The following report was sent by Canon Richard Harris, an Anglican (TAC) priest in Canada, describing his experience at the recent "Becoming One" gathering in San Antonio. Perhaps his enthusiasm is contagious, and we'll hear of other such gatherings being organized in other places…?
* * *
“Becoming One”
Our Lady of the Atonement Parish
San Antonio, Texas
November 16-18, 2010
I have to begin by saying that if someone had told me what I was to encounter at Our Lady of the Atonement it could not have prepared me for what I actually experienced. Yes, it is the most robust parish of the US Pastoral Provision parishes, but. . . ! This parish that began in 1983 with eighteen parishioners, one priest and no building is now a thriving institution with four Masses on a Sunday, daily Masses, an incredible campus, and a top-rated day school of 550 students in pre-K to grade 12. The school (Atonement Academy) deserves a write-up of its own.
This conference was billed as an opportunity for those in the US who are interested to learn more about what Pope Benedict’s Apostolic Constitution has to offer to those in the various Anglican bodies there. Everyone was welcomed, whether in the Traditional Anglican Communion, another of the Continuing Anglican bodies, The Episcopal Church, or the US Pastoral Provision Parishes. When Bishop Botterill and I (Canon Richard Harris) decided to attend, we knew that, as Canadians, we’d be the odd ducks there. But we were welcomed with open arms even though we were not the specific target of the conference.
There were three basic aspects of the conference: worship, presentations by some of the Pastoral Provision clergy and Fr. Scott Hurd, the official representative of Cardinal Wuerl, who is in turn the CDF’s designated liaison in the US, and fellowship. On “the way forward” we heard how the CDF, with input from those raised in the Anglican tradition, are putting the final touches on the “crash courses” that will be offered to the Anglican laity and clergy who wish to join the Ordinariates when they are established. As announced by the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, the English Ordinariate will be established in a few short months and we will benefit from their experience as they break new ground. The formation programme for laity will involve study at the parish level of some aspects of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that Anglicans may not have been exposed to, and the “intensive” study programme being prepared for the clergy will ensure that they are ready for ordination as Catholic priests in a matter of weeks rather than years. Follow up reading programmes for the Ordinariate clergy will complete their academic formation.
Worship at Our Lady of the Atonement was in every way as Anglican as you could ask for. While the building that houses OLA is of recent vintage, it is what any Anglo-Catholic parish would hope for. There are pictures and all sorts of information on their web site. The liturgy was in every respect appropriate and executed in a way that caught one up into the presence of the heavenly kingdom. The schedule included everything: Low Mass, the Offices, a Mass for those of us who are yet to be one with the wider Catholic Church, a High Mass in Latin, with music provided by the very large, award-winning school choir. All was done in decency and order. The High Mass is a daily event for the Academy, but because of the large contingent from the conference not all of the students who are ordinarily present could attend. A special service was laid on for the others in one of the chapels in the extensive buildings. The students took our presence in stride, with almost unbelievable order, silence and reverence. We were very much their guests, in their space, for their service!
The presentations were enthusiastic and encouraging. They came from priests who were former Episcopalians who had made the transition to the Pastoral Provision. The exceptions were Bishop Moyer of our TAC and of course Fr. Hurd, who also began his ministry as an Episcopal Church priest. It was Fr. Hurd who provided most of the information we needed to hear, most importantly a time line for the implementation of the Ordinariates. He was able also to clarify some of the confusion as to who is in charge and what the responsibilities of the various players actually are. Without going into endless detail, suffice it to say that those who spoke left me with the sense that things are indeed happening and that the end product will be very much what we have hoped for. Bishop Botterill was even given the opportunity to address the gathered throng at our last dinner together. One comment from our host, Fr. Christopher Phillips, was very encouraging to me. He reported that for the students and anybody else who has been worshipping at OLA for any length of time, our beloved Prayer of Humble Access is considered simply a part of the Catholic Mass. “We pray that prayer. Doesn’t everyone?” That prayer aside, not everything in the Pastoral Provision rite was as felicitously worded as our Book of Common Prayer, but there was little if anything to find serious fault with. For anyone who has worried that Anglicans may lose their “identity” as part of the much larger Catholic Church, spending time with Fr. Phillips, who has now spent thirty years as one of a small handful of Anglican priests who joined the Anglican Use of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States, that worry quickly disappears. He and his parish are much more “Anglican” in their charism and identity than any of the Forward in Faith parishes in the Church of England.
Fellowship was part and parcel of the whole event. From the drivers who ferried us from airport to motel or from the motel to OLA and back again, from the other participants, from the students, from the Academy staff, from some who were there for no apparent reason, there was always a warm and welcome interchange. I had the privilege of conversing with Jeff, the first van driver, a remarried widower with (now) seventeen children, also with an unmarried US Army officer, as well as the headmaster and staff of the Academy, two honour students who were there to pass out and collect the various service booklets, a Vietnamese priest from San Diego whose parish had just voted to leave the Episcopal church and join the TAC, the lovely priest and his family from Indianapolis who had driven two days to be in San Antonio, the other Canadians (from Calgary and Toronto) who were present, other TAC bishops whose names I’ve often heard mentioned, including Archbishop Falk, five nuns of Mother Angelica’s order (the Poor Clares of Perpetual Adoration) who have started a new work in San Antonio, and finally many other clergy and lay folks there. It was fellowship in worship, learning and common cause through and through!
One last observation: I don’t think I’ve ever attended an event where everything went so smoothly. If it was announced that someone would meet us or drive us or feed us or speak to us, that person was always there on time and ready to accommodate.
Do check out the OLA web site, both church and school. They’ve left me eager to get on with the implementation of Anglicanorum Coetibus without delay! If the purpose of the Conference was to fire up interest in the Ordinariate, they succeeded.
Related posts:
This is a great report that will give hope to all waiting to enter an Ordinariate. However it is the third or fourth that has given snippets of Fr. Hurd's talk, which I'm sure was very beneficial to hear. However for those who could not attend, does anyone have either a video or transcript of Fr. Hurd's address?
I have to admit that I really fell down on that, Bishop Steele. In the midst of all the preparations for the event, I didn't think about having it recorded, and by the time I did think of it, it was rather late to make the preparations. I do apologize.
May I add that my experience with clergy, students and parishioners left me with the obvious impression that they were all very genuine in there ministry towards us visitors. Actually I left feeling part of the family. A Hispanic student from Mexico was introduced to me by Fr. Phillips who shared with me that he is keeping the Ordinariate in prayer. It is obvious the student body was instructed not only of our visit but the 'why' of our presence. I have decided to keep in touch with this student and encourage him in his studies until it is time for his return to his Mother country. God is good. All the time.
Fr. Phillips,
No apologies necessary! You are an asset to the cause, and your leadership is greatly appreciated.
+Ed
Surely "Becoming One" was intended for all destined for the ordinariate? Given the population of Canada I can't imagine there being more than one ordinariate in North America.
It is challenging that Canada is so vast, and we are so few in number. I'm still concerned that the sheer numbers may go against us. If we only can muster some 1000 souls… at most… will the Canadian Bishops Conference be prepared to bend backwards for such a miniscule grouping scattered over 3,851,809 square miles? That is one wayfaring soul every 3851 square miles….on average… clustered into parishes averaging 10-30 souls ASA. And I highballed the number of total souls at 1000. it may be half that initially. I guess the only consolation is that we have no groupings in the Arctic, so Episcopal visits can utilise train, bus, and private car…as opposed to bush plane and coastal steamer…
Has anyone heard positive concrete news from Archbishop Collins?
I suppose U.S. Ordinaries could hop the border short term. Maybe.
There are approximately 57 million square miles of land on this earth. Can you imagine how the apostles felt when our Lord told them to "go, make disciples of all nations…"?
The Ordinariate in Canada has to start someplace, and God has not brought such good and faithful people this far just to have someone say, "There aren't enough of you."
I hope you are right in your optimism Father. My only reservation comes from my observations of those Latin rite faithful – stable groups – who have petitioned their Bishop for a regular celebration of the EF…and "have been sent empty away"… This does not seem to lean favourably to them venturing out on a slender limb to accomodate a ragtag bunch of converts such as we appear to be.
I hope to be proven mistaken in my assessment of things. With God all things are possible.
Thinking further about this… would it not seem most common sense to simply leave the present ACCC model in place as a working apparatus on which to build? What we have now is functional, albeit our Ordinary, if he lost his suffragans, would have a lot more travelling to do.
The SSPX covers the whole world with 4 bishops… which logistically is quite a feat in itself, whatever one may think about that peculiar entity.
If priests were able to Confirm, then this would reduce the load. But I don't quite "get" the theological reasoning behind this practice of priests Confirming… In this case, why not let them ordain also? I'm sure there is a difference and a sound reason for this modern practice.
Don't worry: the Church perfectly knows how to cover very large areas with only one bishop. Ask, for example, the Bishop of Irkutsk whose diocese covers all eastern Siberia (the largest diocese in the world) or the former Apostolic Vicar of Kazakhstan and Central Asia (now Bishop of Karaganda) who used to serve a 100s parishes scattered in 5 very large countries, before each of them received its own ecclesial structure in 1997.
Pax et Bonum.
In the East, the priests have always confirmed. Roman Catholics allow priests to confirm if there is a serious reason – and urge priests to confirm anyone in danger of death who has not been confirmed.
Anglicans have never, to my knowledge, made this exception. I think that we have to do so, at least when someone is in danger of death. Certainly since the Catholic and Orthodox churches – East and West – accept that it is possible for a priest to confirm, we can't deny that possibility.
Having specifically delegated priests (former Anglican bishops, etc.) given permission to confirm would make things much easier for any Bishop Ordinary in Canada. This means that he would only need to do ordinations himself.
We have a good system in Canada right now – even though we are few in number, we have highly qualified bishops who are good pastors and administrators. We also have several rural deans, etc. I suggest that we need to have some sort of gathering in Canada between ACCC members and other Anglicans interested in the Ordinariate, so we can hash out the details – there's some grunt work to be done to make sure that we have something that works for everyone, and that all parties feel properly represented, etc. – but it's by no means impossible.
Culturally, there are so many differences between Canada and the US, we do very much need a Canadian Ordinariate. And it should be headed by someone who can be consecrated as a Catholic bishop.
will the Canadian Bishops Conference be prepared to bend backwards…
This is the beauty of the Ordinariate structure. The national conference will be consulted, but need not approve.
…have petitioned their Bishop for a regular celebration of the EF…and "have been sent empty away"…
Benedict has observed, and does not approve of, the pastoral stinginess of those Bishops who have resisted the instruction of Ecclesia Dei and Summorum Pontificum. We can infer that this is the reason he has created the Ordinariate structure — to bypass these Bishops.
As I have noted previously, if the expectation were that the ACCC would be instrumental in the erection of the ordinariate it would have made sense to select a liaison based in the Ottawa area or on the West Coast, rather than the archbishop of a city where the ACCC has twice failed to establish a foothold. The Church usually makes these decisions for a reason.
Since the ACCC composes the majority of the Anglicans seeking an Ordinariate how can it be anything, but instrumental? Other than one small group in Toronto, I don't see any ACC bishops waiting in the wings or other ACC groups or churches other than St. John's in Calgary chaffing at the bit to get in. What disappointed over the years was that no Anglo-Catholic Church within the Toronto area took advantage of the pastoral provision and swallowed the liberal line of the ACC hook, line and sinker. I worked to help set up an Anglican Use Roman Catholic parish back in the 90's and it was the Archdiocese of Toronto that squashed this. That's why this failed.I know nothing of the ACCC's efforts to establish a Toronto parish. I am sure it wasn't the ACCC that failed, but those Anglicans who chose to try to remain traditional within their Anglo-Catholic ACC parishes, instead of considering the ACCC as an option. There is no doubt in my mind that the Ordinary will be an ACCC bishop. As far as the choice of the liason, I think it is best that you take up the matter with the CDF or Cardinal Levada. I am not ACCC, but Roman Catholic (former Anglican), but I fail to see why you are so critical of the ACCC.
There's nothing that I would love to see more than a large number of Anglican Church of Canada members joining the Ordinariate. I'm looking forward to hearing from more of them.
What we've done in the ACCC may not be much, but we do have a presence in many parts of the country. We've got the car warmed up for you. The point isn't to argue about who should drive – it's to get this thing moving…
I am a priest of the Diocese of Des Moines and I want to extend a personal word of welcome to you and your family. Having visited with Archbp. Falk at St Aidan's, I share in your enthusiasm at the prospect of joining the ordinariate. I look forward to your arrival in Des Moines–at which time I hope to greet you personally. I am pastor of St. Anthony parish, on the Southside of Des Moines–the original Italian parish. Pax et Bonum!
No criticism of any of the relevant parties was implied. But despite the rather wistful "less is more" tone of some posters, I'm sure the Church is looking for growth and visibly successful evangelism with this initiative and is seeking the leadership of those who can deliver it.
I have read that the Church of the Atonement has grown not so much from former Episcopalians/Anglicans, but by attracting people who were already Roman Catholic and who preferred the liturgical life. A word to Mr. Nicholls in Toronto: Could it be that Anglo-Catholics in existing parishes have not chosen to leave because they saw the value of the ministry of women? Conservatives seem to think that people who do not see things their way are dim or have been duped. Perhaps it is an important message that one can have a Catholic faith and still accept the fact that some people should not be excluded from ordained ministry because of the way they were born.
"A word to Mr. Nicholls in Toronto: Could it be that Anglo-Catholics in existing parishes have not chosen to leave because they saw the value of the ministry of women? Conservatives seem to think that people who do not see things their way are dim or have been duped. Perhaps it is an important message that one can have a Catholic faith and still accept the fact that some people should not be excluded from ordained ministry because of the way they were born."
If the "Catholic faith" can mean "whatever we like," then this comment is very much a propos, but if the "Catholic faith" has a clear historical content, then it is absurd. "The way they were born" can include SS (sanctified sodomy) just as much as WO, but it apparently excludes Original
Sin in favor of the deistic adage "whatever is, is right."
Let the Christian reader decide.
This man's remarks say more than I ever could. Even the readers of this site should see. As a Catholic Anglican and an orthodox Christian (all the Creeds and Councils), I find it difficult to define Catholicism as naoorwly and simplistically as just rejecting the ordination of women. I'll avoid commenting on "sanctified sodomy", an odious statment. There is actually nothing that defines catholic orthodoxy that spells out rejection of women. I am no liberal, but I think some of us can consider what the word "Catholic" actually means instead of making it about one (or two) things.
Well, if in the Fourth Century, the particular issue of the day separating Catholics from heretics could be reduced to the compass of one Greek letter, iota, the difference between the Nicene "homoousios" and the Arian or semi-Arian "homoiousios," it can most certanly today come to a like focus on WO or not-WO, SS or not-SS, as in fact it does. Catholics (those in communion with the See of Rome), Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians, the Polish National Catholic Church all regard these as impossible to effect, and those attempting them (most Protestants, many Anglicans, the one-time Old Catholic Union of Utrecht — who now also accept and practice SS) as being, whatever else they may be, "not Catholic."
My "definition" is thus not "narrow or simplistic;" in fact, it is not even a "definition" of Catholicism (how one wishes that critics could improve their reading comprehension skills!). Rather, it is an assertion that WO (and SS) is a point on which "Catholic" vs "non Catholic" turns today, just as it did on the famous iota almost 17 centuries ago. Of course, the Arians back then considered themselves to be the "true Catholics," — an assertion which is no more nor no less ludicrous than a "Catholic Anglican" trying to insinuate that WO and SS can fall within his rather latitudinarian notion of "Catholic" and "orthodox."
The "Catholic" position on the sacraments is that they require proper form and intent to be valid. The form is defined strictly according to scriptural precedent, and not according to some aesthetic, hierarchical, or preferential norm. The eucharist, for example, must consist of bread and wine; rice cakes and unfermented grape juice won't do. Similarly, as per scripture, only men can preside at the eucharist.
This does not mean that men are superior to women, or that bread is superior to tamales, or wine to cider. In fact, the principle of the fundamental equality of men and women before God is first found in Christianity, not in any other religious tradition (or any pre-Christian philosophical tradition for that matter).
Trying to set vague and not directly relevant bits of scripture against clear and explicit ones, as supporters of women’s ordination tend to do, is of the essence of the ecclesiastical liberalism you claim to eschew. A properly "Catholic" feminism would not aim at undermining proper sacramental form, but at breaking down the ossified clericalism that equates ordination with power and did so much to facilitate the abuse crisis. Demand instead a greater voice in Church administration, leadership and oversight for the laity (both male and female) as existed in the early Church, and call for an end to the “closed shop” which leaves direction in all things to those ordained. Not everyone will back you, but the Catholicity and egalitarianism of such a demand would not be open to question.
As to "what the word Catholic actually means," the logical consequence of your implied definition would lead to ordination for all (or none), as the overwhelming majority of men are not eligible for ordination either. Yet Christ separated us into shepherds and sheep, and chose only men as his apostles, all the while preaching to both men and women equally. A catholic can only conclude that there must have been as much method to His choice, as there was to His use of bread and wine.
The Church in apostolic times was no less "Catholic" for its exclusion of women from eucharistic presidency
Derek, there's no doubt that many life-long Roman Catholics have found a home at Our Lady of the Atonement, but they don't account for the major growth our parish continues to experience. Not only is there a constant influx of converts from Anglicanism and various other protestant denominations, but a great portion of our growth comes from within the parish itself. We have lots of families and they're having lots of children. This has been the case for the past twenty or twenty-five years. These children are being raised in the parish, with its liturgical life, its school, and its "Anglican way" of being Catholic. Our parochial life is what they know best about living the Catholic life, and it indicates how the Anglican Patrimony will continue to be preserved, nurtured and shared — it's not going to be because of converts (as welcome as they will always be); rather, it simply will be the particular way the Catholic life is lived and experienced within the Ordinariate parishes.
One very disconcerting conversation I had with an Anglican priest is about the encouragement for Anglican/Episcopalian priests and parishes that intend to become Catholic to continue with their liturgies. There are at least a few issues here, but let me focus on one major problem with this. To encourage the Anglican clergy to continue "saying mass" while they await ordination is to encourage grave sin. For it is a mortal sin for somebody who has a reasonable doubt to say mass. It is assumed that these men who are Anglican priests now believe that that they do not have holy orders (except in those unusual circumstances where they have been ordained by EO bishops or Old Catholic bishops, etc.) and thus cannot cause Transubstantiation at Mass, and are thus genuflecting to bread. Further, it is a mortal sin for the faithful to receive a) from a man whom they have a reasonable doubt about his holy orders, and b) the supposed sacrament if there is a reasonable doubt that the sacrament is in fact no sacrament but invalidly consecrated. This priest I spoke to (at the conference at Our Lady of the Atonement) had been told by another Catholic priest and some in the CDF that it was OK for him to continue to perform the liturgy; that God knew he wasn't trying to to profane Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar. That may be so, but every time this, or any Anglican priest "says mass", he commits a grave sin. I can't imagine why this very high profile Catholic priest would encourage an anglican to commit grave sin. I assume this good priest does not know that such a practice constitutes a grave sin for not only the Anglican clergy (not validly ordained, who also have certain knowledge that they are validly ordained according to Catholic teaching on the matter) but also the Anglican parishioners.
"For it is a mortal sin for somebody who has a reasonable doubt to say mass." Apologies. This should read:
"For it is a mortal sin for somebody who has a reasonable doubt about the validity of their holy orders to say mass."
Perhaps we should let the Holy Spirit and the CDW deal with this. From what I read of the plans for the ordinariate in England, they will remain Anglican and celebrate Anglican liturgies with whatever grace God chooses to endow them with until Ash Wednesday when they all, as a group, enter the Church. They will then be on a eucharistic fast until being received and confirmed, again as a group, in Holy Week. If the CDW, speaking for the Holy Father, doesn't have aproblem with this then neither should any of the rest of us.
Yes, but this is rather a kind of positivism that is rather dangerous. What I have described is objectively a grave sin, and yes, CDF is capable (as is the Holy Father) of urging individuals to sin mortally without thus affecting the indefectibility of the Church. Legal (or Papal) positivism does not serve the Church. When she was selling indulgences it did not serve her… when popes were engaging in nepotism and awarding multiple benefices the kind of positivism you, Mike, are encouraging did not serve Holy Church well at all.
J.M.J.
Credo wrote:
"…When she was selling indulgences it did not serve her…"
Save us the tripe. If you had even a small amount of knowledge about those indugences, and in particular that which was promoted by Mr. Tetzel, which stirred up things in Germany so badly, you would know that the faithful could have had the same indulgence by only praying – just that FACT was not mentioned by Mr. Tetzel.
The Holy Council of Trent dealt with this, and said that never again can money be involved with an indulgence.
For you to make mention of this is simply a red herring to the discussion.
SWR
Sir, the point was that not everything the Church does is flawless. We must not idly sit by when objectively bad things happen. That may be via prayer, it may be something more public. I am quite aware of the situation surrounding indulgences.
The emotional response elicited by my comment is unnerving. I made a point of fact. It is a grave to receive at Mass if you have reason to believe the consecration was invalid. That extends to the situation in which the faithful have reason to believe the presider may not be validly ordained. Further, it is a graver sin for a man who functions as a priest to preside at Mass if he himself have a reasonable doubt that he is validly ordained.
J.M.J.
It was not emotional even if you find it unerving.
You are attempting to place your personal observations and opions ahead of a decision of The Church.
The Church has made no blanket statment regarding the orders, but rather, as the Apostolic Constitution makes clear, there will be a case-by-case review.
At this time you are enganing in speculation that Holy Mother Church has refrained from.
I would suggest, in charity, you follow her lead.
SWR
This point has been raised before and the answer is always the same: Roma locuta est; causa finita est. Is that the best you can do? This kind of thinking (It seems wrong, but someone in authority in the Church says it's all right, so it must be all right) has not served the Church particularly well.
J.M.J.
One either believes in the Authority of the Successor of Peter to lead and govern The Church or one doesn't. You can't have it both ways.
SWR
Non sequitur, SWR. How does what you are (inferentially) saying follow from the belief in the authority of the Pope to lead and govern? Popes can make mistakes. Pope John XXII was teaching teach soul-sleep in his catechesis. Well, that is heresy. Did that mean that the indefectibility of the Church was disproved? No. It showed that popes can teach *privately* formal heresy. There are numerous examples. I submit that the some at the CDF (I don't know about the Holy Father) have counseled some Anglican clergy and the Anglican lawmen and women to commit grave sins. The fact that they do not know it (I assume) does not make it OK. It also means they are not guilty sinning mortally. But this must stop.
Why this causes some to respond emotionally if baffling. It is a simple, unemotional, argument from fact and reality.
SWR wrote:
"You are attempting to place your personal observations and opions ahead of a decision of The Church."
I am not sure what personal observations I made. I have made points of fact. It is a grave sin to … Not my opinion.
"The Church has made no blanket statment regarding the orders…"
This is what is sometimes baffling. Here I am told that I am to accept some kind of papal positivism, but you folks can run rough-shod of Leo XIII and reinterpret what is quite clear. Yes, the Church had made it very clear that Anglican Orders are invalid. If you speak of Anglican clergy which have been ordained validly (but illicitly) by true bishops (Old Catholic, or Eastern Orthodox), then what is the point? However, there is still some doubt about even some of these priests. This doubt requires that they do NOT say Mass unless they wish to sin mortally. What is so hard about this??!!
Enough.