into communion with the Holy See to place their charisms and gifts at the service of all God's holy people.
It's always good to hear from my old friend Brother Stephen. ISTM in a way this is preaching to the already converted; the kind of ex-Anglican who wants the ordinariates already believes everything the RCC teaches. Before the news of the ordinariates I'd been saying a solution for ex-Anglo-Catholics is national parishes; the ordinariates will be national parishes with more clout.
As for putting up with protestantised and/or Modernist parishes, I understand what he's saying but no. I was burned too much by that years ago and can't go back to it. (It's like a hard-nosed, charmless version of Episcopalianism.)
P.S. There’s a difference between a no-frills, non-liturgical movement 1950s Low Mass and the bad intent (rather like the Anglican founders) of low-church Modernist parishes even though Thomas Day rightly pointed out they’re culturally related.
This past Sunday, one that was not particularly different from the ordinary Sunday, Our Lady of the Atonement had a small group of visiting nuns (not the Poor Clares that reside there) at the 9am Mass, followed by a group of visiting seminarians from St. Louis (not Jesuits) at the 11am Mass. I expect nearly all of the local seminarians have visited the parish over the year with favorable impressions, many of them now ordained as priests. Don't underestimate how the "treasure to be shared" may help to revolutionize the Church as a whole.
To minimize having to participate in a "Folk Mass" while traveling simply takes a bit of planning beforehand. One excellent way to do this is to plan for your vacation to be a pilgrimage with Father Phillips. Nothing quite like participating in an AU Mass at St. Peter's Basilica or the Holy Sepulchre.
Wow, faithful Catholics making provision for their parish priest, when at all possible, to travel with them on vacation making even daily Mass a possibility! Bonne idée!
What a truly unfelicitous, WASP-Episcopalian turn of phrase, Mr. Campbell: "the cultural eccentricities of Polish, German, or Italian Roman Catholic communities".
As opposed to what? The 'centricities' of the forty odd groupings – in the USA alone – of self-styled Anglo-Catholics constantly gnawing at each other and incessantly fragmenting?
The Holy Father's magnanimous offer of Anglican-Use Ordinariates reflects a deep respect for cultural diversities. Bear that in mind, Mr. Campbell, for it's part and parcel of seeking communion with the Church Catholic.
I second this response to Mr. Campbell. You would be lucky to find yourself in a Polish personal parish; you would see that the "reform of the reform" has in fact been their outworking of the postconciliar liturgical books ever since the bad old days of 1970. You would also find yourself surrounded by many children and young adults, not simply a "gradually dwindling and aging group" as suggested above, which is, in fact, generally what I find in most Anglo-Catholic parishes.
You may wish to click on the link I have provided, particularly on the photos of events at the parish, for proof of my assertions.
Although I have no doubt Mr. Campbell can defend himself, I think his statement has been given an excessively negative spin. To be "eccentric" isn't a bad thing. Too often we think of eccentricities as being "oddities," whereas its more basic meaning is that of being apart from what is considered "normal." Ethnic parishes are exactly that, and good for them! I sensed no ill-will in his statement, and he certainly didn't indicate that he thinks an ethnic parish has no children or young adults. To use one's own interpretation of Mr. Campbell's statement to then take a swipe at Anglo-Catholic parishes probably isn't terribly helpful.
I think we're all getting tired of waiting, and are eager to see something happen with the Ordinariates, and perhaps it's making us less patient than we should be with one another.
#10 Brian M
"You would also find yourself surrounded by many children and young adults, not simply a “gradually dwindling and aging group” as suggested above, which is, in fact, generally what I find in most Anglo-Catholic parishes."
Since it was my use of the phrase 'gradually dwindling…" etc that is being referred to here rather than Christian's, I'd better explain that I wasn't intending any slur on existing ethnic parishes in the Catholic Church: indeed I was thinking precisely of some small and aging Anglican parishes which will, I suspect, find it hard to expand whether within or outside the Roman church. That isn't in itself a bad thing: not every congregation needs to grow and providing a home for the existing faithful is a worthwhile end. But recognizing such a future as being an element of what may happen within the Ordinariates is part of that modesty of expectations that Brother Stephen is talking about. In fine, some congregations will grow and expand; some will not. Some Ordinariates may grow and expand; some may not.
In linking ethnic parishes with the 'dwindling' end of such a spectrum, I was clearly being simplistic. It wasn't the point of my comment, but it has added confusion to the debate. The mistake, however, is mine, not Christian's or Brother Stephen's.
My employment of the word 'eccentricity' was, in no way, intended to be pejorative. Indeed, those who are familiar with me would surely confirm that I could ill-afford to take a disparaging view of this term!
I deeply regret that the misinterpretation of this coinage has given offense. I certainly think highly of the unique cultural contributions of all nationalities and ethnicities to the life of the Universal Church, and it was not my intent to belittle the peculiar customs of Polish, German, Italian — or any other ethnic grouping of — Roman Catholics. I only meant to suggest that, in my view, the comprehensiveness of the Anglican Patrimony is so tremendous that it clearly transcends the relatively limited variations witnessed from one "ethnic" community to another.
Over here in the UK, for "ethnic" read "English".
Conversion is defined as, "The adoption of new religious beliefs that differ from the convert's previous beliefs." Young Fogey hits the nail on the head regarding this matter. If one is a member of the TAC, whether they know (or like) it, their official statement of belief is the CCC. Consequently, by definition there ought not need be conversion per se. If a conversion IS necessary it's because the individual does not already believe the doctrines of his/her church.
Why assume that eccentric is meant to be taken in a negative way? I took it to mean the special identifying peculiarities that distinguish the several ethnic communities – analogous to the eccentricities of national cuisines which make them so special and valued to a food traveler like myself. Anglican sensibility has always taken a sort of guilty pleasure in fondly tolerating eccentricities of all types – provided, of course, that they are manifested in a decent and orderly way – its part of the patrimony.
Having your own Ordinary is, pace Br Stephen, a huge difference canonically between an Ordinariate parish and a personal parish. This is clear if we look at another example of an Ordinariate, the Military Ordinariates. The Catholic chaplain on a US military base in Germany or England is no doubt encouraged to be on decent terms with the local diocesan bishop and clergy, and may well help out if needed (more likely in England because of a common language), but he is not subject to the local ordinary when he is on base. The Bishop of East Anglia cannot order what goes on at the base chapel at RAF Lakenheath. In the same way, the personal parish which is part of the Anglican Ordinate with be subject to its own proper Ordinary, not the local Bishop. This is a big difference from the situation of the current Anglican Use parishes, which are parishes of the local Latin Rite diocese and subject to its Bishop.
I'm just back from class and reading the responses.
I certainly agree with Steve Cavanaugh that there are bits of many models that seem they might have inspired various parts of the apostolic constitution. My aim here was to give the minimal possible reading of the documents based on one limited and well-established form: the personal/ethnic parish. My point was to have people ask themselves whether this minimal vision would still make them glad to be heading toward the Catholic Church.
I've been a Catholic for a few years now and a pretty happy one, but there will always be people and things I miss from before or wish were different here, because Anglicanism, for all of its faults and crises, was still very good to me. The Holy Father is now supplying the Ordinariates with many dear aspects of Anglican worship and governance, but it won't be a magic bullet to slay all the problems faced now as members of various Anglican bodies or in those to be faced in the future as Anglican Catholics. I think it is important to face that, to recognize that there will be real loss as well as great gain, and to do some mourning in addition to giving thanks. I think it will make the eventual transition not only easier but also more joyful.
As for the comments on "eccentricities," and I've not known Mr. Campbell to be intentionally malicious, I do think that this is an area where there will be some mental adjustment. I'm not certain that the German Church, which gave us Mozart and Benedict XVI, to barely scratch the surface, is as impressed with Cranmer's prose and Neale's translations as most of us here are. We love the Anglican patrimony because it is our patrimony, but the Catholic Church counts many a cultural marvel within its larger fabric. We don't want to be the theological equivalents of Ugly Americans. Day-to-day life in the Catholic Church is a powerful reminder that there is neither Jew nor Greek in the Kingdom
(And before someone comments: I am an American. I'm just in Canada for the summer cramming Latin, ergo the Canadian flag on my post.)
Responding to Fr. "Doc" (how cool is it, anyway, to be a priest and drive around in a police vehicle!):
Yes, I agree that conversion, strictly speaking, shouldn't be necessarily what is being contemplated here insofar as the Catechism is indeed already our intellectual faith anchor.
But I think Br. Stephen is getting at something else, something quite essential, and I have to say, ardent married priesthood proponent that I am (and therefore, I admit, somewhat out of sync with the AC's clear position on that subject), we need to really hear him on this one thing, to wit:
That we are truly considering entering into a state of SUBMISSION that, frankly, even the very contemplation of which eludes most of us with Anglican sympathies. More succinctly and less convolutedly, Anglicans by and large don't have a clue what submission to ecclesial authority really means. It simply hasn't been part of the Patrimony, sorry to say. Its one great deficiency, if there is one.
I distinctly recall years ago at a Quincy diocesan youth camp near Peoria, IL a layman fairly cussing out the visiting Episcopal Bishop of Springfield over some issue or another. Having been raised Roman until my 12th year, and with only instincts from childhood to draw on, I was nonetheless fairly appalled. I was to later learn as a new Episcopal priest just how disrespectful Anglicans of whatever "brand" can be toward their clergy. Talk about learning humility – I doubt anything the Holy Father does could top what I had to endure. No, humility, a la Rome, at least from this godly pope, rather feels like a true hat-tipping gentleman gingerly directing me away from the puddle in the street.
There are things in the Episcopal/Anglican experience from which I wish to flee. And, I suppose, it would be nice to be more functionally useful to Christ's Kingdom in the context of a fully recognized Catholic priesthood than what I may have been privileged to contribute in the past (which is not to denigrate the same, God bless good bishops MacBurney and Ackerman!). But when all is said and done, the good folks at the CDF may look at my dossier down the road and say, as in the old Starkist tuna commerical, "Sorry Charlie" (even better, the Mrs. Paul ad: "If it isn't Mrs. Paul's, throw it back!"). Whatever. Even if that should be the case, my gut has got to say, with Peter of old in John 6, "Lord, to where shall we go, you have the words of eternal life." THAT's the basic point I believe Br. Stephen is attempting to drive home. It's more than acceding to the CCC. It's a recognition that even when Rome is wrong (and I believe she at times is wrong, explicity excluding the work of her councils and solemnly and papally defined dogmas), she's ultimately the only game in town. I remember Fr. Telimond's reaction to Pope Kyril's order to stand down and be silent in "Shoes of the Fisherman": "The Church, I hate her; she's my Mother, I love her".
And so there you have it. If we can all become Fr. Telimonds, we will understand the fullness of what it means to convert from former opinions. Otherwise . . . well, I think Br. Stephen said it all.
My Dear Rev. Dr.,
First, regarding your initial remark; It is EXTREMELY cool!
Second, I agree with you 100% in the matter of submission. However, more so than doctrinally I believe that to be an issue of simple common courtesy and Christian humility. Unfortunately society in general lacks the former, and most Christians (of whatever flavor) lack the latter. A case in point; I recently had occasion to attend a local Catholic Charities' event at which the local Ordinary was present. As he approached our table (at which sat Roman clergy among about 8 others) I was the only one to rise in greeting. In short, we have become a rude people and unfortunately that's going to play out ecclesiastically.
If someone were to write about ethnic parishes; their strengths and weaknesses, their successes and failures, their support or lack of it by the local bishops, it would make for a fine research paper because there would be a lot to say. Brother Stephen and Mr. Campbell made some excellent points to consider as new Ordinariate parishes will be erected.
From the historical perspective, at the turn of the last century there was a need by the Church to address the diverse linguistic, cultural, social, etc. needs of large groups of immigrants. At times the Church didn’t do that so well and sometimes people or even whole parishes either joined the Orthodox Church or started their own schismatic ones. But if blame must be placed, then it must be placed on those bishops who simply didn’t understand the special needs of these groups or didn’t want any part of it. Even today, we have some bishops who purportedly don’t understand the desirability of having Anglican Use parishes or don’t want any part of setting them up. Is there any wonder why Rome decided to go the Ordinariate route?
One big difference between these ethnic parishes and the current and future Roman-Anglican parishes other than the obvious language difference is that the cultural and social differences among them were much more profound. They stuck out as being very different which of course is not the case with Anglicans. Each group had their own popular devotions (non-official liturgies) and customs related to the Church year which greatly reflected their particular culture and customs and often were not found “outside.” For example, the Slavic parishes all have the blessing and distribution of the oplatki wafers for use at Christmas Eve dinner and also the blessing of Easter baskets (with very particular contents including elaborately dyed eggs) on Holy Saturday. The Italian parishes more often than not have the blessing of St. Anthony lilies on his feast day and the custom of St. Anthony’s bread as well as usually the annual parish festival then. Novena devotions (what’s a novena devotion?) were once more popular than they are today and were prayed for the favorite saints of each ethnic group, and more often than not, those were also the saints whose statues were in the church. Each parish traditionally had its annual festival and it was open to everyone. These festivals were held for several reasons: to raise money for the parish by selling ethnic foods, arts and crafts and items from ‘the old country’, to renew the sense of ethnic pride among the parishioners, and expose their culture to others through their ethnic songs, music, dancing, costumes etc. These were all part of their Patrimony (where have I read that word before?)
I lived most of my life in the northeast mainly in two cities where the majority of parishes were actually ethnic and included Canadian French, Italian, Polish, Slovak, Lithuanian, as well as Byzantine Ukrainian and Ruthenian parishes. That was the rule and not the exception. But where are they today? Most were closed or merged with territorial parishes and their Patrimony has all but faded away. It certainly didn’t happen intentionally, but as the “grandparent” generation who came from the Old Country died off, often their language and customs died off with them because not enough of their children were interested in preserving them. The younger generation moved on so there was no need to keep the parish open when the usually bigger territorial parish was just around the corner.
So, Anglican Catholics will have to make a big commitment to identify, live and pass on their Patrimony if they wish to remain in Roman-Anglican parishes, otherwise they will eventually fall into the same fate that most ethnic parishes did. That would be just as sad.
Fr. Marziani hit what I was getting at on the head in reference to conversion. I don't doubt for a second that the people looking at the Ordinariates have had good doctrinal formation. But conversion/submission is far more than intellectual assent.
My experience and that of most others I have known is that we already believed all that the Catholic Church taught and had for many years, but that didn't mean that we understood the culture we were entering as well as we thought we did. The world of "Roma locuta est" in matters of discipline as well as doctrine feels different than what most of us are used to. I've never known a doctrinal issue to lead someone to revert. It always seems to come down to cultural differences.
I tried to get at this a bit in a post back in December:
http://subtuum.blogspot.com/2009/12/anglican-ordinariates-holy-desires-good.html
I think a particularly useful thing to think about is the virtue of docility, which tends to be underplayed in Anglican thinking in my experience. As Anglo-Catholics, we tend to value the maverick–it was often a necessary mindset to have to survive in addition to being good fun and producing great stories of Fr. So-and-so staring down Bishop Such-and-such. But to be a Latin Rite Catholic is to believe in the virtue of obedience to someone who may not be as smart as you and who may just be plain wrong for the good that act of obedience will do your own soul in its battle against pride.
I could talk about this in theory before my conversion, but the lived reality was something I still struggle with. Conquering pride is something that all Christians are called to everyday, but the disciplines surrounding that ideal are different in Anglican and Catholic thought. Thinking about entering the Ordinariate as making an act of submission of the will is probably a good exercise to prepare for this.
OBEDIENCE: If you agree with it, it aint obedience, it's agreement. Sometimes you have to just ….. obey.
And that is HARD!
But it is GOOD!
Ah! Begorrah! To be sure now, that's the stuff, my son.
Or our side of the Irish Sea:
Right, lads, over the top! Stiff upper lip, best foot forward and think of England!
All pleasure is sin. Let's lay into ourselves with those disciplines and cats o' nine tails, and learn to hate what we have loved and love what we have hated. The future is a boot stamping on a human face forever… (Orwell). Pure stoicism. And not healthy…
Seriously, I have found this passage from Newman in his correspondence with George Fottrell, which I think has a bearing on blind obedience, aspects of Jansenism and stoicism. I will fight the tendency of allowing people to think the Church is this caricature of a kind of "spiritual" Himmler's Schutzstaffel (SS). It is not. There is obedience, but there is also conscience. Blind obedience was not an excuse for the atrocities of the Nazi war criminals at the Nuremberg Trials.
I see that I cross-posted with Fr. Doc and I agree wholeheartedly with his comments about humility and civility.
Fascinating post and reactions. The only comment I would make is to Ben Vallejo's statement implying that we Orthodox have married bishops – we don't. We have married priests but all bishops are taken from monastic communities, widower priests or celibate priests. The last 2 groups must take monastic vows before being elevated to the episcopacy.
An easy mistake Ben, no harm no foul, just clarification.
I understood Ben as saying that the Vatican might have permitted married bishops except for Orthodox concerns, meaning the Orthodox might not accept it.
I have wondered if married Orthodox priests currently have a practice of some period of continence prior to the Divine Liturgy? Some of the accounts I have read indicate that in the early years of the Church, while it would ordain married men they were thereafter expected to practice continency. Then the East changed to temporary rather than permanent continency, while the West changed to not ordaining married men while expecting them to thereafter remain continent. If that was the case, I'm not sure what the practice is nowadays.
A Catholic theologian I corresponded to told me that. He was well informed in Rome about issues that surfaced between the time when the AC was publicly announced and the when the complimentary norms were out. According to him the Pope was willing to go as far to make the exception for the interim (with the proviso that future bishops will be celibate) but the Orthodox voiced their reservations. This was made clear in public announcements about the Ordinariate scheme.
See unlike TEC, Rome still possesses ecumenical sensitivity and restraint. Rome could have had its own way but it was wise enough not to do so.
I agree with Br. Stephen regarding the difficulty in submission for Anglicans. I have been saying all along that this in the main obstacle that keeps many Anglicans from becoming Catholics.
Just last weekend I spoke to a young man who is discerning the priesthood. He is a very traditional Latin Rite Catholic and he told me how difficult this is even for him who was raised Catholic. Also because he is a Latin Rite Catholic, but traditional, I felt he is reflecting on some of the problems in some parishes today and how it will be more difficult to submit to a Bishop who might not be orthodox in some of his beliefs.
I have also read that Pope Benedict is starting to call out these types of Bishops and priests. That he wants orthodoxy brought back where there has been heresey in some parishes or dioceses. I see the Holy Spirit is really at work within the Church today.
Yes submission is difficult, but the saints have gone through this since the beginning and were rewarded by becoming saints of the Church. We must bend our wills to God's will and the Church is the body of Christ on earth.
Just a little footnote: Please realize that every thread and post here is taken out of context and posted on a particular Anglican website. One in which I find to be quite without charity towards any Anglicans who disagree with their opinions and views.
I am grateful for the Anglo Catholic website, it shows charity and although we might all have some differences we do not attack Anglicans who differ with our journey to Rome, but extend our love for them and pray for them although they are on a different path.
If is good that different issues are brought up so that even if in the end Anglican Use parishes within the Ordinariate won't be affected but protected by the AC, Anglicans are made aware of what might be difficult and if they raise doubts for them, now is the time to really discern whether they can abide by the differences before making the leap and then regretting it later. Truth will set you free, it is nothing to fear.
Not to worry, Gay, if Anglicans are commenting on our comments. Since the whole thing seems to fascinate them, their fascination might turn to curiosity, and their curiosty may well get them to inquire more seriously.
I'm delighted if they're continuing to visit this blog. There will be plenty of room in the Ordinariate when they begin to realize their world is getting rather small and cramped.
Thank you Fr. Phillips for your encourgement. I just feel it is sad for our former brothers and sisters to harbor such anger.
You are a well balanced priest and one who surely understands what it is to sacrifice all to enter into the Catholic Church. You have the ability to soothe the feathers when some of us are working off emotions and not trusting in God.
Your experiences as an Anglican Use priest for the past 30 years is priceless to those who have concerns about what it is to be Anglican Catholic within the Church.
I have never commented here before, but now just want to say thank you for comments #19, and then #22. Since hearing Bp. Peter Elliott of Mlb. speak at our parish recently I have thought over and over, "But Lord, to whom else shall we go?" This bit from Scripture (part of John 6:68) came to mind immediately again on reading the first of the series of comments on Br. Stephen's article – I thought that surely must be what he meant and what we should think of on considering immanent 'conversion'. So it is most helpful to have that confirmed.
Fr. Marziani: I too have been wondering how we in the Ordinariate will respond to submission and obedience, not only amongst the clergy but also the laity. If the request for a former Anglican to be the Ordinary is granted then what you state, "Anglicans by and large don’t have a clue what submission to ecclesial authority really means. It simply hasn’t been part of the Patrimony, sorry to say. Its one great deficiency, if there is one." would be perpetuated. The thing is, can we submit and obey or will the Church have to tolerate it. It surely would be an ugly ghetto to belong to. And if the Vatican places non former Anglicans as Ordinaries then …
A very enjoyable and spirited discussion on a subject all Catholics need to hear much more about – the relationship of the universality of the Catholic Faith with our "particularisms". If you are ordained, please, take this as a gentle hint.
Once in awhile, one comes across a discussion whether the barque of Peter is more like a battleship, or a transatlantic passenger ship. If it is the latter, then I think the Marx brothers have shown us its, if somewhat romanticised, steerage class – crowded, noisy, with questionable smells, but also with music, dancing, young families, and endless plates of spaghetti. One hopes the barque of Peter will always have its steerage class…
I think that Mr. Campbell is completely right in saying that the Anglican Patrimony far exceeds the cultural eccentricities of Polish, German, or Italian ethnic parishes. I'm ethnic, thus I can say that with full confidence. Then again, one quietly hopes that the Anglican Patrimony does include its own steerage class, as well. If not, then perhaps you should think about getting one, no?
All right, Mr. Campbell, since you're in the IT field, did you hear this one:
"An SQL query enters a bar, sees two tables, walks up to them and asks: "May I join you?"
Anglicans have indeed developed a bad habit of resisting authority; but then Anglican authorities have been so frequently bad or at least confused that it could hardly be otherwise. It is, in fact, the recognition of the need for authority that is authentic, reliable, and indefectible that is the principal motivation driving Anglicans toward the Holy Father and those gathered in communion with and around him. My prediction is that, while Anglicans may continue to struggle with questions of authority, their struggles will be more with particular local authority – hence the need for the first ordinaries to be wholly orthodox, competent, and tough – and not with Peter, toward whom a fierce loyalty is likely to rapidly develop.
Dear Daniel (#27): Yes, Orthodox clergy are enjoined to abstain from marital relations the evening before the Divine Liturgy. So indeed, for them as well as their Roman cousins, a hot pizza delivery is absolutley their BIG THRILL for Saturday night (or maybe a hot gyro).
Dear Guzmang1 (#33): Well, the Vatican has already shot down the original idea of the ACA setting forth a terna from which the Holy Father selects the first ordinary. He evidentally needs complete freedom in making that critical selection. Makes me think of Jesus praying the entire night prior to calling the Twelve – it's a huge pivotal action.
Will he go outside of the orbit of former Anglicans as ordinaries? I should hope not. But he may want to appoint a former Anglican well familiar with the Catholic ethos. Quite likely a current Pastoral Provision priest who can well attend to both sides of the fence, as it were. I guess we'll see. In any case, there are, as the Marines like to say, "a few good men" out there among senior clergy who are of Anglican patrimony and who have by immense grace escaped the foot-loose-and-fancy-free ways of too many of their recent spiritual ancestors. The Lord always has His Remnant – His Anawim – of truly submitted and faithful followers even in the worst of circumstances. I'd like to think a happy conclusion is awaiting us all in this matter.
I agree with the Rev. Dr. Marziani's statements. We need someone who understands exactly both the Anglican and Catholic positions and is familiar with working with Rome and Bishops.
We must pray for the Holy Spirit to be in charge of the choice for then we will know that it will be the best choice. How it will be decided in countries outside of the U.S. is another issue.