Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster has released the following statement on the upcoming ordinations and the launch of the first Ordinariate.
On Saturday 15 January 2011, it will be my privilege to ordain John Broadhurst, Andrew Burnham and Keith Newton to priesthood in the Catholic Church. This ceremony will take place in Westminster Cathedral.
On or before this date, I expect the Holy See to announce the establishment of the first Ordinariate for groups of former Anglicans and their clergy who seek full communion in the Catholic Church. The three men ordained on Saturday will be the first priests of this Ordinariate.
This is a unique moment and the Catholic community in England and Wales is privileged to be playing its part in this historic development in the life of the Universal Church.
We offer a warm welcome to these three former bishops of the Church of England. We welcome those who wish to join them in full communion with the Pope in the visible unity of the Catholic Church. We recognise the journey they are making with its painful departures and its uncertainties. We salute their depth of searching prayer and the desire which leads them to seek to live within the community of the Catholic Church under the ministry of the Bishop of Rome. This is the faith we share.
We are deeply grateful for the depth of the relationship which exists here between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion. This firm, positive and on-going relationship is the context for Saturday’s important initiative. We are grateful, too, for the sensitive leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury. He graciously acknowledges the integrity of those seeking to join the Ordinariate and has assured them of his prayers. This is the noble spirit of true ecumenism between the followers of Christ.
Pope Benedict has made clear his own intentions: that the Ordinariate can serve the wider cause of visible unity between our two churches by demonstrating in practice the extent to which we have so much to give to each other in our common service of the Lord. With this in mind he describes this step as ‘a prophetic gesture.’
With great trust in the Lord, we look forward to Saturday, to the new phase of Church life it brings and we ask God’s blessing on its future development.
Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!
Very well put. Do I sense a change of mood?
I would agree that there has been a change of mood, which leads me to ask: "Do I sense a quid pro quo???"
Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but have a look at these words from Fr. Marcus Stock in the interview with America:
"But you’re stressing that Anglican patrimony is more than just liturgy.
What we’re trying to emphasize that it would be wrong to define the Ordinariate by Anglican worship; it’s more than that, it’s about a whole range of pastoral practice, the relationship between the pastor and his people …
…Indeed, if it’s a genuine sharing of gifts, some elements of that Anglican patrimony will be something that in time becomes part of the life and worship of the Catholic Church."
The CofE, for all its many faults, preserved a sense of pastor (or parson, even) and people which was gradually eroded in much of continental Europe between the eighteenth and twentieth centuries. Bavaria is one of the few places I can think of off the top of my head where it survived, which can hardly be a coincidence. English literature has known the clergyman for centuries – he's there from Chaucer to Wodehouse, and all points in between. The Catholic Church in England and Wales, since the re-establishment of the hierarchy, has never had the same experience, and from what I read, it hasn't been like that in the US either.
It is in many senses, as a friend of mine likes to point out, a certain Englishness, rather than Anglican-ness, which is being (re)incorporated into the life of the Catholic Church. It is an English-influenced sacred idiom which is being prized here, and it's hardly surprising that this has a global reach, and that it will have different flavours in different places, given the reach and history of English language and culture. Sui juris Churches preserve and foster, but don't, I think, pervade: they maintain a way of prayer which has always been valid and valued for those who have used and treasured it, and for their children and children's children. That's exactly why the Ordinariate isn't a sui juris Church – it has the potential to (re)incorporate something to the Latin Church, or at least to remind her of things she already has in her storehouse, but hasn't had occasion to use for a while.
Enrico,
That's exactly why the Ordinariate isn't a sui juris Church – it has the potential to (re)incorporate something to the Latin Church, or at least to remind her of things she already has in her storehouse, but hasn't had occasion to use for a while.
I'm not persuaded. Rather, I think that there are two compelling reasons for not creating a sui juris church right now.
>> 1. The "Anglican Use" within the Catholic Church has gained some amount of traction and stability here in the United States, but not elsewhere. The formation of a "particular church" (in the form of an "ordinariate") in each country is a logical next step that will allow the "Anglican Use" to develop its own supporting infrastructure (formation of clergy, marriage tribunals, etc.) which a sui juris church will need. In perhaps ten or twenty years, when the ordinariates gain some maturity I think we'll see another step — perhaps the development of a "congregation" or a "pontifical council" for the "Anglican Use" in the Roman Curia if not the full development of a sui juris church.
>> 2. By not instituting a sui juris church, the Vatican leaves a place for the Archbishop of Canterbury to become the "major archbishop" (or patriarch) of a sui juris church as part of a full reconciliation at some time in the future. I know that full reconcilliation of the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church now looks a lot less promising than twenty or thirty years ago, Rome does not abandon hope. Further, at some point, the see of Canterbury is likely to side with a unified GAFCON over the fractured remnant of the rest of the Anglican Communion.
So on balance, the ordinariates are the next logical step forward and a step that does not jeopardize what might be in the future.
BTW, His Grace Rowan Williams has to be very annoyed at The Episcopal Church (TEC) right now. After repeated "requests" to cease and desist from both improper ordinations and "blessings" of same sex unions until the communion could resolve the fallout from the last round of abuses, TEC ordained another obviously unsuitable candidate a couple months ago and one TEC bishop officiated at a same sex "marriage" two weekends ago. I would be very surprised if the communication to His Grace from GAFCON has not already been a very umambiguous ultimatum that "either TEC goes or we go" — and with a newly formed orthodox province already established in North America and rapidly gaining recognition, cutting a belligerant TEC from the communion would not be an abandonment of the United States.
Norm, who wonders how many ordinariates GAFCON might become if His Grace does not respond to its demands….
A factor you've overlooked is that I believe the Catholic Church has made an agreement with the Orthodox Churches that they would not recognize any new sui juris churches. To go ahead and do so would be a setback in the dialogue with the Orthodox.
I presume you mean the Balamand Declaration? I doubt either side at the time either foresaw or expected it to apply in a Western context. If Rome decided to grant autonomy or autocephaly to an Anglican Rite at some point in the future, unprecedented as that would be, that would be a purely internal matter within the Latin Church and would have no bearing on the Orthodox at all. Indeed they would probably welcome what they would see as a decentralisation of the Western Church.
Petros,
You asked: Do I sense a change of mood?
If so, I'm not picking up on it. What sort of change of mood are you perceiving?
Norm.
Perhaps I misjudged their initial mood but I thought the first reaction of English bishops to Pope Benedict's plan less than enthusiastic; almost a grudging acceptance whereas the latest statement is very warm and encouraging.
Well, perhaps there's a political imperative to be seen to be carrying out in a public way the mind the of the pope.That seemingly hasn't always been the case in the UK, or so I am told.
Either way, it's wonderful news for the Ordinariate. May God richly bless those who are so generosly responding to this call.
Petros,
You wrote: Perhaps I misjudged their initial mood but I thought the first reaction of English bishops to Pope Benedict's plan less than enthusiastic; almost a grudging acceptance whereas the latest statement is very warm and encouraging.
I'm sure that there's always a major element of caution when undertaking a new venture, but timing of the announcement of the bishops' resignations is a pretty clear indication that the plans were already well developed by the time of the pope's visit. Two bishops who were on "study leave" probably were most intently "studying" how best to move forward, in collaboration with the representatives of the bishops' conference and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. (In other words, they really were laying the groundwork for the move.)
Norm.
I expect you may have been correct about their initial mood, and are less correct about the change in the mood. He may simply be resigned to the fact that there is nothing he can do to stop this, but he can get in a plug for the depth of the relationship with "the Anglican Communion", and how that is "the noble spirit of true ecumenism between the followers of Christ."
When in the Catholic Herald interview, Fr. Stock "was asked whether it was a step forward from the pastoral provision which was granted to former Anglican clergymen in the 1990s thanks to the efforts of Cardinal Basil Hume"; he said “I think it’s recognised that that may have been a weakness at the time, that there wasn’t a recognition of the need for their pastors to accompany the people…"
It seems the opportunity was there at the time, but it didn't have the cooperation of many of the bishops who felt it would not be true ecumenism. The bishops might have worked to correct this "weakness" themselves, now instead they look to be resigned to the Pope removing them from the loop to some extent.
Daniel,
You wrote: When in the Catholic Herald interview, Fr. Stock "was asked whether it was a step forward from the pastoral provision which was granted to former Anglican clergymen in the 1990s thanks to the efforts of Cardinal Basil Hume"; he said “I think it’s recognised that that may have been a weakness at the time, that there wasn’t a recognition of the need for their pastors to accompany the people…"
It seems the opportunity was there at the time, but it didn't have the cooperation of many of the bishops who felt it would not be true ecumenism. The bishops might have worked to correct this "weakness" themselves, now instead they look to be resigned to the Pope removing them from the loop to some extent.
The circumstances are very different now than thirty years ago. At that time, nearly all of the influx was people who rejected ordination of women coming to the Catholic Church individually. There were only two or three groups that came into the Catholic Church with their pastors as intact communities of faith. Our Lady of the Atonement in Galveston was first, followed by Our Lady of the Atonement in Houston, and IIRC a third followed about a decade later. By contrast, we now have groups that are essentially intact dioceses asking to come into the communion of the Catholic Church with their bishops.
With about a dozen stable "Anglican Use" communities here in the States and more in forming stages, the situation seemed to be ripe for the establishment of some sort of particular church for those communities anyway. If anything, the new dynamic is what's dictating establishment of an "ordinariate" rather than a (personal) "diocese." Nonetheless, the ordinariate for the United States will be much stronger with the parishes of the Angican Church in America (ACA) than without them!
Norm.
I'm not sure how familiar you are with the history of the Pastoral Provision in the U.S., if you haven't yet read it Fr. Phillips had previously provided this link:
http://atonementonline.com/tracts/resource002.html
You'll see that some of the larger potential Anglican Use parishes were not allowed to exist in dioceses such as Los Angeles. Of the first three parishes, two were later closed after new bishops were installed. If the bishops had been more cooperative, you might be referring to 50 A.U. parishes rather than a dozen.
From what I've read, (and Fr. Stock seems to confirm) entire communities could have entered the Catholic Church together years ago but the English Bishops rejected the proposal. You might like to read William Oddie's paper delivered at the last Anglican Use Conference: http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2011/01/archbishop-nichols-of-westminster-on-the-ordinations-and-the-ordinariate/#comments
Rev. 22.17 said "By contrast, we now have groups that are essentially intact dioceses asking to come into the communion of the Catholic Church with their bishops." You must mean dioceses and bishops of "The Anglican Catholic Church" or other so-called "continuing" bodies. To be clear your readers should know that these groups are not part of the Anglican Communion.
Adam,
You wrote: You must mean dioceses and bishops of "The Anglican Catholic Church" or other so-called "continuing" bodies. To be clear your readers should know that these groups are not part of the Anglican Communion.
Actually, it's a mixed bag. The ~50 priests and ~35 intact parishes whose reception into the Catholic Church during Holy Week have been under the pastoral care of the now former "flying bishops" to be ordained on Saturday.
While not technically dioceses of the Church of England, they sure look and act like entact dioceses. It's likely that the Forward in Faith group involved in the petition for an ordinariate in Australia is also substantially still part of the Australian province of the Anglican Communion, at least officially, and Forward in Faith parishes of the Anglican Communion in other countries, including the United States and Canada, may follow the bishops who are now providing their "alternative episcopal oversight" into ordinariates as well.
That said, I acknowledge there's clearly an ambiguity in the use of the term "Anglican" as it can refer specifically to the Anglican Communion or more broadly to all who follow the Anglican form of Christian worship (and thus encompasses all of the so-called "continuing" bodies as well as the Anglican Communion). In Anglicanorum coetibus and thus in the formation of ordinariates, the latter sense applies. Additionally, the various declarations by the Catholic Church of the nullity of Anglican sacramental orders extend to all "continuing" bodies that derive their sacramental orders from the Anglican Communion.
Norm.