It is a truth universally to be acknowledged, that Anglicans, within and without the boundaries of communion with Canterbury, are used to – and to some extent have been formed by – a combative relationship with bishops and hierarchies under which they minister.
In latter years, the clergy and people of TAC and the continuum have probably to large extent moved beyond it, and the people and clergy of the CofE under the pastoral care of the 'Flying Bishops' have been able to move beyond it to the extent that they have been left alone by diocesan structures &c.
Nevertheless, we are historically used to the vicar being a pope in his own parish, fighting the corner of 'his' parish, biting his thumb at the diocesan. A certain consequent quasi-congregationalism is possibly one of the less good bits of Anglican patrimony – but something we need to own up to and not – as Fr Trevor Jones alluded to as he came to the recent end of the Peterite blog – take forward into our future context.
I see some degree of an instinctively aggressive–defensive reaction to hierarchy not saying quite what is hoped in the reporting and reaction to the recent apparent disagreement between the Bishop of Richborough and the Catholic Bishop of Nottingham as to whether the Ordinriates will be able to carry on ordaining married men, or whether it will be a dispensation limited to formerly Anglican clergy entering the Ordinariate, and married men already in training for ordination as Anglicans.
Whether what Bishop Keith is reported to have said is finally shown to be correct – that the Ordinariates will be able to continue ordaining married men – or whether it is not, is not for me, just now, the immediate question. We can be sure that it will be resolved, and that once resolved it should be respected by all parties.
What concerns me more is that former Anglicans who join the Ordinariates – or any other part of the Catholic Church – don't subconciously replicate in them the same combative attitude to hierarchy beyond their immediate context that, often of necessity, they may have now or may have had in the relatively recent past as Anglicans.
Whatever the imperfections of the human factor in the institutions of the Catholic Church – and I wouldn't want to give the impression that I don't think they exist, I am sure that there must be greater trust in the action of the Holy Spirit in the context of the Catholic Church than there has been in the context of the Anglican Communion, where management theory and majority vote have come to reign supreme.
Which may mean, I guess, that while the Ordinariates may not work out in every detail exactly as each and every member of them would have them be, how they come to be will need to be trustfully accepted, free of the former fear of the consequences of political defeat in the context of distrusting Anglicanism's liberal democracy.
No related posts.
Fr Giles, it may be that when Anglicans enter, they do bring with them preconceived "wiring." I suppose most Protestants do (I did). Those sensibilities can be resistant to change (mine were). But the Church, in Her infinite patience, allows all of us to reside, even with whatever our flaws may be. Over time (in my case, decades), She forms and shapes us. Some of that can be painful, as our minds and hearts are re-engineered. A well-formed, well-catechized, Catholic mind and heart are different. As Sebastian Flyte said, "…they've got an entirely different outlook on
life; everything they think important is different from other people."
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to remember seeing articles about married Anglican Priests "converting" to Rome, and being accepted into Ordained Ministry in Roman Catholic Churches. Thus, I perceive that a precedent has been set in which, at the very least, already married Anglican Priests may continue on being Priests. The question of can an already married man become a Priest in what will be the new Anglican Ordinariate?
The answer to this question, must in my mind, be soundly based in Holy Scripture, and not initiated by any secular or temporal motives. Being a Layman within the Church, I do not claim to have any great and indepth knowledge of this specific issue. I have done some casual research and found that there does exist Biblically based reasoning on both sides of the issue. 1 Timothy 3:12 seems to say that Deacons/Priest may be married while Matthew 19:11-12 seems to say that Preists have renounced marriage for the Kingdom of Heaven. Of course there is considerably more to this issue than just these two Passages.
Being a long time Anglican, I feel myself on the side of allowing Priests to be married. But this is after all a matter of Doctrine, and so I shall defer the decision to our Bishops. I will say this though. Whatever the final decision will be, I will be looking for it to be fully supported by Holy Scripture, and not be influenced by the devises and desires of our own hearts.
Dear AMPisAnglican.
The particular interpretation of Anglicanorum coetibus on this matter is precisely what I wanted to leave out of this discussion. However, there are a couple of general points I can make with regard to your comment.
Anglican priests (married or single) cannot 'continue on being Priests' once they have been received into the Catholic Church. This is because the Catholic Church teaches that Anglican Orders are not valid – ie Anglicanism does not have Bishops, Priests or Deacons who can be acknowledged as such by the Catholic Church.
However, it is not unknown that after a period of discernment and formation, former Anglican priests are ordained as Catholic Priests. Their ministry as Catholic Priests is not a continuation of their Anglican ministry in a sacramental sense, but may well benefit from its pastoral, theological and liturgical experience.
It is possible for a married former Anglican clergyman to be ordained as a Catholic Priest, but this is only by individual dispensation obtained from the Vatican. This is possible because, contrary to what you wrote, priestly celibacy in the Catholic Church – unlike the invalidity of Anglican Orders – is not a matter of doctrine but of discipline. It would not be possible for such a dispensation to be obtained if priestly celibacy were a matter of doctrine.
And as a final note, the Catholic Church recognises married Orthodox Priests as being in valid orders; that they are married does not affect that they are Priests and because they are not under the discipline of the Latin Rite, they do not need to be dispensed from celibacy in order to be both married and ordained.
I hope that helps.
Thanks Fr Giles,
Your reply does help me further my understanding of things. But I do have one quick question that perhaps you can answer. If I, as a married man, were to apply to the Anglican Catholich Church of Canada (after it joins the Ordinariate) to become a Deacon or Priest, have such application accepted or rejected? (Assuming of course that I fulfill all other requirements). As I understand your reply, my application could be accepted if I were granted an individual dispensation.
The ACCC will cease to exist when its members enter into the Ordinariate. Only the norms of Anglican Coetibus and the decsions of the Ordinary in consultation with the CCCB will apply.
As I understand it, a married individual will have to apply for dispensation to be ordained as a married person in the Ordinariate. However, no priest in communion with Rome is currently allowed to marry after ordination. Nor can a widowed priest remarry.
Well, no, sir. With due respect, I think you are aware that the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada has, collectively, applied to be received into full communion, and to form an ordinariate within the Catholic Church. The Apostolic Constitution speaks of groups of Anglicans – i.e., the corporate reunion of existing ecclesial bodies – not the formation of something entirely out of the blue.
Furthermore, the Apostolic Constitution speaks of "Particular Norms" created by each ordinariate in consultation with the Holy See. It is entirely possible that such norms could be adapted from, for example, the existing constitution and canon law of the ACCC.
What you are proposing may certainly be possible, Michael. Whether it is prudent is another question. Your proposal raises a number of important questions.
Presumably there will be a single ordinary (bishop or priest) for Canada. Would it be prudent to receive one group (ACCC) which is made of of several hundred people in a few parishes around the country with norms different from a number of other groups made up of Anglicans and other affiliating Christians in cities where there is no ACCC presence (Toronto for example) and to have separate norms for these groups? Does this really further the purpose of gathering groups into the single communion of the one body of Christ, the Catholica.
I suggest to you that though there are many possibilities under AC and that the constitution is designed to be flexible, the notion of having varying and possibly competing groups of Anglicans within the various ordinariates is not the intention or the spirit of AC.
Further, I do not see the CDF or the CCCB wanting to have to deal with a variety of groups with different norms.
Surely it should be our intention to bring the patrimony into full communion with a minimum of Anglican political baggage which has only contributed to problems in the Continuum and which has kept who Anglican Catholics still in the Anglican Communion from joining their fellow Catholic Anglicans to this point.
I mean no disrespect to the TAC but remind us all of the words of blessed Michael A. Ramsey who said, in effect, the fulfillment of the Anglican Church is to cease to exist within the wider communion of the Catholic Church. We need all to keep this in our minds no matter what segment of the much-fragmented Anglican world we come from.
Anglicanorum Coetibus, many of us believe, has been offered in the spirit of unity which entails leaving behind anything that hinders Catholic unity and that will mean sacrifices for us all. I am convinced that Archbishop Collins, the CCCB and the CDF will be very clear on this point.
Thank you, Father. I believe you are correct on all pertinent points regarding ordination.
I would simply add that as a matter of generosity and
recognition of the value of ministry in the Anglican Church, those Anglican clergy who are ordained for the Ordinariate are to be incardinated in the Ordinariate with the date of their original Anglican ordination. So, for example, a priest of 30 years will be recorded for history as a priest ordained in 1980.
This dispensation allows those who are coming into the full communion of the Church to value and celebrate their many past years of fruitful ministry performed while affirming the Catholic faith and with the intention to foster unity in the one Church of Christ.
Their ministry as Catholic Priests is not a continuation of their Anglican ministry in a sacramental sense…
Well, we shall have our private thoughts about that.
The question of married priesthood is, of course, not a matter of doctrine but of discipline – nevertheless, there are good reasons why in the Latin church the priesthood is regularly reserved to celibate men.
There have been precedences of ordaining former Anglican clergy, even when married (Fr. Phillips probably can exhort about that). I have no doubt that, no other hindrance withstanding (e.g. irregular marital status), those Anglican priests becoming members of the Ordinariate will be accepted into the Catholic clergy. I suppose the same will be true concerning those who in the course of their theological studies are converted before being ordained an Anglican clergy. But I can't see married clergy becoming the norm in an Anglican Ordinariate, and those who tell you so should reread Anglicanorum Coetibus and ask someone in Rome about that.
I also hope that this question will not be the decisive point for any Anglicans contemplating the Ordinariate. As I said, it is a question of discipline, not doctrine.
For many it will be an incredibly important point, however. Some Anglicans are used to the ministry of a married priest, and feel that the ability to have a family at the heart of a parish is a significant part of our ethos. Eastern Orthodox, of course, usually *insist* that parochial clergy be married men; celibate clergy are generally attached to monastic communities. The Anglican practice is, in some ways, a hybrid of East and West in this regard. The text of the Apostolic Constitution does not in any way preclude the continuation of this, since – after all – Rome does have various regulations covering the ordination of married candidates in the Eastern Rites (more so outside of their traditional territory, and especially so in the United States).
Of course, if I'm wrong, and any of us have a real problem with this, we might simply become Byzantine… the liturgy is beautiful, and I love perogies.
Surely a married clergy is part of the Anglican patrimony. I believe that the generosity of Anglicanorum Coetibus intends for the married state to continue to be a option or exception though naturally the discipline of celibacy will be honoured as the norm in the Western Church and enforced for all bishops.
Anglicanorum coetibus is crystal clear on the ordination of former Anglican clergy, and on the subject of the ordination of married men:
VI. § 1. Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfill the requisites established by canon law and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 42 and in the Statement In June are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1.
§ 2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.
As regards the ordination of married men, then, there is a rule of celibacy, and an equal right to petition for exceptions to this rule. Such exceptions are the prerogative of the Pope, but there is no indication that he will be reluctant to grant them for good reason.
But that's the point, isn't it? As I see it, the following set of rules are established:
1. Catholic clergy of the Roman rite are celibate.
2. Former Anglican MINISTERS may be ordained to the priesthood.
3. As an exception to rule nr. 1, even married former Anglican laypeople may be accepted for ordination, on a CASE BY CASE basis, according to OBJECTIVE CRITERIA.
What these criteria are, we do not know yet. I could imagine those that convert during their theological education, but I certainly hope it is not "he applied".
Victor, you seem to have strayed from Damian Thompson's blog. "Victor" is perhaps not quite strong enough. How about "Triumphalist"?
Victor is my name; if you want to read some special meaning into it, I suppose you have a talk with my parents who gave it to me. I know Damians blog, and being compared to his commenters I take as an insult. How I have earned that, I am not exactly sure. Is it because I refer to Anglican ministers instead of priests? Is it because I spoke of converts? In this case I am sorry, but I am not used to sugercoat everything. Read Anglicanorum Coetibus again, and if you want to argue about technical terms, argue with the Holy Father.
But perhaps instead of ad hominems, you could answer to my post. To make it easier for you, I repeat its essence here: I do not doubt there will be ordained married clergy in the future ordinariates, but I hope the desire of a married layman to become a priest (or, his application) will not be the only criteria.
I stick to my opinion of your tone of voice, but to answer you, I share the hope you express in your last sentence, but can't imagine a mere desire or application for ordination would ever be considered enough – and that goes for everybody – Anglican (whether "ordained" or not), Roman, married or unmarried.
What a fine, thought-provoking first contribution you have made Fr. Giles!
I think that the "instinctively aggressive–defensive" Anglo-Catholic characteristic you suggest is perfectly understandable given the hostile environment in which the movement has had to survive over the past forty years, arguably stretching back to the 7th Lambeth Conference and again to the birth of the Oxford movement itself. It takes that warrior instinct to attempt to make protestant foundations catholic in spirit.
But as you ask, should those instincts -which do engender traits of distrust and perhaps self-determination- be now left at the door upon entering the Ordinariate?
Yes and No! The Ordinariate truly needs its warriors in order to grow, evangelise and be the success that Pope Benedict prays for. However, like all things, it needs precise boundaries and norms, otherwise uncertainty and therefore suspicion will arise – and rightly so! In that sense, Bp. Newton's questioning of Bp. McMahon is perfectly acceptable (but it's important these events aren't blown out of proportion either).
Let's not forget that the Ordinariate is still in embryonic form – it's miniscule, but like all babies, has its roadmap already planned out! Once everyone knows where they stand on matters of faith and discipline – and that certainty, really, in my opinion, is what marks the catholic church out from the rest – then I think the need for ex-ante suspicion and self-determination will seep away.
But until then let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater! Suspicion and Enthusiasm could be viewed as two sides of the one coin. Anglo-catholics want the Ordinariate to be the best it can be and keeping a watchful eye could be a vital part of ensuring its success.
This very good piece and the reactions to it point up something that has worried me for quite a while. Father has written an excellent piece on the call to and cost of obedience, but the discussion has quickly turned to clerical celibacy.
We don't have a final interpretation on dispensations from celibacy yet, until we do, I think it would be very fruitful to think about what Father has said here.
Any monk will tell you that obedience is the hardest vow for most religious. The older orders don't even vow chastity and poverty, which were simply assumed, but the three vows we do make can all be seen as facets of obedience and the subjugation of the individual will. We vow obedience to our superiors, as the newer orders still do. We vow conversion of life, which can be seen as the continual breaking of self will until the will of God is supreme. Finally we vow stability, which means that, when the other two are driving us insane and our pride is wounded, we promise not to run away from our ongoing purgation.
My experience as an Anglo-Catholic was that we Anglicans are used to voluntary cooperation based on shared goals and beliefs and we know we are free to take our toys and go home when there is a disagreement. When the Ordinariate is erected, there will be an ordinary who is the focus of unity and of pastoral authority. He may have previously been an Anglican bishop, but his authority and the obedience owed to him will be of the type which the Orthodox and Roman Catholics have maintained (at least in principle), but which we who are and were Anglicans often honored only in the breach. It's an ecclesiology that many of us have agreed to in principle, usually saying we would be most obedient if only we had the right sort of hierarchy, but to sign on to the Apostolic Constitution is to say that we really do wish to practice this new ecclesiology and the understanding of obedience, surrender of the will, and docility before authority that it entails.
It won't be easy, even for those who deeply desire it. My prior frequently tells people that he will get to heaven because of me, by which he means that bearing the brunt of my hard-headedness is burning off all of his time in purgatory.
Brother Stephen wrote:
"He may have previously been an Anglican bishop, but his authority and the obedience owed to him will be of the type which the Orthodox and Roman Catholics have maintained (at least in principle), but which we who are and were Anglicans often honored only in the breach. It's an ecclesiology that many of us have agreed to in principle, usually saying we would be most obedient if only we had the right sort of hierarchy, but to sign on to the Apostolic Constitution is to say that we really do wish to practice this new ecclesiology and the understanding of obedience, surrender of the will, and docility before authority that it entails. "
I think we need to meditate very carefully on what this means and I believe it would be most beneficial for us to start practicing this discipline now with the bishops that we do have. Unless your bishop is clearly asking you to do something that is out of step with the Church's teaching, then it's time to stop fighting with him over disagreements on tactics or personality flaws or their perhaps taking a pastoral approach when you might boot someone in the hindparts.
Try it. You'll like it. You will feel calm, spiritually covered, protected and peaceful. And pray for your bishops.
Deborah
Yes, pray for your bishops, pray for your priests, but most of all, prayer for each other. But never lose faith in your journey for God is great, kind and merciful.
Among the bishops of the C of E and the RC Church in England there is a high proportion of bullies and numbskulls. Anglican incumbents are fortunate to retain some of their mediaeval liberties; with the balance and protection afforded by the freehold they can stand up to bullying (by bishops or powerful parishioners) and defend themselves and their parishes. When the clergy are deprived of their independence – as is steadily happening in the C of E now, they are bound to become more docile and complaisant; that is not necessarily a good thing.
The new ecclesiology that Deborah enjoins upon us has always been available where the right kind of partnership between bishops and clergy has existed, and in recent years particularly we have seen it exemplified by our flying bishops, who have little power but great influence, and can expect ready but not uncritical obedience. It is a commonplace that since the coming of the flying bishops we have known what bishops ought to be like. One of the saddest results of the latest struggle over woman bishops is that no provision has been offered to continue this system in some form with its enormous pastoral benefits. Let us hope that the ordinariates will provide it. Power corrupts.
'The Ordinariates may not work out in every detail exactly as each and every member of them would have them be'.
This is the point: no one knows how something as new as this will evolve and be guided by God. My own view is that whether the question about whether or not the provision in AC for ordaining married men (not previously ordained) will be 'once in a blue moon' or 'eventually quite common', it is a premature question. The Bishop of Nottingham was right to be cautious and the Bishop of Richborough was entitled to remind everyone of what the Constitution says.
As for the question of whether, and in what circumstances, Anglican bishops, priests, and deacons have Catholic orders, I think there are quite a few points to make: (1) Rome does not say that they indubitably do [hence the reaffirmation a few years ago of Apostolicae Curae]; (2) few if any Anglican clergy now alive, whatever their ministry are, have been ordained in circumstances in which the 'null and void' of Apostolicae Curae applies – different line, different ordinal; (3) insofar as priestly ordination is authority to 'stand in' for the bishop at the altar, no Anglican clergy are authorised to 'stand in' for any Roman Catholic bishop anywhere in the world; (4) Anglicans are in some doubt about their own orders: [i] are women clergy in orders [ii] are male clergy ordained or consecrated by colleges of bishops invalidly constituted [e.g. including women clergy] ordained [iii] are those non-episcopally ordained [e.g. British Methodists] truly in presbyteral orders [iv] are clergy ordained before some watershed moment [e.g. 1994 in England] more authentically ordained. In short,as one of your trusty correspondents well known to me says, we must have private thoughts about these matters but not be surprised if the Catholic Church says, as it does, we are going to be discreet and generous about your ministry so far but we are going to ordain you absolutely to Catholic order, in full communion with the Holy See.
Finally, if anyone were to have problems about the indignity of all this, what about the Baptism of the Lord? The Sinless One submits to the Baptism of Repentance and says to John's anxious enquiry: 'Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness.'
To conclude, this is not urging anyone to join an Ordinariate, or become a Roman Catholic, but it is to say quite firmly that having to be confirmed or ordained as a step along the way ought not to be viewed as the obstacle it is sometimes thought to be.
+Andrew
Thank you for you judicious reply, Bishop. You clarify a number of issues re. the ecclesiological and human factors in absolute ordination of Anglican clergy. Your reference to our Lord's baptism I find very powerful.
I would be interested to have your thoughts on the related ecclesiological issue of the continuation of the continuum i.e. groups with distinct norms (TAC) from those of others co-existing in a single ordinariate (as raised earilier on this thread).
what about the Baptism of the Lord?
And the reconsecration of St Chad.
Thanks for the tip it is an interesting story.
Humility is really a beautiful thing. It is one thing we can all learn from the Saints.
I personally find it of great significance that Rome, whilst under Anglicanorum Coetibus insisting on absolute confirmation, and, where appropriate, ordination for those "coming home" does not insist that those making the journey cease and desist from recourse to the Mass and other sacraments (and sacramentals) whilst on the journey. It would appear that the Vatican authorities are content to leave it to almighty God to decide what is happening in those celebrations: if I remember correctly, Vatican II described them as "vehicles of grace" or some such phrase.
And, pace Apostolicæ Curæ such attitude is not new, and predates Vatican II: not only, as is well known, were the whole community(save two) and chaplain of the All Saints' Sisters of the Poor in Maryland received "overnight" last year, several groups and their parish priests from the Diocese of London to the Archdiocese of Westminster in the wake of the C.of E.'s decision to "ordain " women priests in 1992, and Fr. Christopher Phillips and others under the Pastoral Provision earlier in the U.S.A., but there is the remarkable precedent of Caldey, where on 3 March 1913 the entire community (save eleven) were received, and by rescript from Rome, recognised as a canonically established Bendictine house with a novitiate. A month earlier all but two of the Benedictine nuns under Abbess Scholastica had taken the same step of corporate submission. Even earlier (1909) was the corporate submission of the Friars of the Atonement at Graymore in New York. All within twenty years of Apostolicæ Curæ.
There is, indeed, nothing new under the sun . . . !
And of course, in November 1554 Cardinal Pole had received the submission of the English nation in the form of Parliament and pronounced (though not yet a priest!) the nation's absolution from schism . . .shades of Robert Hugh Benson's The Dawn of All . . .
Regards
John U.K.
Not meaning to further divert the thread from its original intent, but…
I am wondering about the following, and perhaps this could be addressed in a new thread:
1) I was Baptized in the Lutherin Church in 1963.
2) I was Confirmed in the Anglican Church of Canada in 1976.
3) My wife and I were Married in the Anglican Church of Canada in 1992.
4) All three of our children were Batized in the Anglican Church of Canada (by the same Priest who married us).
Note: All of these Sacraments were administered by men.
The question I have is simply this. Are these going to be seen as valid within the new Ordinariate?
Dear AMPisAnglican
1) Baptized in the Lutheran Church in 1963 – will be regarded as valid by the Catholic Church and therefore in the Ordinariate, as long as it was (which I believe we can assume for Lutherans) in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit and water passed over your head. Baptism that meets this test is considered valid by all mainstream church communities, with certain very particular exceptions. The sex of the minister – and indeed whether he was an ordained minister of any church – is not relevant. Midwives certainly used to be taught to baptize in the days when peri-natal death was far more common and politically correct objections to nurses expressing religious belief were far less common!
2) Confirmed in the Anglican Church of Canada in 1976 – will not be regarded as valid in the Catholic Church nor therefore in the Ordinariate, because only a Bishop (or a Priest with the appropriate Faculty – ie, legal permission) can administer Confirmation. Anglicans do not in the teaching of the Catholic Church have Bishops or Priests (see my previous comment, above), so Anglican Confirmation is not valid. Reception of adults into the Catholic Church almost always in I believe takes place in conjunction with Chrismation, in other words Confirmation in the Catholic Church.
3) My wife and I were Married in the Anglican Church of Canada in 1992 – will be regarded as valid by the Catholic Church and therefore in the Ordinariate – assuming there is no other legal or canonical impediment such as a divorced partner still living, the Sacrament of Matrimony is administered together by a baptized man and a baptized woman who intend to enter a lifelong, exclusive and fruitful (ie, open to the gift of children) marriage. They are the ministers of the sacrament, not the Priest or Deacon (or Bishop) who presides and whose role is essentially to make sure that the right Form (words) is adhered to. The marriage is valid by virtue of the validity of the couple's Baptisms, not the validity or otherwise of the Orders of the presiding minister (or indeed their sex).
4) All three of our children were Batized in the Anglican Church of Canada – see 1).
I hope this helps. I think perhaps the Moderator needs to recruit a Catholic Canonist (if he hasn't already?) and start an independent thread on such topics, which are clearly going to be very close to the hearts of Anglicans thinking at the present time of entering the full Communion of the Catholic Church whether under the provisions of Anglicanorum coetibus or otherwise.
Good reply Father and a good suggestion regarding recruiting a Canonist.
Also part of the Anglican patrimony:
" And further, as to the Episcopal system, I founded it upon the Epistles of St. Ignatius, which inculcated it in various ways. One passage especially impressed itself upon me: speaking of cases of disobedience to ecclesiastical {152} authority, he says, "A man does not deceive that Bishop whom he sees, but he practises rather upon [Note 22] the Bishop Invisible, and so the question is not with flesh, but with God, who knows the secret heart." I wished to act on this principle to the letter, and I may say with confidence that I never consciously transgressed it. I loved to act in the sight of my Bishop [Note 23], as if [I was, as] it were[, in] the sight of God. It was one of my special safeguards against myself [and of my supports]; I could not go very wrong while I had reason to believe that I was in no respect displeasing him. It was not a mere formal obedience to rule that I put before me, but I desired to please him personally, as I considered him set over me by the Divine Hand. I was strict in observing my clerical engagements, not only because they were engagements, but because I considered myself simply as the servant and instrument of my Bishop. I did not care much for the Bench of Bishops, except as they might be the voice of my Church: nor should I have cared much for a Provincial Council; nor for a Diocesan Synod presided over by my Bishop; all these matters seemed to me to be jure ecclesiastico, but what to me was jure divino was the voice of my Bishop in his own person. My own Bishop was my Pope; I knew no other; the successor of the Apostles, the Vicar of Christ. This was but a practical exhibition of the Anglican theory of Church Government, as I had already drawn it out myself. This continued all through my course; when at length in 1845 I wrote to Bishop Wiseman, in whose Vicariate I found myself, to announce my conversion, I could find nothing better to say to him, than that I would obey the Pope as I had obeyed my own Bishop in the Anglican Church. My duty to him was my point of honour; his disapprobation was the one thing which I could not bear. I believe it to have been a generous and honest feeling; and in consequence I was rewarded by having all my time for ecclesiastical superior a man, whom had I had a choice, I should have preferred, out and out, to any other Bishop on the Bench, and for whose memory I have a special affection, Dr. Bagot—a man of {153} noble mind, and as kind-hearted and as considerate as he was noble."
Blessed John Henry Newman, pray for us
Peregrinus has asked for my comment on his point – 'I would be interested to have your thoughts on the related ecclesiological issue of the continuation of the continuum i.e. groups with distinct norms (TAC) from those of others co-existing in a single ordinariate (as raised earilier on this thread)' . I shall do my best.
My reading of AC is that there may be one or more Ordinariate in each English-speaking Catholic hierarchy, depending on size and scale and, I imagine, geographical realities. I don't see two Ordinariates within one the territory of one hierarchy having different characteristics and norms, liturgies or customs. In fact I think there will be a vital similarity between all of the Ordinariates, when there are several. N America might be more prone liturgically to use the Anglican Use than, say, England and Wales, but all of that is within the framework and not yet known. I know next to nothing about the TAC and its affiliates but I think those who join the Ordinariate will be joining something new and not reaffiliating an existing culture. I think in the Ordinariate people's previous culture and affiliation, beyond the broad culture of Anglicanism and Anglican patrimony, will be co-incidental and not highly relevant. I hasten to say that I base all this not on what I have been told, because I haven't had chance to have those conversations at the right level, but on my reading of the AC and norms and my listening to the general discussion. But in the Ordinariate TAC folk will be ex-TAC and Forward in Faith folk will be ex-Forward in Faith, just as Episcopalian folk will be ex-Episcopalian and Church of England folk will be ex-Church of England. Nor, I think, will much of the structure and infrastructure, beyond the 'coetus' (parish or mission), survive the transition. But that's because it's radical – back to the vine – and not 'continuing' – just branching off. If it is a radical pruning, then we can expect vital growth and a much healthier version of what is continuing to flower, which again makes us think of that elusive but important thing, Anglican patrimony.
+ Andrew
I care not much for the legal and superior sounding parsing herein. I am continually reminded of the Roman Catholic Franciscan Priest who raped my first wife. I am reminded of the Roman Catholic Jesuit Priest who had an year-long affair with her. I am reminded of THEIR child who bears my name (it's been annulled). I am reminded of the Roman Catholic Seminarian who ran off with my first wife. I believe that I am being quite tolerant and understanding by considering communion with those people. Do you have to ask why ended up as an Anglican Priest? Now you sit in in front of a computer keyboard and tell me how I am not really as prepared or formed as the clergy in communion with Rome, and that a holier-than-I entity will have to consider my appropriateness for ordination, as if I am not already ordained, as if I smell like 3-day-old carp. I prefer the language used by Archbishop Hepworth regarding such head patting. It is hopeful. It is kind. It is indicative of cooperation rather than what I see here. Perhaps you would like to meet in a dark alley somewhere and discuss this with me.
Father Bill,
I am very sorry that you were affected by sin. The sin of the Catholic clergy is especially scandalous.
Sin is a human condition and we all are affected by original sin. It is not something limited to Catholics.
A significant stumbling block for some Anglicans is the validity of their orders. Grace is needed to overcome this stumbling block. I would rather be in communion with you than meet you in a dark alley.
So let me get this straight. You're worried that priests leaving the Anglican Communion for the Roman Catholic Church by blowing off their vows of obedience to their AC bishops might be less than obedient to their new bishops? These guys have never heard of, "pray, pay and obey"? Please. Maybe a little less romanticism is in order.
Vashti Winterburg
Lawrence, Kansas