Father Holiday, thank for your very thoughtful reflection, Solus Anglicanus. I hope you will consider contributing to this forum more often. Thank you also for your kind words.
A challenge for us as a Christian community is to make sure that we are always speaking to each other with courtesy and yes, with precision. Elsewhere in this forum several of us have recently had a discussion about precise use of technical terms. I am humbled by my own errors and am well reminded to take the trouble to choose my words more carefully.
A couple of thoughts about conversion and nomenclature:
I.
I understand why many Christians who come into full communion bristle at the use of the term "convert." That word, used in that way, does not properly apply to them, as it denigrates the sincerity, the dignity and the grace of their prior faith practices as followers of Christ.
There are a couple of things that can be done to move away from a practice that is understandably offensive. First, we can all strive to use language more precisely. Don't say "convert" when it does not apply.
The second thing that could be done — and it would be a real service to those who are sincerely confused on this point — would be for our bishops and pastors to rethink the way people are received. Since the apostolic era, the Church has had a sense of a catechumate, persons of different cult who are discerning the Faith and contemplating requesting baptism. Since the Great Schism, the Church has understood that this is a very different situation from that of baptized faithful in impaired communion who are contemplating coming into full communion.
Then, at just the moment in history when many Church leaders decided that formal catechism instruction for its members had ceased to be "relevant," along came the instructional model of RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults), which in practice, and despite the transparently clear meaning of its name, is indiscriminately applied to a wide range of people whose faith and pastoral needs vary greatly.
Drop in to an RCIA class at your local parish and you are likely to find a lively mix of Episcopalians, Lutherans, Baptists, Mormons, Jews and others, all of them inquiring sincerely, and all of them entitled to respectful treatment of their present beliefs. And the fact is, the Episcopalians and the Lutherans are baptized Christians, the Baptists may or may not be baptized but are thoroughly and sincerely professed Christians, while the rest are genuine catechumens.
We correctly apply the term "convert" to the catechumens (if they go all the way). But we treat the inquiring Christians identically. In many parishes we exclude them all, Christian and pagan alike, from the greatest mystery of the Faith (even if they have been memorializing it in separation all of their lives), publicly dismissing them after the Gospel to go off to lay-led rap sessions at which they seek to "break open the Word."
Can we blame the people in the pews (John and Mary Catholic, as one bishop disparages us) if we think of all the newcomers as "converts," if we fail to recognize that some of the "converts" are our Christian brothers and sisters who in some cases may be better catechized than we are?
Better pastoral leadership would help us all better understand the true nature of the path that our returning brethren are walking, and would make us more likely to be sensitive toward them.
The parishes of the Pastoral Provision have, not surprisingly given their own histories, proven to be quite good at welcoming and instructing inquirers. (And quite good at instructing sincere but under-catechized cradle Catholics, too.)
What will the future practice of the Ordinariate be in this regard? Well, at the risk of being prideful for an institution that does not yet even exist, it is safe to predict that this may be another area in which returning Anglicans can provide a good example to the rest of the Church. (We can be certain from what he has written that Fr. Holiday will.) With a sensitivity that comes from their awareness of theirs and their people’s own journey, our Ordinariate clergy can provide pastorally sensitive and doctrinally sound instruction and reception that will properly serve the inquirers who come to them, and perhaps also provide an example to RCIA-administering parishes.
II.
The word conversion has a second meaning, as in "the lifelong journey of conversion." We cease to be candidates for technical conversion to Christianity when we are baptized. But, soon after baptism, our souls are again stained by personal sin, and from there we have a very long and difficult walk in our moral lives as Christians.
In the West we have the terms "conversion" and "sanctification;” in the East they have the more mysterious and perhaps more powerful term "deification" (Theosis). We sinners say "conversion" even though we never fully convert, we say "sanctification" even though we generally stop short of moral purity, and we say "deification" because we seek to become more like God (and certainly not because we think we can become God.)
When used in this sense, the term conversion is not an insult at all, but a tribute to our sincere resolution to do better. In this sense of the word, none of us are truly "converts," we are just well-intentioned works in progress.
Related posts:
My Webster's 9th defines CONVERT as a turn-around. Def #2 indicates a change from one belief to another. This does not speak to my situation, and I suspect not to yours either.
As a priest in the Episcopal Missionary Church I celebrate a real Mass (Anglican Missal) and preach Catholic Doctrine. It is due to the intercession or Our Lady that I am a priest, and I do not think she has led me down a wrong path.
I have read and digested the decisions of the first seven Councils. My review of the Catechism of the Catholic Church has produced nothing surprising and nothing about which I do not agree.
Somewhere on this web site I read, perhaps written by Archbishop Hepworth that my re-ordination can be viewed as a regularization of my Orders, and I have read that the date of my ordination will remain the date of my ordination to the priesthood in the Episcopal Missionary Church (1996).
I agree that RC laymen and my local RC priest too are not sensitive to the nuances that I would prefer when they speak of my pending conversion.
ARCIC has produced a document that intimates I could teach RCIA rather than be taught in such a series of classes. But, then I am told by my wife, who attended a couple of years ago, that RCIA is pretty laid back and there is no final exam.
It has been suggested that Anglican clergy preparation in the United States will focus on the content of the Catholic Catechism for Adults, which I have reviewed and which seems do-able.
There are some things that some of us need to know, and I suspect we will all survive.
I would think that as regards groups of Anglicans (Anglicanorum coeitibus), the
proper term would have to be "be received into the full communion of the Catholic
Church" because that is precisely what the Latin text says (in plenam Ecclesiae
Catholicae communionem recepi). "Conversion" suggests a much more drastic
change.
I will admit that many, many parishes 'lump everyone together' because they might have five or ten candidates a year and having three separate programs for those to be baptized, those to be received, and unconfirmed Catholics is a bit much for a parish staff to handle.
Since I work in a parish with lots of young adults and therefore lots looking at the RCIA for one reason or another, we do have three 'tracks'. However, we tend to group folks along the lines of "starting from scratch" – and therefore in need of conversion, "already Christian" and "sort of catechized and Catholic."
It is true that we have baptized Protestants and Catholics in the "starting from scratch" crowd, but to say that they are fully converted would be stretching things a bit.
The real key in helping people into the church is both giving them the background and formation they need, and also being clear what one is doing – accepting a committed Christian into full communion or helping a basic pagan understand Christianity.
Obviously, we use the words 'to convert' too freely. How about "joined"?
Curmudgeon, that sounds like a very sensible approach to serving the individual pastoral needs of the inquirers. Both pastoral needs and canonical status should be respected, and it sounds like your parish does.
Is it clear to John and Mary Catholic that these people are a mixed group, and not all catechumens? Do you require all inquirers to be "dismissed?"
– Curmudgeon II
Mr. Johnston:
I left the Episcopal Church for Catholicism in 1992. During that time and since I've never seen this "dismissal" process. My wife and I helped a Korean family convert to our parish last year and they were never dismissed.
I think the dismissal nonsense is a bunch of "Spirit of Vatican II" hooey that some places practice. It has nothing to do with the normal workings of Catholic parishes that I have seen.
Andrew, here is a hooey primer for your review:
http://teamrcia.com/2007/10/02/how-to-lead-a-30-minute-dismissal-session/
Ralph
Or, if that method is not to your liking, you could always fall back on the CCC:
110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression."76
111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written."77
The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit who inspired it.78
112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79
The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted.80
113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which the Spirit grants to the Church"81).
114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.
The senses of Scripture
115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written "for our instruction".85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89
The need for clarity of vocabulary is a double edged sword. Many of the people now preparing to be received into full communion with the Church through the provisions of Anglicanorum coetibus have spent years referring to themselves as Anglicans and to all Catholics of every Rite and description as "Romans" — a custom deeply offensive to most Catholics, most especially the Catholics who are not of the Roman Rite. That usage was meant to convey a theological assertion: We Anglicans are just as Catholic as you Romans if we say we are. To be received into full communion with the Catholic Church means, among other things, that this usage must be abandoned. But even more, the reason for the fallacy of the assertion must be understood and accepted by those who are being received into full communion with the Catholic Church.
Next, there is no reason obvious to me why the term convert cannot be applied with equal clarity to both catechumens and candidates for full communion, once the full implications of the differences between catechumens and candidates are explained. In popular usage, the term convert simply means one who became a Catholic as an adult after having been something else earlier in life, whether that something else was an unbaptized person or a person baptized outside the Catholic Church. For my part, I was baptized in the Episcopal Church and never once resented being called a convert by and among Catholics; in fact, I have identified myself as a convert these twenty-nine years since my reception into the Church, and no one has ever been confused or confounded by the use of that term.
I know that I'll likely take some flak (from some quarters, at least) for harping on (or rather "banging my drum" about) the misleading statements of some in the TAC hierarchy, but I feel compelled to point out some recent statements by Bishop Tolowa Nona of the TAC's "Church of the Torres Strait." I'm sure that the bishop is a dear man and he does seem well-intentioned, but, as Fr. Newman points out, our vocabulary ought be crystal clear.
In a recent interview, Bishop Nona said:
and,
This is the sort of "reassuring" — and gravely problematic — language that has marked the TAC narrative since the publication of the Apostolic Constitution.
It is ludicrous to presume that the Holy Father intentionally omitted the word "Roman" from Anglicanorum Coetibus or that its absence has any significance whatsoever. This is the same logic which posits that the CDF positively approves of Anglican Orders simply because that dicastery has refrained from issuing an edict to Anglican priests ordering a cessation of their celebration of the Holy Eucharist.
And this notion that portions of the TAC — or any other Anglican jurisdiction larger than a parish — will simply "come into communion with" the Catholic Church, retaining their "autonomy" and ecclesial identity is also false (as we have discussed here many times already) and hurtful to true Catholic unity.
I truly appreciate the witness of some TAC bishops to Christian unity, but we all ought to be quite clear about the nature of the proposed conversion — or reception — to which Anglicans are called — all the more so when one has the spiritual cure of others.
I think you are right, we do need to be clear about this, and our language needs to be clear. I don't think the TAC bishops have been doing anyone any favors by muddying the waters.
I don't mean to offend, but it is important that we all know what is actually happening. The clerical ordinations that will happen for the Ordinariate are not conditional. Unlike with the Orthodox, when these ordinations occur they are absolute. The Catholic Church does not recognize Anglican Orders. I know many find this offensive, but that's where it stands. So as far as the RC church is concerned, the ordination date will be the date that one is ordained into the RC church, and not a previous date.
Understand too that Catholics do not use the term Roman because as far as they are concerned, the term "Catholic" is self-referent and only self-referent. I am a cradle Catholic and was amazed to learn that other folks refered to themselves as Catholic (I have since changed my understanding on this) that did not refer to being in union with Rome. But you won't find RCs using the word "Roman" because they don't see any need to distinguish. The fact that the word "Roman" isn't used is not out of sensitivity, it is because they wouldn't think it necessary. "Catholic" for the overwhelming majority of RCs means churches in union with Rome. So trying to make some meaning out of not using "Roman" is a serious mistake.
Again, I have no intention of hurting anyone by my comments. But it is very important to know the RC folks' understanding about what is happening.
I distinctly recall reading (in an official Vatican document) that, while the ordination into the Catholic priesthood is absolute, the formerly Anglican clergy will keep their date of ordination into the Anglican priesthood as their anniversary. (Perhaps someone with a better memory can help me out here?)
We Roman Catholics tend to think too much in legal terms. A Greek Catholic bishop once said – regarding the liturgy – that in the byzantine tradition, they do not bother too much about what the rubrics say, but "how can we make the Divine Liturgy even more beautiful?"
Concerning the Anglican orders, a priestly friend of mine expressed his opinion as follows: in 1896, Anglican orders were "absolutely null and void". But since then, so much has happened that we simply do not know what they are. Whatever an Anglican priest is and does, his ministry has been fruitful and blessed. Why do we have to exactly define what he is? After his ordination, he will be a Catholic priest – that is what counts. God knows whether he was one before – we don't have to.
While I appreciate what you are saying, in many ways having the "legal" is a protection that I wouldn't want to change. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I'm sure that to some, clown masses, U2charists, and pick-your-liturgical-innovation-of-the-week masses, are somehow beautiful. I think the Orthodox are fairly safe from wacky liturgical innovation (though boy wouldn't that be a trip to see what that would look like) but for us, I think using the standard of "making the liturgy beautiful" rather than "follow the rubrics" is a dangerous place to go!
You are correct on the RC theological understanding of both Anglican and Lutheran orders. The Pope when he was just Cardinal Ratzinger made this same point. But in dealing with such things sacramental, the RC church will generally err on the side of being conservative and say officially "not valid" rather than, "we just don't know," even if theologically there is a legitimate question. I'm married to a TEC priest, so understand that I'm not personally knocking the validity of Orders. All I'm saying is that in terms of the upcoming AO ordinations (and this is in response to Fr. Bill's comments above), the AO ordination is going to be absolute, not conditional.
Oh, I never doubted that – of course the ordinations will be absolute. But still, as a privilege, the newly ordained Catholic priests will keep their ordination date in the Church of England (just as the CofE bishops, though "only" priests, enjoy the right to wear pontificals).
I think this is the Vatican's way to say "We value your ministry in the Church of England, and though we really can't say you were Catholic priests, you certainly were not simple laymen." Quite elegantly, I would say.
(Come to this, remember how Pope Paul VI and the various Archbishops of Canterbury exchanged presents like chalices, pectoral crosses and similar stuff – I think the Pope implied that those things were not thought to sit in the cupboard but to be used by the presentee).
[Disclaimer: I spoke of the "Church of England" as pars pro toto for all the Churches of the Anglican tradition. Of course all TEC, ALCC... clergy are meant too.]
The Church is perfectly willing to consider that idea that certain Anglican/Episcopal clerics are valid priests. If there is any evidence of this, the Church will perform a conditional reordination, rather than a absolute one. Wasn't Leonard Graham conditionally reordained several years ago upon his reception? If the evidence were absolutely certain for valid orders, there would be no new ordination ceremony at all.
What I've found many of my ex-co-religionists fail to understand is that the flaws pointed to in Apostolicae Curae were (1) a lack of valid consecrators, (2) a defective form, and (3) a lack of valid intention. The "Dutch Touch" doesn't address (2) and (3), and it really may not even address (1), as the Old Catholic Bishops were not the primary celebrant of the Sacrament.
With respect to the form, many Anglican do not seem to understand that the Church defined in 1947 the form of the sacrament of ordination in the Latin Church, and it is a form that has been in use since antiquity (it is found in the Leonine Sacramentary), and it has nothing to do with the handing over of the instruments, about which so much controversy was made in the period from 1549 to 1896. Strangely, this has been mostly ignored in continuin polemics on the subject.
The final problem is possessing the intention the Church has in using the sacrament. Because Anglicans have continued to use an unapproved form of ordination that was purposefully changed to help foster Calvinism in the English Church in the 1500's, it is difficult to see how the defective intention that was adjudged to exist at that time has been modified since when the same rite lacking the now defined form of the sacrament continue to be used.
Andrew wrote:
"Wasn't Leonard Graham conditionally reordained several years ago upon his reception?"
Yes, in 1994; but he and the American Episcopalian clergyman John Jay Hughes (in 1968) were the only two Anglican "clergy converts" who were ever ordained conditionally; all the others (including the three English Anglican bishops who became Catholics in 1994-5, as well the five more recent ones) were ordained unconditionally.
Andrew,
You wrote: If there is any evidence of this, the Church will perform a conditional reordination, rather than a absolute one.
Well, not quite. If there's clear evidence of valid ordination of certain individuals, there will be NO Catholic ordination of those individuals unless and until they are promoted to a higher order. The Catholic Church would perform a conditional ordination only if it's not possible to substantiate what appears to be a valid ordination.
You wrote: What I've found many of my ex-co-religionists fail to understand is that the flaws pointed to in Apostolicae Curae were (1) a lack of valid consecrators, (2) a defective form, and (3) a lack of valid intention. The "Dutch Touch" doesn't address (2) and (3), and it really may not even address (1), as the Old Catholic Bishops were not the primary celebrant of the Sacrament.
Again, not quite.
1. The lack of valid consecrators did not exist in the first ordinations that used the invalid rite of ordination. It was only after many years of use of the invalid rite that a lack of valid consecrators became a problem. Of course, this problem persisted after the use of the invalid rite of consecration cceased.
2. The use of an invalid rite of ordination had ceased before Old Catholic bishops participated in Anglican ordinations.
3. Also, validity of episcopal ordination requires that only one of the consecrators be validly ordained in the apostolic succession and have the right intention (that is, the intention of conferring episcopal ordination). It does not matter whether this be the principal consecrator or a co-consecrator. The reason for having three consecrating bishops for regularity is to ensure the validity of the lineage of episcopal ordination through the newly ordained bishop even if it's later shown that one or two of the consecrators were imposters not validly ordained as bishops. Note that the Catholic Church recognizes the orders of the so-called Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) even though their current bishops had only two consecrators (Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Archbishop Antonio de Costa Mayer).
So, Anglican bishops ordained or co-ordained by any bishop of the Old Catholic Communion are validly ordained as bishops. However, the ordination of women within the Anglican Communion brings the question of theology of orders, and thus of intent, into the ordinations of those whom they ordained.
You wrote: The final problem is possessing the intention the Church has in using the sacrament. Because Anglicans have continued to use an unapproved form of ordination that was purposefully changed to help foster Calvinism in the English Church in the 1500's, it is difficult to see how the defective intention that was adjudged to exist at that time has been modified since when the same rite lacking the now defined form of the sacrament continue to be used.
My understanding is that there use of the defective rite ceased a couple centuries ago. The problem is that use of the defective rite persisted for over a century, so there's no way that the apostolic succession could have survived.
Norm.
Rev 22:17:
The "form" of Holy Orders in the western rites, defined by Pius XII is in the preface per the decree "Sacramentum ordinis." The same form is found in the Leonine Sacramentary from 1500 years ago. I don't believe this form is in the Anglican rite from 1662, though I am open to being corrected on this.
Andrew,
You wrote: The "form" of Holy Orders in the western rites, defined by Pius XII is in the preface per the decree "Sacramentum ordinis." The same form is found in the Leonine Sacramentary from 1500 years ago. I don't believe this form is in the Anglican rite from 1662, though I am open to being corrected on this.
That much is true, but the Anglicans replaced the 1662 rite of ordination with a revised rite that does not contain the same defects c. 1790. Of coures, after ~130 years of invalid ordinations, there was no apostolic succession left….
Norm.
Norm wrote:
"That much is true, but the Anglicans replaced the 1662 rite of ordination with a revised rite that does not contain the same defects c. 1790. Of coures, after ~130 years of invalid ordinations, there was no apostolic succession left…."
There is absolutely no basis for this erroneous assertion. The 1662 English BCP remains nominally the "official" English BCP and alternative ordination rites were not approved in England until the 1970s. And in the USA, the ordination rites of the 1789 Episcopalian BCP were identical with those of 1662, at least in the "operative" parts. I have recently posted a comment on this here:
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/03/question-for-readers-about-the-new-corrected-translation/#comments
Andrew wrote:
"1. The lack of valid consecrators did not exist in the first ordinations that used the invalid rite of ordination. It was only after many years of use of the invalid rite that a lack of valid consecrators became a problem. Of course, this problem persisted after the use of the invalid rite of consecration cceased."
When Matthew Parker was consecrated in 1559 two of his four consecrators were bishops who has been ordained in the 1530s or 40s using the Roman Pontifical; the two others had been consecrated in the early 1550s with Cranmer's Ordinal. All Anglican bishops derive their "episcopal pedigree" from Archbishop Parker, or those consecrated by him — except for the Church of Ireland, where about half of the Catholic bishops conformed to the Elizabethan Settlement there in 1560. But in Ireland, too, the ordination rites authorized there, in 1560 and 1662, were identical with those authorized in England in 1559 and 1662. So it was not the case that "only after many years of use of the invalid rite that a lack of valid consecrators became a problem;" it happened right away.
"2. The use of an invalid rite of ordination had ceased before Old Catholic bishops participated in Anglican ordinations."
and:
"My understanding is that there use of the defective rite ceased a couple centuries ago. "
Factually erroneous, and not the case. See my comment on Fr. Zuhlsdorf's blog for which the link is given in my previous reply to Norm.
"So, Anglican bishops ordained or co-ordained by any bishop of the Old Catholic Communion are validly ordained as bishops."
Given the premises, and correcting Andrew's various mistakes, it would be much more likely that such "Anglican bishops ordained or co-ordained by any bishop of the Old Catholic Communion" are NOT "validly ordained as bishops."
Maggie,
You wrote: The clerical ordinations that will happen for the Ordinariate are not conditional. Unlike with the Orthodox, when these ordinations occur they are absolute.
Just one point of clarification: when a clergyman from the Orthodox Communion is received into the full communion Catholic Church, there is NO ordination whatsoever — neither absolute nor conditional — unless and until he is subsequently promoted to a higher order. The Catholic Church recognizes ordination in the Orthodox Communion as fully valid, and thus not repeatable. The former Orthodox clergyman's new bishop would simply grant him full faculties for ministry, consistent with his order, upon his reception. He would be able to minister lawfully upon receipt of those faculties.
In the case of an Orthodox bishop, the pope would appoint him to a suitable office upon his reception, whereupon he would acquire the ordinary authority for ministry associated with that office.
Norm.
Thanks for clarifying that Norm, you are absolutely right. I was less than clear there, and I'm glad you made that distinction.
The situation in the Torres Strait will be challenging, and it is also unique. Remember that these people have only been Christians for the blink of an eye lid. There was no Catholic Church to join. It was Anglicans who brought them the Gospel.
There is a very sad history in this country of white men from afar choosing what is "best" for the "natives".
We must ensure that white man's imperialism is not repeated here. Each and every one of us must pray earnestly that this great people is respected in their journey to the full communion of the Catholic Church. They could teach all of us very much about what it means to follow Jesus.
I do not know what shape this journey will take, but speculation by rich white men on the internet will not help.
Prayer will.
Fr. Stephen,
You wrote: The situation in the Torres Strait will be challenging, and it is also unique. Remember that these people have only been Christians for the blink of an eye lid. There was no Catholic Church to join. It was Anglicans who brought them the Gospel.
There is a very sad history in this country of white men from afar choosing what is "best" for the "natives".
We must ensure that white man's imperialism is not repeated here. Each and every one of us must pray earnestly that this great people is respected in their journey to the full communion of the Catholic Church. They could teach all of us very much about what it means to follow Jesus.
Thank you for sharing that background. I really was not aware of the details.
I am certain that the Vatican will find a satisfactory manner to address this situation. The only real question is whether it will be by erecting a separate ordinariate for the Torres Strait or perhaps by erecting a deanery within the ordinariate for Australia. Isolating these people in a separate ordinariate seems to be discriminatory, and thus just as repressive, as imposing "white rule" on them. OTOH, the Catholic Church certainly will welcome their cultural patromony in so far as it is compatible with Christian faith.
Norm.
Of course there is precedence: The Knanaya people, Judeo-Christians that moved to Kerala, South India, in the fourth century, have since that time retained their identity, including the personal archeparchy of Kottayam in the Syro-Malabar Church.
Victor,
You wrote: Of course there is precedence: The Knanaya people, Judeo-Christians that moved to Kerala, South India, in the fourth century, have since that time retained their identity, including the personal archeparchy of Kottayam in the Syro-Malabar Church.
That is an entirely different situation. When English missionaries first arrived in India in the 16th century, they found a group of people who traced their Christian roots back to the apostle Thomas. The matter was referred back to Rome, where scholars found references to Thomas going off to the East after Pentecost and not much else about the fruits of his ministry in the anals of western Christendom. It turns out that he and his helpers, most notably including Addai and Mari from the "seventy-two," had evangelized much of Arabia, Persia, and India and parts of China, but that this was largely unknown in the western church because politics and geography had conspired to cut off communication. The Syro-Malabar Christians of India are just one of the groups that remain after Moslem conquests subsequently decimated much of Christendom in that region. Of course, this isolation also enabled customs of worship to evolve differently, forming the Syro-Malabar Rite.
Some of the Syro-Malabar Christians subsequently came into the full communion of the Catholic Church, forming the present sui juris Syro-Malabar Catholic Church.
But the present Church of the Torres Strait is not of apostolic origin. Rather, it was evangelized by Anglican missionaries from Australia and now worships substantially according to the Anglican form. Thus, the situation is vastly different. It will not become a separate sui juris ritual church.
Norm.
Archbishop Hepworth has written the following on another blog with regards to the Church of the Torres Strait:
As to the Torres Strait, a solution has emerged from some months of very hard work by Bishop Nona, his clergy and people, other TAC people in Australia, and some Catholic laity who have a long involvement in Islander and Aboriginal matters. This has been communicated to the Holy See and awaits a decision. It is therefore another of those Ordinariate matters in which decisions are being reached through local and Roman dialogue. Prayer for the Torres Strait people and for the Roman Curia are now needed. The process that is being considered may well have a wider application.
Father:
I'd prefer to say I converted from the Episcopalian Heresy. I grew up a broad Church Episcopalian of a Catholic bent of mind despite Frank Griswold being the pastor of my parish during that time.
As a child I was perceptive and intelligent enough a Christian to reject women priests, abortion, birth control, divorce and other modern errors by the time I was about 12 (much to my liberal parents chagrin), and I could read the Prayer Book liturgy well enough to believe in things like the Assumption and real presence and prayers for the dead. I suppose the eyes of faith were sufficient to see their obvious flaws and truths.
However, being a comitted Episcopalian I also consciously rejected the papal primacy, thus making me a heretic. It only takes one drop of poison to spoil the whole.
Am I misreading you, or do you sound angry? In my experience as a life-long Catholic, I have always felt that the word "convert" had a gentle, welcoming, even admiring sound?
I know that all of us have to convert every day.
Thanks for the remark.
Kaytee, is youre question addressed to me? When I review my post it consists of a compliment, another compliment, an expression of gratitude, and a public apology, followed by comments on themes of pastoral care and the challenge of working toward salvation.
"Joe and Mary Catholic, as one bishop disparages us…"
That's funny that you refer to that as being disparaging. I have used the term (as well as their best friends, Joe and Mary Episcopalian) to mean the good folks who come to their parish every week, donate to the church, are reasonably active, are not overly political, and are sort of your standard church-attender. I've always thought of the term as meaning the faithful, dependable, regular ol' good people. I've never heard it to be a derogatory term, and certainly never meant it that way. Just sayin'…
It is derogation when Joe and Mary Catholic are said to be unable to comprehend the meaning of consubstantial, ineffable, and for many.
You know, I think used in that way it is shorthand for a much bigger fight within the Catholic Church on liturgical reform and liturgical language. Much like the Rite 1 vs. Rite 2 folks, the revisions coming out, in many people's opinion, are taking the Novus Ordo liturgy back to a Rite 1 sensibility (if the RCs had a Rite 1 in English). For many of the same reasons that Episcopalians choose to attend Rite 2, many/most Catholics don't want the liturgy that they are comfortable with changed. Many of us like the liturgy as is – without using words that aren't in common usage. And unlike in the Anglican Church, they aren't being given a choice. So while I think that it could be interpreted as being derogatory, I think the comment is simply the top layer of that particular can of worms.
Rite 1 and Rite 2?
I thought it was Rite 1 and Wrong 1.
LOL
Ralph,
Your post raises several profound points with which I fully agree.
You wrote: The second thing that could be done — and it would be a real service to those who are sincerely confused on this point — would be for our bishops and pastors to rethink the way people are received. Since the apostolic era, the Church has had a sense of a catechumate, persons of different cult who are discerning the Faith and contemplating requesting baptism. Since the Great Schism, the Church has understood that this is a very different situation from that of baptized faithful in impaired communion who are contemplating coming into full communion.
Unfortunately, this is but one example of issues in which there is a major disconnect between the rubrics in the current liturgical books of the Roman Rite and what is actually happening in many of our parishes — and I have yet to find one instance in which there's any defensible argument that what is happening in the parishes is not seriously detrimental.
Ideally, a parish should offer open sessions for inquirers of all stripes in which the pastoral staff would provide basic information, assess the situations of those who come, and direct those who come into the appropriate way forward.
>> For those not yet baptized, the way forward would be the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA). Note that the RCIA would be ongoing because some of the catechumens typically would not be ready for election and bapism.
>> For those baptized, whether in the Catholic Church or another denomination, the way forward would be a full catechitical program leading to reception into full communion of those not baptized in the Catholic Church, confirmation, and admission to communion at a time other than the Easter Vigil.
>> For those baptized and catechized in a non-Catholic denomination, the way forward would be individual formation to address any errors or omissiions in their previous formation, leading to reception into full communioon, confirmation, and admission to communion, again at a time other than the Easter Vigil.
In most cases, what's really needed involves nothing more than (1) separating the sessions for inquirers from the RCIA proper and (2) providing the three tracks indicated in the rubrics. Unfortunately, it won't happen as long as we continue to tolerate the excuse that doing the right thing is too hard.
You wrote: Better pastoral leadership would help us all better understand the true nature of the path that our returning brethren are walking, and would make us more likely to be sensitive toward them.
Absolutely!
Of course, the "better pastoral leadership" of which you speak also would have found ways to teach "John and Mary Catholic" — the people in the pews — the changes in termonology and practice and the reasons therefor as such changes occurred.
And of course, that same "better pastoral leadership" of which you speak would have started using the current form of the Order of Reconcilliation of Penitents when Pope Paul VI promulgated it in 1972 — nearly forty years ago. I wonder how many confessors who still expect a penitent to begin by saying, "Bless me, Father, for I have sinned…" — and yes, I still encounter them — would go to a physician who continues to practice medicine in the manner of the 1960's!
Norm.
The National Statutes for the Catechumenate for the US Bishops and approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1988 state clearly that the term "convert" should be "reserved strictly for those converted from unbelief to Christian belief and never used of those baptized Christians who are received into the full communion of the Catholic Church (#2)."
Furthermore regarding Christians, "those who have already been baptized in another Church or ecclesial community should not be treated as catechumens or so designated. Their doctrinal and spiritual preparation for reception into full Catholic communion should be determined according to the individual case…(#30)"
The problem is that many parishes just follow a 'one size fits all' policy. Where there is a 'Rite of Election', the treatment of those already validly baptised is supposed to distinguish them from the unbaptised.
And what is more (as I learned recently), baptized christians are NOT to be accepted at Easter Vigil, this being a privilege of catechumens. Maundy Thursday seems to be a fine date, since the whole thing is about coming into Communion…
That's a very valid point, Victor. We (or at least, I) have tended to see the idea of calling an already-baptised Christian a "convert" as somehow lessening the community in which they were baptised and in which faith they were nurtured – and perhaps through which faith they came to the fullness of Catholicity.
Another, perhaps more valid, way of looking at things is that jumbling (for the sake of argument) ex-Episcopalians together with ex-atheists risks minimising the magnitude of the latter's conversion, through laxity of language which begets fuzziness of thought. I hadn't thought of reception at the Easter Vigil as a privilege, but now I understand why it must be so.
I understand that most of the receptions into the Ordinariate of OLW in England and Wales will take place on Maundy Thursday.
Stephen,
You wrote: I understand that most of the receptions into the Ordinariate of OLW in England and Wales will take place on Maundy Thursday.
That's certainly a very fitting time for their reception — much better than doing it at the Easter Vigil!
Norm.
Regarding Christians who enter into full communion with the Catholic Church the statues say that those who "have received relatively little Christian upbringing may participate in the elements of catechumenal formation so far as necessary and appropriate, but they should not take part in rites intended for the unbaptized catechumens (#31)."
Furthermore, "those baptized persons who have lived as Christians and need only instruction in the Catholic tradition and a degree of probation within the Catholic community should not be asked to undergo a full program parallel to the catechumenate (#31)."
Such receptions of Christians into full communion should "ordinarily take place at the Sunday Eucharist of the parish community" and should "not take place at the Easter Vigil lest there be any confusion (#32, 33)."
So believing Christians should receive the instruction they need according to their individual circumstance and be received at any Sunday eucharist all year round. They should never go through RCIA or anything parallel. They should not be received at the Vigil.
Why all this fuss about making sure there isn't any confusion? The Statues give several solid pastoral justifications.
The Statues say that believing Christians should be instructed and received separately in order to avoid confusing baptized "Christians with the candidates for baptism, possible misunderstanding of or even reflection upon the sacrament of baptism celebrated in another Church or ecclesial community, or any perceived triumphalism in the liturgical welcome into the Catholic eucharistic community (#33)."
Sorry for the long reply but I wanted to be complete on this important pastoral issue that effects all of us in some way or another.
Oh, you too?
Don't worry about what the statues say. I always find their advice to be highly unreliable once the booze has worn off.
I understand the intent, but I still prefer to say I was a heretic who converted to Holy Mother Church.
I discovered I was aiming myself in the wrong direction with my own proud beliefs and I asked directions, decided with prayer they were correct and my own beliefs in error, and turned around and went another way.
There is no need to soft peddle this necessary process. There is only one truth and one right way, and those of us who were baptized in childhood were all baptized into it and received infused faith at that time in our souls. If we subsequently discover we have wandered off under our own direction onto a twisting path of our own making through the brambles and snares of the devil, the best thing for us to do when we realize that is to turn around and rejoin the right way.
Soft peddling error and the failure to live in the bonds of charity within the unity of the Church leads to people believing that there are many right roads, and that it is just fine for them to remain estranged from the unity of the Church in which is salvation.
St. Luke 13.26 26. "We did eat before thee and drink, and in our streets didst thou teach."
"26. Eat before thee.] It is not enough to feed with Christ in his Sacraments, or to hear his word in the Church, to challenge heaven thereby, unless we live in unity of the Catholic Church. So St. Augustine applieth this against the Donatists, that had the very same service and Sacraments which the Catholic Church, had yet severed themselves from other Christian countries by Schism." (Notes of the Rhiems New Testament)
"As a dutiful mother is ever anxious about the health of her children and is uneasy until any dissension among them has been quieted, so and to a much greater extent Holy Mother Church, which regenerates its children to eternal life, is wont to strive with every effort "that all who go by the name of Christian" (collect of 3rd Sunday after Easter, Missale Romanum) may put aside all quarrelling and may guard in fraternal charity the unity of faith (cf. Ephesians 4:13), without which there can be no salvation." (Council of Florance (in Basel) On the agreement between the council and the Greeks about union, Session 19, September 7, 1434)
Andrew,
You wrote: I understand the intent, but I still prefer to say I was a heretic who converted to Holy Mother Church.
I discovered I was aiming myself in the wrong direction with my own proud beliefs and I asked directions, decided with prayer they were correct and my own beliefs in error, and turned around and went another way.
There is no need to soft peddle this necessary process. There is only one truth and one right way, and those of us who were baptized in childhood were all baptized into it and received infused faith at that time in our souls. If we subsequently discover we have wandered off under our own direction onto a twisting path of our own making through the brambles and snares of the devil, the best thing for us to do when we realize that is to turn around and rejoin the right way.
I'm not a believer in soft-peddling the truth, but let's choose language that does not confuse one who is baptized but walking in the way of sin with one who is not baptized.
You wrote: Soft peddling error and the failure to live in the bonds of charity within the unity of the Church leads to people believing that there are many right roads, and that it is just fine for them to remain estranged from the unity of the Church in which is salvation.
We all have different experiences, and thus walk different paths, in our quest for the Truth. In ancient times, it was said that "all roads lead to Rome" — and that's also true of Christian faith, as Rome is the see of the chief of the apostles. Nonetheless, I'm not going to denigrade those whose sincere spiritual journeys have brought them to a different place at this point in their lives. I have no doubt that God uses non-Catholic Christian bodies to bring people to faith. Indeed, I have met more than a few individuals over the years who, sadly, did not grasp the basic truths of God's plan of salvation in their early formation and needed to go to a place — typically an evangelical Christian community — where they would hear it. Many of these individuals subsequently come back to the Catholic Church with an awareness of the sacramental mysteries and a depth of faith manifest in the sacramental life that those sitting next to them in the Catholic pews may lack.
As the saying goes, God writes straight with crooked lines. While we know, objectively, that leaving the one true church is wrong, the painful reality is that, subjectively, many Catholic pastors fall short of feeding the flocks in a nutritious manner. Unfortunately, the sex abuse scandals of the past decade are barely the tip of the iceberg in this regard.
Norm.
I fully agree with you, Andrew. I converted to Catholicism 24 years ago, have been labelled as a convert ever since, and although at first I found it a little quaint that cradle Catholics called me a convert, I have never had a problem with it. I have never come across the term being used with any derogatory intent, and only sometimes applied in jest during light-hearted banter.
It is the means by which Catholics in the pew distinguish between a person who has been Catholic since baptism as a child, and a person who has "poped"as an adult. No amount of politically correct blarney is going to change that, just like it hasn't stopped Catholics referring to the "Sacrament of Reconciliation" as "Confession", and just like it hasn't stopped them starting their confession with the words "Bless me, Father, for I have sinned…"
Besides which, the point when somebody arrives at the realisation of the truth of the full Catholic Faith is indeed a grace-filled moment of conversion. For some that conversion in faith can occur many years before they are received into communion with the Catholic Church, but it is a conversion nevertheless. The point at which grace moves them to actually break free of the counterfeits of the Church of God and enter Christ's embrace without holding anything back is just another moment of conversion. The same can be said of any point in our life when we lay aside our own will in favour of Christ's will. I would even dare to venture that the creation of the Ordinariate(s) was a moment of conversion by the Catholic Church in the act of her Supreme Pontiff.
Once people have jumped into the embrace of Holy Mother Church and the grace that comes with that, most will understand why they are indeed "converts" and won't take any offence by the term. Those who do still struggle with it will soon find it to be quite a trivial label compared to all the other things they are called as a result of their reconciliation with Rome.
On retreat autumn 09, immersed in Tridentine ritual and Ignatian spirituality, the priest giving one particular conference spoke of the "Three Ways" of the spiritual life. I do feel that a properly lived Christian life is indeed a conversion. The three ways were thusly named the "Purgative" way, the "Illuminative" way, and the "Unitive" way. Ideally we should each progress through these ways – steady spiritual growth. Alas, the vast majority spend most of their life staggering along the Purgative Way, never able to achieve real conversion. I confess to feeling that way myself…
Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange also wrote about the "three conversions" of the spiritual life…
Whether one calls their reception into the Church "conversion" or not, the burden of ongoing conversion is settled very firmly upon the shoulders of all who would undertake the journey. This, of course, has both interior and exterior components.