Bishops, Clergy, and Lay Delegates to the ACCC Synod
The Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (ACCC) Synod concluded today. What a great time of worship and fellowship! I have uploaded some videos that have snippets of some of the music and some of our Primate Archbishop Hepworth's rousing homily on Christian unity over at my personal blog. Maybe Christian will be able to find a way to transport them here too. Alas, I can only upload a little at a time and what I may have captured may not be the most salient points.
But good, good news has come out of our gathering. Synod passed two historic resolutions yesterday afternoon:
The Synod has endorsed the letter of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (ACCC) bishops to the Holy See seeking an Anglican Ordinariate in Canada.
Only two delegates voted against and there were three abstentions (all from the laity).
Then the Synod passed a resolution enabling the bishop and the provincial council to make all adjustments to the canoncial legislation of the diocese necessary for the formation of the Ordinariate.
Archbishop Hepworth and Bishop Craig Botterill
Archbishop John Hepworth
Holy Communion July 15
Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament
Related posts:
This is truly splendid news. I hope that American TACers will follow suit in their own way as well as those from Southern Africa, India & Pakistan, and Japan.
P.K.T.P.
Thank you Deborah for the
As a non Anglican I welcome the patrimony. God bless the Synod for being truly pastoral. May they be a witness to us all. Their courage is encouraging.
It looks as if some Anglicans are getting out (not 'coming out') of the C. of E. just in the nick of time. Over at Damian Thompson's site, he reports that that Church plans to allow bishops to become nuns in order to minister to them. I kid you not. I thought that this was a joke at first (and, in a way, it is) but they are actually serious. How would a mitre would look over a wimple, I wonder? They'll have to call them 'nisshops'.
They now let girls into the the Scouts here in Canada as 'Girl Scouts' but, for some odd and completely bizarre reason, I've not yet heard of any 'Boy Guides'. It's not fair!
P.K.T.P.
I apologize for being curt (I think), but all I can say is it is nice to see a TAC body that appears to have its act together.
Congratulations!
"Doc"+
Doc+
What was the outcome of the DOW Synod that ended July 2? The report on the Diocese website is not complete nor clear, at least to me. It appears they talked without reaching any conclusions.
Mark+
haec est dies quam fecit Dominus exultemus et laetemur in ea
This is the day which the LORD hath made;
we will rejoice and be glad in it.
On behalf of all in the ALCC who await "our turn", congratulations and God's blessings to all in the ACCC. Hopefully your actions will inspire others to do likewise.
+Ed
Abp Ed could you explain a bit about the ALCC and its "turn"?
Peregrinus,
The Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church (ALCC) also petitioned to be received into full communion with the See of Peter, May 13, 2009. You can read more about the ALCC and our petition in an earlier article written by Deborah Gyapong on this site, entitled "Are Lutherans Next?" dated July 9, 2010. Abp. Irl Gladfelter (our Metropolitan Archbishop) and I both wrote a bit more info about us in the comments to that article.
I hope this helps.
+Ed
The Right Reverend Craig Botterill, Suffragan Bishop of the ACCC, has published a letter which was read in all parishes last Sunday:
http://users.eastlink.ca/~charleswarner/
There are so many passages in the letter which are misleading about how a future Ordinariate will function. Chief among these is the comparison to "Ukrainian Catholics … and the other twenty three 'rites' within the Catholic Church". The official Vatican commentary on the norms for the Ordinariates specifically says "these Personal Ordinariates cannot be considered as Particular Ritual Churches". Botterill says that "Anglicans will continue to be governed by Anglicans". The apostolic constitution, the norms, and the official commentary all make clear that the ordinariates will be part of the Latin church, and generally subject to the directives of the national episcopal conferences. Botterill says that "the agreement ratifies and approves the traditional Book of Common Prayer form of worship" and that "at the parish level, the priests, liturgy, music, and teaching will remain the same". He's probably right about the music, but there is no guarantee that all ACCC clergy will be ordained as Catholic priests. There is every reason to believe (based on Anglican use parishes in the United States) that liturgical changes will be required. Perhaps the episcopate of the ACCC should re-read the apostolic constitution, norms, and commentary.
Dear Mr. McFerran:
This is really not much of a distortion at all. First, it is true that the personal ordinariates are not sui juris ritual churches. However, they function and are governed largely as if they were. It is also true, as Mr. Cavanaugh points out, that they are not 'particular churches'. But they function also exactly as particular churches (meaning dioceses and their equivalent) do. In particular, they are closest de facto to the 'personal' Apostolic Administration of St. John-Mary Vianney in Brazil. In terms of canon law, that structure is technically not 'personal' but it is personal in the sense that it is erected for persons of a particular liturgical rite "or some other similar quality" (cf. Canon 372.2). In fact, the term 'personal' has been used in some Roman documents in this non-canonical sense. Recently, I came across a reference to 'personal dioceses' which are also not 'personal' in the strictly canonical sense.
Secondly, we must be careful in how we use the term 'rites' here. The Eastern churches are churches, not rites. They offer Mass in accordance with rites but not all of them have rites exclusive to them. For instance, the Byzantine Rite is common to about twelve or thirteen of the Eastern ritual churches. In a purely liturgical sense, we can say that the Anglican ordinariates are part of the Roman Rite and yet they can have 'rites' proper to them and exclusively so. For example, Article III of A.C. allows for 'Anglicatholic' liturgies which would not be used normatively in the rest of the Latin Church. In terms of law, we should say that the ordinariates will be part of the Latin Church and the Roman Rite and yet can have liturgical rites proper to them.
In regard to the episcopal conference, a certain Cardinal Ratzinger once made it crystal clear that episcopal conferences have no juridical authority over local bishops except when they are unanimous. Yes, dioceses are subject to their directives in the sense of having to receive them but not in the sense of having to implement them. The ordinariates will be just as independent from episcopal conferences as any diocese is, except where A.C. or the statutes stipulate otherwise (if at all).
I agree entirely with what you say in regard to the priests and the liturgy. Bishop Botterill does get it right when he mentions the B.C.P. *form* but then goes too far, I agree, when he says that the liturgy will be the same.
As I've explained before, however, the ordinariates will be in all but very minor respects, 'parallel dioceses' within the Latin Church. They will be part of the Roman Rite but can have liturgy, devotions, music, and a patrimony proper to them. In MOST respects, they will be as much of a 'Rite' as the Ukraininas are, esp. in regard to goverance (and despite the 'governing councils').
I am guessing that His Excellency was trying to simplify the matter to a diverse audience. Exaplaining, as Mr. Cavanagh has done, the implications of 'Anglicagtholics' being incorported into the dioceses by Baptism would go over their heads, as would explanations about the differing use of the term 'personal' in Roman ecclesiastical law.
By the way, you incomers should get used to the fact that Roman Canon Law can be absurd in regard to terminology. For example, in Article 4 of "Summorum Pontificum" (and given Canon 837.1), we now have the odd situation in which Masses once called 'private' are now 'sine populo' and yet they can and even should have congregations. I call them 'sine populo sed cum populo'!
P.K.T.P.
I agree with much of what you said Mr. Perkins and I'm sure that the Ukraicatholics, Lebancatholics, Byzancatholics would agree with you as well.
Bp. Botterill is a highly experienced lawyer, and no doubt knows how to break down legal-speak for non-specialists in a way that is nonetheless accurate.
Just a few points:
(1) Comparison with the Ukrainian Catholics: Meaning we wil join them with the other twenty three “rites” in full communion with one another. This is the truth, and not misleading. We are not claiming to be a "rite", but we are proclaiming joyfully our "unity" with other Catholics.
(2) Anglicans will continue to be governed by Anglicans: Meaning these new Ordinariates must be chosen from amongst the Anglican clergy, and will be made up of self-governing and autonomous dioceses within the universal Church. This is as per the Apostolic Constitution and not misleading.
(3) The Ordinariates will generally be subject to the directives of the national episcopal conferences: AC #5:2 The Personal Ordinariate … is SUBJECT TO the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the other Dicasteries of the Roman Curia in accordance with their competencies. Now who's misleading?
(4) Botterill says that "the agreement ratifies and approves the traditional Book of Common Prayer form of worship" and that "at the parish level, the priests, liturgy, music, and teaching will remain the same": He says no such thing! Ratifies and approves? Where does he say that? What he is saying is that as we enter the Ordinariates at the parish level, the priests, liturgy, music, and teaching will remain the same. This is a great pastoral gesture on the part of the Holy Father and the Catholic Church. The profession of faith necessary for traditional Anglicans to maintain membership in the Ordinariate is the Apostle’s Creed, as found in the Book of Common Prayer. This is far from validating the entire BCP now and forever. I ask again, who is misleading whom?
Perhaps it is you, Mr. McFerran, who should re-read the apostolic constitution, norms, and commentary and for goodness sake, re-read Bishop Botterill's letter of July 11th. Except this time, open your eyes.
1. The official Vatican commentary by Father Gianfranco Ghirlanda makes it clear that the ordinariates will be part of the Latin Church (i.e. what Anglicans call the Roman Catholic Church).
2. "Anglicans will continue to be governed by Anglicans". I thought that the Apostolic Constitution was all about Catholics being governed by Catholics. The future ordinariates will not be their own separate thing. They will be fully part of the Catholic Church and subject to its governing structure.
3. Norms Article 2:1 "The Ordinary follows the directives of the national Episcopal Conference insofar as this is consistent with the norms contained in the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus."
4. Botterill says that "the agreement ratifies and approves the traditional Book of Common Prayer form of worship" and that "at the parish level, the priests, liturgy, music, and teaching will remain the same". Warner says "He says no such thing! Ratifies and approves? Where does he say that?" In paragraph 8 (beginning "In November 2009 …") of the letter presumably read to parishes last Sunday.
I await Charles Warner's apology for suggesting that anything I said was misleading. It is quite ridiculous for him to say that I should re-read Botterill letter, when he denies what is there in black-and-white.
It is absolutely true, Mr. McFerran, that the Ordinariates will be part of the Latin Church. We are not going to be a Particular Ritual Church, as you implied.
Catholics of the Anglican Ordinariate will indeed be governed by Catholics (of the Anglican Ordinariate), that is Catholics governed by Catholics! "Anglicans will continue to be governed by Anglicans" is Bishop Botterill's words taken out of context. It is certainly misleading to do that. Is it not?
I believe that the Ordinary would be acting contrary to the spirit of fellowship with his fellow bishops if he did not follow the directives of the National Episcopal Conference. I would suspect that all the bishops must follow the directives of the National Episcopal Conference. Why should the Anglican Ordinary be any different?
However, AUTHORITY comes from the CDF and the Ordinariate is ultimately subject to them. All directives by the National Episcopal Conference must be consistent with the norms contained in the Apostolic Constitution. Even your statement above can not deny this. It is misleading to state Norms Article 2:1 without stating AC 5:2
I want to apologise to Bishop Botterill for missing AC 5:3 which states clearly the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical proper to Anglican tradition. This is perfectly in line with the term "ratify and authorise." In defence of the entire letter, I had forgotten AC 5:3. On that point, Mr. McFerran , I must concede.
However, the general tone of your post, from beginning to end, was to show that this letter was somehow misleading, which it is clearly not. Based on my analysis of your comments, Mr. McFerran, I have nothing to apologise for.
Thank you for the spirited debate Mr. McFerran. I think we've exhausted the subject. I'm sure we'll meet somewhere else. BTW, thanks for directing everyone to my web-site. I've had an incredible amout of hits.
Dear Mr. McFerran:
On your second point, I am sure that Fr. Warner meant that members of the ordinariates will be governed by clerical members of the same ordinariates. It is true that the governing councils mentioned in A.C. can include non-ordinariate Catholic clergy. However, everything in A.C. suggests that, normally, the personal ordinaries and majorties in the governing councils will be ordinariate clerics. In fact, normally, the ordinary himself chooses half the members of his governing council.
There may be a few cases of very small ordinariates (e.g. Japan, I don't know), in which the majority on the governing councils have to be non-ordinariate priests in order to make up the number of six. But this would be a temporary situation meant only to assist the people there. Remember, the idea of including governing councils in the first place was a gesture to the Anglican patrimony in regard to traditions of governance.
The point being made by Bishop Botterill, I think, is that the pastor and his sheep should share a common charism in the love of Christ. This is what the ordinarate structure affords. It is a loving gesture of the supreme and universal pastor, Benedict XVI.
P.K.T.P.
Thank you Mr. Perkins. With regard to point two, that's exactly what I meant, except you said it much better. Well said!
Any idea of when the Canadian Ordinariate will be erected, and when the happy day of reunion will dawn?
The Canadian feast day of the Martyrs of North America, Jesuit missionaries to the Indians, would be an auspicious day… I believe it falls on the 26th of September.
Joshua:
I apologise to priests of the TAC for asking about this yet again but I confess that I have trouble keeping straight the order of operations here. According to A.C., there are all sorts of qualifications which must be met, such as educational norms mentioned in the Code. I presume that many or all of these will be dispensed from when the ordinariates are created. I can't see how any other course could be orderly. I've heard that the first ordinariates might be erected in December, before Christmas, but this is all rumour. Some say that the one for Puerto Rico will come before the others and much sooner.
Does anyone here know how many TAC priests there are in Puerto Rico, by the way?
P.K.T.P.
Joshua's question about the erection of the Canadian Ordinariate and the statement by Fr. Warner ask for some clarification.
Fr. Warner wrote:
"Anglicans will continue to be governed by Anglicans: Meaning these new Ordinariates [I think you meant to say "Ordinaries"] must be chosen from amongst the Anglican clergy, and will be made up of self-governing and autonomous dioceses within the universal Church."
I agree with much of Father's interpretation, but as I have written previously on this and other blogs re. the "chicken and egg" question: What is to come first, appointment of Ordinaries (bishops or priests as per AC) or the reception of Anglicans (and others) into the Ordinariate.
AC does not say that ordinaries for AOs 'must' be chosen from amongst Anglicans. In fact the Holy Father may appoint and bishop or priest as an Ordinary. Since there few former Anglican bishops or priests to choose from and, so far as I know Archbishop Collins (our liason) has not submitted a terna of names, it may well be that the first Canadian Ordinary will be (and may have to be) a Latin rite priest or bishop. He might be an Anglican who has entered into full communion some time ago or a straight up Latin rite cleric.
Certainly in the future, the Holy Father will consider seriously candidates who have been Anglican clergy. However, he will always consider what is best for the universal Church first. This is not to say that an Roman Rite ordinary (and I mean here someone who is not from the Anglican patrimony) would not do all that he could to enhance and support the aspects of Anglican ritual, music, etc., it is simply to say that the constitution is not restricted in terms of who may be appointed.
My hope, as a Toronto Anglican and not part of the ACCC is that a sympathetic Ordinary will be appointed soon, likely next year, when the process of setting up an Ordinariate parish is underway here. This would parallel the reception of ACCC members, all of whom would be received as lay members initially. From amongst those are currently ACC or ACCC clergy, individuals would be then chosen for a period of seminar work with a view to ordination as deacons and then as priests. From amongst these, and down the road, one may be chosen as the second or third Ordinary.
None of this is to say that the great generosity of the Holy Father and the kindness of Abp Collins and the CCCB will not move more quickly. Prudentially, though, this seems to be the likely trajectory.
So to answer the question when there will be Canadian Anglican Catholic Ordinariate parishes, I should think some time next year. However, the Holy Spirit will, no doubt continue to surprise us. The main thing is not to expect things which are, in the end, gifts of grace.
I await with joy the beatification of J.H. Newman and expect more miracles through his intercession.
John Henry Cardinal Newman, ora pro nobis.
Peregrinus makes valid points, I think. However, I hope I'm not being too presumptuous in suggesting that His Holiness might consider Bsp. Peter D. Wilkinson for Canada. Of course, we here do not have and should not have any candidate's dossier before us, but from what I have seen, it would be marvellous to have him as the chief servant for the ordinariate.
In the case of Australia, it is all very much up in the air, I suppose (although we must remember that personal ordinaries need not be consecrated as bishops). I'm praying that as many TAC priests as possible will become priests in the ordinariates.
P.K.T.P.
CORRECTED TEXT
Joshua's question about the erection of the Canadian Ordinariate and the statement by Fr. Warner ask for some clarification.
Fr. Warner wrote:
"Anglicans will continue to be governed by Anglicans: Meaning these new Ordinariates [I think you meant to say "Ordinaries"] must be chosen from amongst the Anglican clergy, and will be made up of self-governing and autonomous dioceses within the universal Church."
I agree with much of Father's interpretation, but as I have written previously on this and other blogs re. the "chicken and egg" question: What is to come first, appointment of Ordinaries (bishops or priests as per AC) or the reception of Anglicans (and others) into the Ordinariate.
AC does not say that ordinaries for AOs 'must' be chosen from amongst Anglicans. In fact, the Holy Father may appoint any bishop or a priest who is in communion with Rome as an Anglican Ordinary. There are, currently, a few former Anglican priests in Canada who meet this criterion.
No current ACC or ACCC clergy would qualify at present. So far as I know Archbishop Collins (our liaison) has not submitted a terna of names. So it will be some time before a man is appointed and it may well be that the first Canadian Ordinary will be (and may have to be) a Latin rite priest or bishop who has never been an Anglican though he might be an Anglican who entered into full communion with Rome some time ago.
Certainly in the future, the Holy Father will consider seriously candidates who have been Anglican clergy and ultimately those who have been trained and ordained within the Ordinariate (this will be quite far down the road). However, the Holy Father will always consider what is best for the universal Church first.
This is not to say that a Roman Rite ordinary (and I mean here someone who is not from the Anglican patrimony) would not do all that he could to enhance and support aspects of Anglican ritual, music, etc. It is simply to say that the constitution (AO) is not restricted in terms of who may be appointed.
My hope, as a Toronto Anglican and not part of the ACCC, is that a sympathetic Ordinary will be appointed soon, perhaps next year, when the process of setting up an Ordinariate parish is underway here with the kind co-operation of the Archdiocese. This would parallel the reception of Anglicans, other non-RC Christians and former Anglican RCs into the Ordinariate, all of whom would be received as lay members initially.
From amongst those who are currently ACC or ACCC clergy, individuals would then be chosen for a period of seminar work with a view to ordination as deacons and, in due course, as priests. From amongst these priests, and again further down the road, one may be chosen as the second or third Canadian Anglican Ordinary or as a suffragan or co-adjutor.
None of this is to say that the great generosity of the Holy Father and the kindness of Abp. Collins and the CCCB will not move more quickly. Prudentially, though, this seems to be the likely trajectory.
So, to answer the questions as to when there will be a Canadian Anglican Catholic Ordinary and when the first ordinariate missions and parishes will be erected, I would hope some time next year. The questions remain, how long will it take for clergy to be ordained and who will serve these parishes and missions in the meantime? The Holy Spirit will, no doubt, continue to surprise us. The main thing is not to expect things, which are, in the end, gifts of grace and to continue to be prayerful and thankful.
I await with joy the beatification of J.H. Newman and expect more miracles through his intercession.
John Henry Cardinal Newman, ora pro nobis.
Thanks you for correcting me Peregrinus. Yes, I meant "Ordinaries".
I find your observations interesting. Of course, I agree with you regarding the "chicken and egg" question. The Ordinary will come first, followed by the clergy, and then the laity. I couldn't guess who the first Ordinary in Canada will be, but like you, I trust the Holy Father will make the best choice for the benefit of the universal Church. I'm not really sure how the process will exactly play out, but I wll take your council to accept it all as a gift of grace.
There seems to be a lot of misinformation and speculating in some of the comments.
Please be aware there is a whole lotta speculating going on.
My informed opinion is that Bishop Botterill is more authoritative than others in this thread.
He is after all the ACCC Chancellor, familiar with canon law and Latin (I received a blessing this morning in Latin!) and it is his job to be up to speed with all the details of the AC and the necessary legal steps for the formation of an Ordinariate.
Deborah