The Holy Father in Fatima
It is very good to welcome a Cistercian, Brother Stephen Treat, as a fellow blogger on this site. Very good, too, that his first post concerns Anglicanorum Coetibus. He refers to a recent interview with Bishop Farrell. I have read that entire interview, and find one part of it a little problematic. I have written about this in my own Ancient Richbrough blog, but thought it worth reproducing it here in the hope that Br Stephen or others might be able to put me right if I misunderstand Bishop Farrell or Anglicanorum Coetibus.
So, here goes, a slightly enlarged version of my other blog:
It is perhaps foolhardy of me to question a statement made by a Catholic Bishop on "Anglicanorum Coetibus," but I am not sure that Bishop Farrell has given an exactly correct impression of that document in an interview published by ZENIT (the Catholic News Agency).
He says, inter alia, "A particular problem of discernment arises when it is a question of groups. Not all groups have the same 'ecclesial consistency.' In the end, it is up to the episcopal conference of a country or region to study well what can and what must be done."
Now that is not how I read Anglicanorum Coetibus. I commented on the original ZENIT article, but have had no response, so I raise the matter again here in the hope that others can put me right.
This is what is said in Anglicanorum Coetibus:
Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church are erected by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith within the confines of the territorial boundaries of a particular Conference of Bishops in consultation with that same Conference.
Now that contrasts with Bishop Farrell's "In the end it is up to the episcopal conference… to study well what can and what must be done." This reads rather as though the final decision rests with the local episcopal conference. But in fact it is the Congregation for the Doctine of the Faith (CDF) which is the deciding body. Of course local conferences of bishops will be consulted and will advise, but the whole point of the Ordinariate (unless I am badly mistaken) is that its future does not lie with the national bishops' conference.
Possibly I am misreading or misinterpreting what Bishop Farrell says, but since he holds such an important role as Secretary of the Vatican's Unity Council, I do hope this can be clarified. Certainly he seems to think that most groups which would call themselves "Traditionalist" would be from the Evangelical rather than the Anglo-Catholic wing of our church. He says, "What we should remember is that what some call 'traditionalist Anglicans' usually are of the evangelical part of the Anglican Communion — hence, far from the Catholic Church in their ecclesiological convictions." He may be right about other parts of the Anglican Communion; but it is certainly not how I see the situation in England, where the name 'traditionalist' has been applied mostly to Anglo-Catholics — and I am not aware of any other 'traditionalist' groups who would be seeking to join an Ordinariate.
His concern for Unity and his experience of the ARCIC process of course must weigh heavily on Bishop Farrell, and it must be a great sadness to him that the recent York Synod seems to have undone all that has been achieved over the past decades. He concludes his interview saying "We will continue the ecumenical dialogue with a realism that accepts things as they are and is aware that the road ahead is long and arduous. Knowing, however, that dialogue is a task imposed by Christ himself and sustained by the grace of the Holy Spirit, soul of the Church of Christ."
I believe and pray that the Ordinariates may have a role in that continuing conversation, and in leading many more Anglicans into the fulness of Catholic Faith and Worship.
Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!
Bishop,
I scratched my head about a few parts of the interview myself. Bishop Farrell is a member of the Legion of Christ and has been in his current position since 2002. I think that the norms are clear about the role of the CDF in the erection of ordinariates.
I was intrigued by the term “ecclesial consistency” and went to see how the term has been used in the past. I found that this was a term used by John Paul II as a corrective to those who used the documents of Vatican II to elevate the particular church over the Universal Church. Here were two of the quotes I found from those speeches:
[Local Churches] “find their authentic meaning and their ecclesial consistency only as expressions and realizations of the ‘Catholica,’ of the one, universal, and original [primigenia] Church."
"while probing the concept of the local Church or, better, the particular Church, theologians will thus avoid the one-sided and untenable emphases which maintain that the Church is in origin and by priority (originariamente e prioritariamente) the local Church."
(Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paolo II, VIII/I (1985), 997-98; IX/I (1986), 1133-34; IX/II (1986), 1921)
The Bishop’s quote seems to imply that his understanding is that the coherence of a petitioning body will be a factor used in the judgment of the CDF and may be an area in which the opinions of local episcopal conferences are particularly sought for their superior knowledge of facts on the ground in their geographic area. I would see it as implying no more than that the CDF would do due diligence to ascertain the background of petitioners and to evaluate claims of membership size and juridical stability in the case of petitioning bodies.
I think he is also saying that there will probably not be an ordinariate on every corner just because someone wants one. The Romanian Catholic Eparchy in the US has one bishop for the entire country. The Ruthenian Eparchy has only eight bishops for almost 600,000. We'll probably do well to keep those existing models and their scale in the back of our minds.
(…) most groups which would call themselves "Traditionalist" would be from the Evangelical rather than the Anglo-Catholic wing of our church. (…) certainly not how I see the situation in England, where the name 'traditionalist' has been applied mostly to Anglo-Catholics – and I am not aware of any other 'traditionalist' groups who would be seeking to join an Ordinariate.
I find this rather interesting, and it can be puzzling for a Roman Catholic traditionalist. The most striking parallel between high-church Anglican traditionalists and Catholic traditionalists is the attachment to the pre-1960's mainstream liturgies in their respective Churches.
It raises an eyebrow to see the word "traditionalist" applied to Anglo-Catholics using the modern Roman liturgy or to Evangelicals. Evengelical and Protestant rhetoric has historically been against the notion of Tradition and accords authority only to the written Scriptures.
It is indeed a very ambiguous word, denoting attachment to different notions of tradition. There is a world of difference between the notion of developing Tradition as found in Newman's writings and modern (as opposed to modern-ist) theology and the static notion as found in neo-scholastic theology, Jansenism and 17th century "classical" Anglicanism.
I find this fascinating quote from Dei Verbum of Vatican II, quoted by John Paul II in his motu proprio Ecclesia Dei adflicta of 2nd July 1988:
Fr Chadwick, you are right, 'Traditionalist' is a very slippery word; but certainly here in England I think most of us would use it to describe catholic-minded Anglicans, with no particular reference to liturgical use. We seem to be far less concerned than Episcopalians in the USA or members of the Catholic church itself about the language of the rite we use; if it is authorised by Rome that is fine by us, and the niceties of Sarum, 1928 and the postVaticanII texts do not concern us greatly… with, of course, some in parts of Oxford and Oxfordshire who would be VERY concerned indeed. But most of us Anglican traditionalist will gratefully take what we are given.
Don't worry, Bishop, I have said everything I wanted to say about the liturgy – and have a flexible attitude. You are much more of a pastor than I am, and I know the way you think about the liturgy. Nothing wrong with that!
I was just toying with the use of the word traditionalist, with no polemical intent.
Thank you again Fr. Chadwick for your insights re. Roman views of Anglican traditionalists. It is very helpful at this juncture to attempt an understanding of how others in the Catholic Church see us. And this bears upon the initial point raised by Bp Barnes: What role will the national conferences of bishops play in the erection of ordinariates and the co-ordination of the single mission of the Catholica?
May I add a view from Canada. I begin by saying that this is a personal view.
The Anglican Catholic Church of Canada has, happily, just endorsed the TAC bishops' agreement to work with the CDF and CCCB (Canadian conference of bishops) towards the erection of a Canadian Ordinariate. The ACCC is a national but very small body of some hundreds of Anglican Catholics at most.
Currently there is no ACCC parish in Toronto, the largest city in Canada and the home of the largest number of Anglicans in any city by quite a margin. In this situation, it is imperative that the groups of Anglicans who seek unity with the Holy See co-operate not only with CDF but with the local Latin diocese and with Archbishop Collins who is not only the diocesan here but has just been appointed liaison for the Ordinariate by the CCCB.
Without clergy, buildings or extensive financial pledges to date, it will be crucial that the CCCB and the Latin rite diocese assist the Anglicans here so that they may gather and reach out to other Anglicans and the many others who will be interested in an Ordinariate parish. On a practical level this means the use of buildings and the provision of housing and resources for clergy.
I take Bishop Farrell's words to emphasize the importance of input from the CCCB and the archdiocese in this situation which I know differs from what exists in ACCC parishes and in some parts of the USA where there is some parochial structure, buildings and financing. In some ways, our situation in Toronto parallels the situation in the C of E where those leaving the Anglican Communion cannot count on taking property or finances with them.
"In the end" to use Bp Farrell's words, it truly does depend very much upon the support of the bishops' conference and the diocesans in terms of the practicalities, if not in the letter of the law. And this is how things should be in one sense. We have a single and common mission shared with the many other personal parishes in Toronto; and we have many more of these than most cities with everything from Melkite to Chinese to Ethiopian Catholics. We need to co-ordinate carefully and intentionally with the Latin dioceses as AC states clearly.
In this sense, we are also very dependent upon the conferences because it is likely that the first ordinaries will have to be Latin rite bishops or priests, even if they are former Anglicans who have come into communion some time before Anglicanorum Coetibus (AC). This is simply a matter of reality since the current Anglican clergy of whatever stripe will need to be received as laity, assessed, briefed, instructed and ultimately ordained. This process will take time and whether it be months or years, it is critical that as we approach the first anniversary of AC there be some appointments of ordinaries to get things going. This is both a practical and a political reality which cannot be dismissed with good intentions.
Again, I say this with the utmost respect for the ACCC, CDF and the current Anglican bishops and other clergy involved. However, the best beginning is a real one. People in Toronto and elsewhere need to have a face attached to the ordinariate, a place to meet, a plan and a challenge to move into the ecumenical future now that the General Synods of both the Anglican Church of Canada and the Church of England have, in the course of the past month, moved definitively away from any possibility of conforming to the living tradition of the Catholica.
The hour for action has arrived. We have heard the Assize Sermon for the 21st Century from none other than the Holy Father himself and now we move into the second summer of the Anglican Catholic patrimony. Thanks be to God.
J.H. Newman ora pro nobis.
As to the use of the term "Traditionalists," I read the Bishop Farrell's comment as meaning, "Most of the Anglicans in the world who aren't happy with the direction of the Anglican Communion are evangelicals who don't necessarily see themselves as having much in common with the Catholic Church." I think he is simply using the term "traditionalist" as it is commonly used in many places around the world.
I frequently have to explain the difference in nuance between the terms "traditionalist" and "conservative" to people in the U.S. The average person here would probably think of Bishop Duncan or Archbishop Akinola as the face of Anglican "traditionalism" rather than Bishops Ackerman or Broadhurst.
Bishop Barnes writes: "Now that contrasts with Bishop Farrell's "In the end it is up to the episcopal conference… to study well what can and what must be done". This reads rather as though the final decision rests with the local Conference of Bishops. But in fact it is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, CDF, which is the deciding body. Of course local conferences of bishops will be consulted and will advise, but the whole point of the Ordinariate (unless I am badly mistaken) is that its future does not lie with the national bishops' conference."
A few weeks ago, when I interviewed Toronto Archbishop Thomas Collins, the liaison between Anglican groups and the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB), I asked him whether the CCCB or CDF would be driving the Ordinariate process and he told me CDF would be.
I am thrilled that Archbishop Collins is our liaison but he, like most of the Canadian bishops, knows very little about the Traditional Anglican Communion though he has met some of our bishops a few times, but only briefly, in social situations that did not likely engender an opportunity for deep theological discussion. I am sure that once he develops the necessary familiarity he will love our various clergy and find in them allies and brothers in upholding an orthodox faith and his courageous public stand defending human life from conception to natural death.
Sadly, most of the friendships and relationships among the Canadian bishops have been built over time with the Anglican Church of Canada. Various members of that body have dismissed the TAC as irrelevant, as cultist, as misogynist and as deserving of gnashing our teeth in outer darkness for being schismatics. There is a strong likelihood we will have to overcome some of smears that have built up over the last few decades.
There is a similar kind of battle going in on the Roman Curia, I imagine. Those in Christian Unity, such as Bishop Farrell, have much more invested in their relationships with the Canterbury Communion and probably only know of the TAC via their friends assessment of us, most likely highly negative.
Deborah
First, it seems to me, Your Excellency, that he is referring to different groups of Anglicans applying for ordinariates in one country, for instance. An example would be that the FiF groups in England and the TAC in England are separate bodies and each has its own liturgical character. Should they be combined into one ordinariate or should there be one for the TAC (under, say, Bishop Mercer) and one for the FiF people currently subject to the three FiF bishops? Already, Rome is apparently considering two applications for one territory in Australia: one for the Torres Straint Church and the other for the Anglican-Catholic Church of Australia. Since these are personal jurisdictions, they can share territory, which is, in my view, a wonderful advantage; it is very flexible.
Also, I would say that, while episcopal conferences can *study* what should and must be done, the decision must still lie with the C.D.F. I wonder, though, if Bishop Farrell is suggesting that the C.D.F. will consult thorougly with the conference before taking a decison? Already, the conferences have appointed liasions for England and Wales, Canada and also Australia.
I agree that this is odd, though. My understanding is that Archbishop Akinola, the Global South and other evangelicals are not much interested in union with Rome right now.
I close by commending the analysis of Peregrinus here, who lives in my old stomping ground, Toronto. It is indeed unfortunately that there is no TAC parish there. I believe that there were two at one time but that neither had its own church (one worshipped at the Old Mill in Etobicoke, to my recollection.). Yes, the co-operation and help of episcopal conferences will be crucial in Canada and in many other places. I also note that the Canons on 'personal' particular churches (cf. 372.2) and on personal prelatures (294) both mention consultation with episcopal conferences concerned. I think that this standard was in the mind of those who drafted "Anglicanorm Cœtibus", just as the personal Apostolic Administration of St. John-Mary Vianney was the true model for the personal ordinariates, and not the military ordinariate.
P.K.T.P.
By the way, do any Torontonians here know if Canon Greene is still active in the Anglican Church of Canada. I knew him when I was involved in the pro-life movement in the 1980s.
P.K.T.P.
Canon Greene is currently an Honorary Assistant at St. John the Evangelist in Calgary, Alberta.
Indeed, Canon Greene is a very active Honorary Assistant Priest here in my parish and, at 86, shows no sign of slowing down! At 32 I have trouble keeping up with him. . .
Fr Kenyon
Priest-in-Charge
S. John the Evangelist, Calgary
Yes, when Canon Greene left St. Bart's in Toronto after hosting, amongst many others St. Teresa of Calcutta on her visit to Toronto, the parish went steadily downhill and now has a part time priest and a tiny congregation. It is on of the last traditional bastions in the Anglican Church in Toronto.
He is a remarkable priest indeed – and monarchist to boot!
I remember him both from the Monarchist League of Canada, which I joined as a youth, and from Campaign Life Toronto. He would occasionally appear at the Morgentaler abortuary, dressed in his canons' simar (blue trimmings, I think). One day, Morgentaler, assuming that he was a Catholic Bishop, threw open the window and starting hurling abuse at the Catholic Church. Canon Greene, who never backed down from a fight, wagged his finger at him and told him he was headed in the direction of the fiery pit. It was quite a scene. Canon Greene would sometiems join in the Rosary behind the place.
I can't believe that he's moved west and is still active at 86. Incredible. I believe that he was active in the Prayerbook Society. I've heard recently that Prof. Toporowski of the Monarchist League is now in Vancouver. He used to be at the U. of T. Everyone seems to be moving westwards. It must be the weather out here.
P.K.T.P.