Posts tagged Anglicanorum Coetibus
Canadian Friends of the Ordinariate
Mar 11th
I have set up a Canadian Friends of the Ordinariate site with a link to a Yahoo! Groups listserv for anyone interested in joining or supporting a personal ordinariate in Canada. The listserv is brand new but I hope it will be a good place for those who want to ask questions privately.
www.friendsoftheordinariate.ca is the domain name.
A Few Thoughts, A Week Later
Mar 11th
Other than a few random comments, lately I’ve been pretty quiet on the blog. It’s not for lack of interest – more like a lack of hours in the day. This week started the students’ Lenten confessions, and I’ve managed to hear about seventy-five confessions over the past few days, with lots more to come. I have a rare free evening, so I thought I’d cobble together a brief posting, just to keep my hand in.
It’s been a week since the bishops’ meeting in Orlando, and I’ve had some time to think about what took place there. First, I have to say how gracious the bishops were in their welcome to me. I arrived as an outsider, but it didn’t take long for that feeling to dissipate. I had no doubt I was with brothers in Christ. I have to say, I thoroughly enjoyed the few days we had together. Worshipping in the lovely Cathedral of the Incarnation was a treat. It’s such a gracious community, and the hospitality typified what is surely part of our patrimony.
For me, the best fruit produced by the meeting was the unanimous request from the bishops for the implementation of Anglicanorum coetibus. This was an authentic expression of collegiality, especially since a few of the bishops have sincere questions about it. We were all clear in our understanding that the unanimous request didn’t commit anyone to unanimous action, but the genuine charity exhibited by everyone agreeing to join in the request, I found to be quite magnificent.
A very clear press release was issued – and, of course, the media rode off as though on wild horses, and got much of it wrong. But that can be repaired. In fact, there will be an opportunity to clarify things in a more careful way tomorrow evening at 8:00 p.m. (Eastern), when I’ll be Raymond Arroyo’s guest on EWTN’s The World Over. It’s always a risk to speak in such a public forum, but Raymond is an insightful interviewer, and has a genuine understanding of the consequential nature of this historic decision by the Holy Father.
I have to admit, I’m eager for the establishment of an Ordinariate if only to be able to nurture the fraternal spirit I encountered in Orlando! Is that selfish of me?
Light on Clerical Celibacy
Mar 11th
I have a document that probably sheds a considerable amount of light onto why the authorities of the Church are retaining celibacy as a rule and allowing generous dispensations from this discipline at the same time. I am sure most of our readers are aware that not all Catholics are orthodox or traditionally-minded. Many have exactly the same agenda as the Anglican churches we once belonged to and had to leave for reasons of conscience.
I found a statement on the website of the European Federation of Catholic Married Priests commenting on the Apostolic Constitution, and was quite flabbergasted on reading it. The document in question is a pdf, and can be downloaded from here. Rather than praise what might seem to be the thin end of the wedge towards abolishing celibacy, the attitude is sneering, as we will see from the quotes. It’s unfair! – they protest.
Before going on with the appropriate quotes, the uppermost idea in my mind is that celibacy can be compared with the issue of Latin in the liturgy at the Council of Trent. Making of celibacy a dogma or something irreformable would be the biggest blunder the Church could ever make, but that does not mean the flood-gates should be opened at this time. The implications go so far, that a general relaxation of celibacy is simply not opportune. It is a question of a whole conception of the priesthood, as the quotes will illustrate. Many lay apologists make the cardinal error of nominalism – singling out issues and failing to see the big picture or the connection between everything.
The European Federation of Catholic Married Priests made a statement about the Apostolic Constitution and commented on the proposal to dispense from celibacy generously. They firstly manifest their appreciation of the idea of there being a choice between marriage and celibacy, and that this would contribute to a healthy diversity of vocations in the Church. So far, so good.
Here comes the big tamale:
(…) it is difficult to see how this decision by Rome can ever be justified as there is not a shred of supporting ecclesiology to sustain it — that is unless it is also accompanied by the offer of re-admission to ministry of those catholic priests who have married and who wish to resume ministry. More than 100,000 married catholic priests have been prevented from exercising their ministry. Our view is that to consider these latter as traitors while at the same time believing it is alright to encourage a group of married Anglican priests to break their allegiance to the Anglican Communion is hypocritical. When the situations are compared there is clearly a danger that this will give rise to great confusion within our communities.
It is such an arbitrary and difficult to understand decision – unless, of course, we take for granted the fundamentalist and conservative views which are at the core of this group of married priests for whom the Catholic Church is throwing open its doors. They are against the ordination of women and the possibility of homosexuals being priests in the Anglican Communion, both of which were agreed as acceptable by a majority vote of that communion. However, the Vatican seems to have decided that the type of priest in which it places its trust is not one that is aligned with Gospel openness nor capable of reading the signs that the Holy Spirit is at work.
It seems to us that this gesture damages ecumenism because it fails to take account of the many years of dialogue in order to pursue a return to Catholicism. Rather than bearing in mind the progress made during Vatican II and in the ARCIC discussions on the eucharist, ministries, and authority in The Church, the Vatican is dishonestly recruiting by allowing Christians to get around a decision of their own Church. By doing this it increases division in a Church that is already having so much difficulty trying to sort out disputes touching in particular on important issues of morality.
This is quite mind-blowing stuff, considering that those liberals would like to impose their own “type” of priest as normative and compulsory for all. Their argument is that if it is good for dissident Anglicans, it is also good for all those Latin American base communities and their Congregationalist ecclesiology to have their own! Little Jonny has to have four sweets, and little Cynthia has to have four sweets. If there’s any squabbling, all eight sweets will go right back into the bag and into the kitchen cupboard. Then it’s fair for all!
Now, we have come to the crux of the matter. Is accepting Anglicans into the communion of the Church a matter of just another dose of inculturation to make the bitter pill of the Gospel relevant and meaningful, or is it a question of the revival of Catholic orthodoxy? Well, we’ll have to give it to these liberals: they hit the nail on the head. They’re dead right.
It is a question of a conception of the priesthood. The flood-gates are not being opened because it would be further secularisation in the Church. For the liberals, the ordination of married men (and the marriage of priests) is an issue that cannot be separated from the cause for the ordination of women and same-sex pseudo-marital unions.
That is the reason. About a year ago, I discovered this organisation in France and contacted one of the priest members. My wife was keenly interested in the idea of contacting married (laicised) priests and perhaps learning a thing or two. We entered into correspondence, and invited this priest and his wife to dinner at our home. And very pleasant they were too. However, we soon began to understand the issues. The priest in question is in his late 70’s and was involved in the worker priest movement in the 1950’s. Those men, fundamentally, had concluded that Christianity had run its course and that the only power in the world that could implement the radical ideals of the Gospel was Marxist Communism.
They become “committed”, meaning that they were acquired to the cause of the Revolution and the class conflict between workers and the factory owners and bourgeoisie, etc. This priest’s charming wife had been a religious sister, and they were married in about 1968. We spoke about non-controversial things like children, non-religious interests like sailing or fishing, but we understood that we had nothing in common in religious terms. I was marked by the fact, according to this laicised priest, that the vast majority of married former Catholic priests are so secularised that they have forgotten every last vestige of their vocations. None says Mass (fortunately, not only because they were no longer serving as priests under a Bishop, but also because they had celebrated in lay clothes on the kitchen table when they were in good standing). A good proportion no longer attend Mass or have any identifiable belief. They would not be asking to return to the priesthood as they have gone so far away from orthodox Catholicism.
The day this vital distinction will be made, and it is understood that married Anglican priests moving towards the Ordinariates and the married laicised men described above have nothing in common, it will be possible to help people understand what superficially looks to the average journalist like hypocrisy.
The issue, in short, is not whether or not we priests have wives – but whether or not we are Catholic in our doctrine, spirituality and understanding of the Catholic Priesthood.
Theologian Says Married Priests Will Always Be Exceptional
Mar 10th
Zenit is carrying an interview with Fr. Laurent Touze, spiritual theology professor at the Pontifical University of the Holy Cross, who spoke at a two-day conference held last week entitled, “Priestly Celibacy: Theology and Life,” and sponsored by the Congregation for the Clergy as an event for the Year for Priests.
The interview is especially interesting inasmuch as the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus and its Complementary Norms clearly foresee not only the reception of married Anglican bishops, priests, and deacons coming into full communion with the Catholic Church, but also the possibility of the promotion of married men (from within the personal ordinariates) as candidates for Holy Orders in the future (AC VI. § 2; CN 6. § 1.); far from the Church becoming more permissive of non-celibate clergy, Fr. Touze suggests that an ever-deepening understanding of priestly celibacy portends just the opposite. Most astonishingly, Fr. Touze claims that priestly celibacy ranks somewhere between a discipline and a dogma, intimating that what was once considered disciplinary could one day be regarded as revealed truth. According to Fr. Touze, the practice of a married parish clergy in the Eastern Churches is a corruption based on a manipulation of texts, is contrary to Holy Tradition, and is permitted only by way of exception to the universal norm.
ZENIT: Is celibacy a dogma of faith or a discipline?
Father Touze: Neither one nor the other. It isn’t a dogma of faith because we see married priests in the Church today such as, for example, some [priests] of the Eastern Catholic Church. Not all but some admit married priests. Or as has been reminded recently in the Holy Father’s motu propio “Anglicanorum coetibus,” published last Nov. 4: Among the ex-Anglicans who want to return to communion with the Catholic Church, there will be married priests admitted.
ZENIT: With this measure, do you think that one day, celibacy might become voluntary also for priests of the Latin rite?
Father Touze: No, because the Church is understanding more and more the relation between priesthood, episcopate and celibacy. It is something that could be likened to the revelation of a dogma, though it isn’t so at this time; one tends increasingly to understand that a practice must be promoted among all priests and also among Eastern Catholic priests which is truly similar to the one lived in the first centuries.
ZENIT: But in the first centuries there were many married priests, including the Apostles?
Father Touze: Studies have convincingly shown that this must be questioned: Celibacy of all clerics wasn’t lived, but from the moment of inclusion in the priestly order these men had to live continence with the permission of their wives, because this was a commitment of the couple.
ZENIT: Why, then, are exceptions made?
Father Touze: Historically because there has been a manipulation of texts and I believe a bad translation that the Eastern Church, which has separated from Rome and has recognized that what they had declared contrary to tradition, could be accepted. In this connection there truly are some exceptions. The Church discovered that she had the possibility of admitting exceptions but that these should be understood as such. Respectably, as the Second Vatican Council stressed, there are very holy married priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches who have contributed much to the history of the Church and to the faith in times of persecution, but they are truly exceptions and must be understood as such.
ZENIT: However, these exceptions are not made with bishops. Does episcopal celibacy have a special meaning?
Father Touze: Undoubtedly. It is very different, both theologically as well as historically. What’s more, with the constitution “Lumen Gentium,” Vatican II defined that the episcopate is the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders. It is necessary to discover the specificity of the episcopate and, hence, episcopal celibacy. And it can be demonstrated with the fact that for the celibacy or continence of a bishop an exception has never been made.
This is something studied by the Church on which the Roman pontificate has had to reflect more recently in contemporary history on two occasions: after the French Revolution, where some bishops, or better, former bishops, asked to marry.
This has been studied and it has been said that it is impossible, that this had never been done, that at stake was the dogmatic issue. Or still recently with the ordination of married men and married bishops that were effected in former Czechoslovakia by imposition or with the pressure of the Communist Party in power. There also the Church affirmed on the fact that the bishop must always be celibate or if he had married before his ordination because he would have to live continence from the moment of his episcopal ordination.
[Translation by ZENIT]
What do you think about Fr. Touze’s thinking and what ramifications might it have for the life of the personal ordinariates in the future?
Counting Our Blessings
Mar 9th
If God is for us, who can be against us?
I must do some writing for Catholic papers today on last night’s excellent Catholic Christian Outreach event where Cardinal Levada spoke, so I must be brief. I posted some pictures from yesterday over at my blog, which I have been neglecting of late. I also put up a link to the article I wrote about the Cardinal’s talk on Anglicanorum Coetibus as edited and published by the Catholic News Service in the United States. So please head on over to take a look, but if you want to make comments, come back here.
Here are a couple of other things to call your attention to. Ottawa Archbishop Terrence Prendergast, who is an indefatigable blogger, wrote the following, giving the Traditional Anglican Communion and our Ottawa suffragan bishop a nice mention. Archbishop Prendergast has been most kind and generous to us, even though our cathedral is a humble place and our congregation, in Roman Catholic terms, miniscule.
He writes:
CCO FUNDRAISER FEATURES CARDINAL LEVADA AS SPEAKER
After speaking at the Consecration of the new seminary for the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), who are present in our archdiocese at St. Clement’s Parish, Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has come to assist with the evangelizing work of Catholic Christian Outreach (www.cco.ca) headquartered at the Diocesan Centre (and on whose board I am pleased to serve).
Last evening he spoke at the St. John Fisher Dinner to benefit CCO at Queen’s University on Anglicanorum coetibus, the Holy See’s proposal of a Personal Ordinariate (a type of diocese on a larger scale, somewhat akin to military ordinariates) in response to the request by bishops of the Traditional Anglican Church around the world (Bishop Carl Reid heads up a diocese in our city).
The Canadian bishops, I believe, will greet the Ordinariate with generosity. But Damian Thompson seems to think the opposite will happen in England. He writes:
Reading Australian Bishop Peter Elliott’s magnificent exposition of the Ordinariate plan, I thought (as did many of you): why don’t we hear similarly imaginative responses from the Bishops of England and Wales? Here are two of my fears. Do you share them?
1. The English and Welsh bishops fundamentally don’t like the Ordinariate scheme, so will come up with the least they can get away with.
Someone told me the other day that the TAC has its detractors in Rome, people who say it exists only on paper. Yet this individual said that they keep meeting members of the TAC who are vibrant and alive. “Yes, we are small,” I admitted. “But the Ordinariates will be like mustard seeds.” I added that when the graces begin to flow through our being part of the Church Catholic, those seeds will sprout and the Ordinariates will flourish. This individual agreed. I know we also have friends in the Vatican, including someone special who lives inside the Apostolic Palace.
Yet we can be tempted sometimes to get a little chippy and defensive because of the negative things that have been said about us over the years. Even in my short time — ten years — as a TAC member, I have seen some elements of the Anglican Communion treat us as the off-scouring of the earth, evil schismatics and cultists who deserve to gnash our teeth in outer darkness until we come back to Canterbury suitably chastened, our tail between our legs, begging for mercy. Alas, there have been some Catholic bishops who have built warm friendships with Canterbury bishops who have come to share the view that we are insignificant, highly annoying and do not deserve to be welcomed anywhere, least of all as members of the Catholic Church.
But I exhort us to be generous now. Let us shine with the love of Jesus Christ, confident that, through the Holy Father, God has opened up a way for us to come home. Last week I attended a lecture on ARCIC talks by Saskatoon Bishop-elect Donald Bolen, who worked for several years in the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity in charge of relations with Anglicans and Methodists.
Over the years, he had developed warm relationships with his Anglican ecumenical partners and they clearly love him and he them. But upon meeting him for the first time, I realized this about him. He loves. Period. This is a man who loves everyone because Jesus Christ is alive and he knows it. There is nothing wobbly about his faith. He knows what he believes. But out of that faith, he is generous and kind and welcoming to everyone and consequently everyone trusts him.
He was as warm and kind and welcoming to TAC Bishop Carl Reid, who also attended the event.
Can’t we all be like that? We can afford to be generous now. And that generosity of spirit is what will win people to us. There is no need to be defensive or chippy or snarky (I remind myself!) because God will open up a way for us. We can rest in Him.
The picture shows Bishop-elect Bolen, who will be installed on March 25, the Feast of the Annunciation, as Bishop of Saskatoon.
Isolated Groups of Anglicans
Mar 9th
Most of the Anglican groups, in the Anglican Communion or the TAC, live in countries where their bishops have territorial dioceses. It would certainly be assumed that one or more Ordinariates would be established in those countries more or less corresponding with the formerly Anglican jurisdictions concerned.
There are some very small groups of Anglicans living in countries where there is no such jurisdiction that would provide the ‘material’ for an Ordinariate. In the TAC, there are certainly some communities that are far too insignificant. For example, other than my chaplaincy on the European Continent, there is a tiny community in Japan. There is a small community in New Zealand under the able leadership of Canon Ian Woodman. Unfortunately, one of their priests seems to have aligned with another Anglican body. There must be others dotted around the world.
In the Traditional Anglican Communion, there is a canonical entity called the Patrimony of the Primate, allowing priests to be under the Primate’s jurisdiction without residing in his territorial jurisdiction (Anglican Catholic Church of Australia). This is my own canonical title within the TAC. It would be interesting to see whether such a concept can continue to exist under the Ordinariates.
In the 1970’s and 80’s, there were Catholic priests in Rome who made it their business to help more traditionally-minded seminarians to find a canonical jurisdiction in which they could be ordained. They found that bishops in places like southern Italy and Eastern Europe were less weighed down by diocesan bureaucracy and were inclined to incardinate clerics without requiring them to reside in their dioceses. The seminarians then did their studies in Rome, were ordained and returned to their own countries as priests. It was then a relatively simple matter for one of these priests to go to the local diocesan bishop, show his papers and obtain permission for ministry in that jurisdiction. The diocesan bishop has no need to consult his Council for such a simple thing, as he would if it were a question of incardinating that priest.
This was a canonical anomaly that was tolerated for a time, since canon law was observed and there were no breaches of discipline. Eventually, it became necessary and possible to establish permanent institutes and societies for these priests to give them a canonical framework and a more normal priestly life. The same principle holds when it comes to pastoral ministries: they obtain permission from the local diocesan bishop. Some diocesan bishops are mean and stingy, and others are generous to the point of allowing a personal parish in application of Summorum Pontificum.
The Ordinariates will be different, as they will enjoy the canonical status described by the Pope in Anglicanorum Coetibus. Perhaps for an isolated cleric or a group that is too insignificant to be considered for being made into an Ordinariate, it will be possible to belong to an Ordinariate in another country. With such canonical status recognised in the Church, it may be possible to collaborate in some way with the local Catholic diocesan bishop, or at least obtain permission to minister to the faithful.
I was tempted to call this article Crumbs from the Master’s Table!
How many TAC folk are in this kind of situation? Have you any ideas about how these things can be organised?
Unofficial Text of Cardinal Levada’s Address
Mar 8th
The Salt + Light blog has an unofficial transcription of the talk (“Five Hundred Years After St. John Fisher: Benedict’s Ecumenical Initiatives to Anglicans”) which Cardinal Levada delivered on Saturday evening at Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario. Here are some excerpts. My emphases.
The recent Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus, establishing—I don’t need to translate this, I suppose, it won’t come out so well in translation: “groups of Anglicans”—establishing personal ordinariates for groups of Anglicans seeking full communion with the Catholic Church, was not created in a vacuum. For many Anglicans, the possibility opened by this initiative has seemed to be a logical development of the official dialogues between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church during the 45 year period since the end of the Second Vatican Council. Any discussion of Pope Benedict’s initiatives regarding Anglicans might therefore begin with a glance at this important history.
Cardinal Levada presents the Apostolic Constitution as the natural outgrowth of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) dialogue, of which he proceeds to provide a general outline. He recounts the several stages of the ARCIC process, set against the backdrop of the collapse of Catholic Faith and Apostolic Order in the Anglican Communion, of which women’s ordination and the homosexual movement are perhaps the most notable symptoms.
For Catholic Anglicans, he hits the nail squarely on the head.
The fundamental issue here, as many have noted, is the question of authority. This may be briefly summed up in the following two points. Does the revelation of God in Jesus Christ and in Scripture intend to let us know God’s will in a way that requires our obedience (for example, the imitation of Christ, the Ten Commandments)? And secondly, has God, in Christ, left His Church, founded on the Apostles, an authority by which it can assure that can know the correct meaning of the revelation, amidst sometimes varying human interpretations (for example, the sensus fidei, the ecumenical councils, the Magisterium of the Pope and bishops)?
The bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion have found the expression of the Church’s Magisterium in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “the most complete and authentic expression and application of the catholic faith in this moment of time” (as they put it in their original petition for corporate reunion).
Pope John Paul’s Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum promulgating the Catechism, points out that, “It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith.”
As we met with Anglican consultants in the preparation of Anglicanorum coetibus, these bishops and theologians themselves proposed the Catechism of the Catholic Church as the norm of faith for the corporate groups of Anglicans who might avail themselves this new instrument for full corporate union with the Catholic Church. Thus, I would also characterize the Catechism as an ecumenical initiative of Pope Benedict XVI and of his predecessor.
As Cardinal Levada notes, far from the Catholic Church imposing the Catechism on incoming Anglicans, it was the Anglican inquirers themselves, chief among them the bishops of the TAC, that suggested the text as a doctrinal standard for any future reunion. In Anglicanorum Coetibus, the Holy See is simply echoing the words of the Portsmouth Letter of the TAC College of Bishops.
Turning to the Anglican Communion, we can see the many elements that impel toward full unity: regard for the unifying role of the episcopate, an esteem for the sacramental life, a similar sense of catholicity as a mark of the Church, and a vibrant missionary impulse, to name but a few. These are by no means absent from the Catholic Church, but the particular manner in which they are found in Anglicanism adds to the Catholic understanding of a common gift. These considerations help us appreciate the Catholic Church’s insistence that there is no opposition between ecumenical action and the preparation of people for full reception into Catholic communion.
I like this! As Anglicanorum Coetibus itself states, the “liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion [soon to reside] within the Catholic Church” are “a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.” The particular gift of the Anglican tradition will serve to enhance the common gift of revealed truth already subsisting in the Catholic Church– but imperfectly or incompletely expressed so long as brethren are separated from the One Fold.
Indeed, the first ecumenical action logically leads to the second: reception into full communion. Unitatis Redintegratio, that is, the decree on ecumenism, asserts that almost all people long for the one visible church of God, that truly Universal Church whose mission is to convert the whole world to the Gospel so that the world may be saved to the glory of God.
The Apostolic Constitution is the consummation of the Anglican-Roman Catholic conversation. The end of genuine ecumenical dialogue is reincorporation into the fullness of communion with the Successor of St. Peter and the bishops in communion with him.
This is the first time that the Catholic Church has reached out in response to men and women of Western Christianity who desire full communion and accorded them not just a place among many, but a distinctive place. This is not surprising. Twenty-eight years ago, the great historian of ecumenism, Fr. Yves Congar, wrote that if we take seriously that the Holy Spirit has been working among our fellow Christians, we have to take seriously the ways they express their beliefs. When their particular expression of faith adds harmony to ours, and ours add harmony to theirs, the logical step is to pass from talking longingly about unity to living in unity, a unity whose essence is revealed in harmonious diversity. The unity Christ desires is visible; it is not elusive or even unreachable. Likewise, the totality that Christ desires is visible. These assertions lie behind the famous teachings of Lumen gentium that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, but it is equally true to say that the unity Christ desires for His Church can always be added to, just as there is room for another instrument in the orchestra. The totality that Christ desires does exist in terms of the elements of sanctification and truth that the Church possesses, but the sharing of those elements, then the manner of celebrating them, is still far from complete. We sometimes do not know the value of what we possess and we need the spirit-filled insights of others to recognize the treasures we have.
While taking care to disabuse his audience of too strict a comparison between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Anglican personal ordinariates (which are situated firmly in the tradition and law of the Latin Rite), Cardinal Levada makes it clear that the new structures are revolutionary in the life of the Catholic Church. The personal ordinariates facilitate the reunion of Anglican groups which will retain their distinctive gifts and corporate identity, sharing the elements of sanctification and truth in ways that will strengthen the witness of the Church in the world.
Salt + Light on Cardinal Levada’s Talk
Mar 8th
The blog of Canada’s Salt + Light Catholic Media Foundation has the following excerpt from Cardinal Levada’s address, “Five Hundred Years After St. John Fisher: Benedict’s Ecumenical Initiatives to Anglicans”:
Visible union with the Catholic Church does not mean absorption into a monolith, with the absorbed body being lost to the greater whole, the way a teaspoon of sugar would be lost if dissolved in a gallon of coffee. Rather, visible union with the Catholic Church can be compared to an orchestral ensemble. Some instruments can play all the notes, like a piano. There is no note that a piano has that a violin or a harp or a flute or a tuba does not have. But when all these instruments play the notes that the piano has, the notes are enriched and enhanced. The result is symphonic, full communion. One can perhaps say that the ecumenical movement wishes to move from cacophony to symphony, with all playing the same notes of doctrinal clarity, the same euphonic chords of sanctifying activity, observing the rhythm of Christian conduct in charity, and filling the world with the beautiful and inviting sound of the Word of God. While the other instruments may tune themselves according to the piano, when playing in concert there is no mistaking them for the piano. It is God’s will that those to whom the Word of God is addressed, the world, that is, should hear one pleasing melody made splendid by the contributions of many different instruments.
Ottawa Citizen Reports on Cardinal Levada’s Kingston Talk
Mar 8th
My colleague at the Ottawa Citizen, Jennifer Green, has a report in today’s paper on Cardinal William Levada’s talk in Kingston, Ontario Saturday night, March 6.
I will be writing a longer version for Catholic papers that I hope to file about midday today. Here’s an excerpt of Jenny’s piece, with my bolds. I think she did a pretty good job of encapsulating some of the key points, though I have some minor quibbles (see below).
William Cardinal Levada, prefect the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told a dinner of about 300 in Kingston that “union with the Catholic Church is the goal of ecumenism (at least), we phrase it that way.”
“Yet the very process of moving towards union works a change in churches …”
The Catholic Church is enriched when another group adds its means of worship, although he hastened to add it would not be any “essential elements of sanctification or truth.” Those were already provided to the Church by Christ.
“Visible union with the Catholic Church does not mean absorption to the greater whole, as a teaspoon of sugar would be lost in a gallon of coffee.”
Instead, he compared it to an orchestra with “… all instruments tuned to the piano, … all playing same notes of doctrinal clarity … the beautiful and inviting sound of the world of God.”
The issue has become pertinent after Pope Benedict XVI made overtures to traditional Anglicans, particularly in Britain, who cannot agree with recent moves to ordain female bishops and accommodate gay clergy and “marriages” or unions of gay congregants.
In October, Levada announced that new rules would allow disaffected Anglicans to convert by parish or even by diocese. They would have their own governance within the Roman church, meaning they could keep traditions such as their liturgy.
Rome said it wasn’t “poaching” Anglicans, just responding to requests from traditionalist bishops.
Just as I don’t like the word “disaffected” as the adjective to describe us, I’m not crazy about “traditionalist” either. “Traditional” is better and more accurate. The “ist” smacks of ideology, as if our being traditional is some kind of fetish, or form of legalism, a focus on the externals of rites and rubrics without regard to the content of the Catholic faith. We are capital “T” Traditional in that we believe in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition as our authority. And interestingly, the bishops in the U.K. are not “traditionalist” in the sense of being Prayer Book traddies, while we in Canada can be accused of that.
Cardinal Levada did not (as I recall) mention the TAC in his talk. I’ll correct this if I discover in going over my notes this morning. Were gay blessings on the horizon in the early 1990s, shortly after the TAC came together, and the first informal talk with Rome took place? I don’t think so.
Our desire for unity has always been a positive desire, one of obedience to Christ’s command and prayer that we be one in Him.
One picture shows Cardinal Levada greeting Traditional Anglican Primate Archbishop John Hepworth for the first time at the gathering. The group shot shows the crowd at the Catholic Christian Outreach fundraiser. Jenny Green is in the bottom right corner, wearing the blue/green dress. The empty seat next to her is mine. For more pictures of the event, go here.
National Catholic Register Reports on U.S. Ordinariate Request
Mar 7th
ORLANDO, Fla. — The bishops of the Anglican Church in America have voted to accept Pope Benedict XVI’s invitation to bring their 3,000 members into the Catholic Church.
The unanimous vote of eight members of the House of Bishops, who met in Orlando, Fla., brings 120 parishes in four dioceses across the country into the Church.
Also present at the March 3 vote and in support of it were representatives of “Anglican use” parishes admitted on a one-by-one basis to the Catholic Church in accordance with the Pastoral Provision of Pope John Paul II in 1980.
The move is seen as significant for both the “AngloCatholics” in the Anglican Church in America and the worldwide Traditional Anglican Communion — and the Catholic Church.
“We are returning to the Roman Catholic Church as community with a common past and a common future,” commented Christian Campbell, a Florida lay member of the Anglican Church in America and coordinator of a blog called theanglocatholic.com.
God Giveth the Increase
Mar 5th
The following piece appears on the web site of the London Oratory. The emphases are mine.
While the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus provides our separated communities with the means to achieve corporate reunion with the Universal Church, each individual Anglican — bishop, priest, deacon, religious, and layman — is also called to personal conversion. It is incumbent upon us to respect the fact that, for any number of contingent human reasons, it is often difficult to pursue the right path. Our Anglican people — Forward in Faith, TAC, and others — are embarking upon this journey from different points of departure. With God’s grace, may they all find themselves ultimately at the same destination.
* * *
Anglicanorum Coetibus
Thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my Church.
On 22nd February we celebrate the feast of the Chair of St.Peter. This feastday is our opportunity to thank God again for the primacy of the Pope as chief shepherd of Christ’s flock. It is our opportunity to affirm our belief in the full, supreme, universal and immediate jurisdiction of His Holiness the Pope over each and every single one of the faithful. Christ Himself is the Head of the Church, and He chose St.Peter and his successors to share and mediate that headship and its primacy, as servant of the servants of God.
We are told that a number of Anglicans are in the process of considering their position in the light of the Holy Father’s extraordinarily generous offer to them in his recent Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, which makes canonical provision for personal ordinariates for Anglicans who leave the Church of England and enter into full communion with the Catholic Church. It has also been said that a number of them are hoping to make a decision by the feast of the Chair of St.Peter this year. We must pray for the Holy Spirit to guide them in their response to the Holy Father. We should remember that Pope Benedict’s Apostolic Constitution is itself a response to numerous and repeated petitions made to the Holy See by various Anglican groups over a number of years. The Pope is offering them what they asked for. Now it is up to them, by the grace of God, to respond. The ball is now in their court.
It is well to recall the Lord’s words to St.Peter: “… I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” This commissioning of Peter follows a question by Jesus, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” to which the reply is uncertain and varied: some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, others Jeremiah, and so on. People were confused. They wanted a Messiah, and were looking for someone of unambiguous majesty and overt political power. Instead, they were confronted with a disconcertingly humble itinerant rabbi-preacher, of whom many were perhaps understandably suspicious. By divine revelation, Peter was given the grace to answer correctly, to acknowledge and proclaim Christ as the Son of God. It is important for all of us, Catholics and potential converts alike, to understand clearly that the proper transmission of the Christian faith is inextricably bound up with the primacy of the Pope, Peter’s successor. St.Peter was given the primacy not as an honour or as a reward, but in order to equip him with those gifts necessary for his task of transmitting the faith to subsequent generations, after Christ’s visible presence had left the earth.
Peter was given the primacy to enable him to become the servant of the servants of God. Equally important is this: the transmission and practice of the faith are inextricably bound up with being in full and visible communion with Peter and his successors. When Christians separate themselves from Peter, the faith is always impaired, sometimes even destroyed. When we unite ourselves with Peter, we find the proper context of our faith, and the authentic means to live it. This is the plain truth. Like all the truths of Catholicism, it is not comprehended merely by argument or ratiocination or negotiation. Study and discussion can certainly help, but they are never enough.
Faith is a supernatural gift from God. So non-Catholics who are considering their position in relation to the Catholic Church must do so, not in the spirit of simply “reaching a decision” as if this were just like any other human decision, weighing the arguments and assessing the probabilities. They should rather be praying with might and main for God to give them the fullness of His gift of faith, a supernatural gift from the Almighty which enables us to believe without doubting all that He has revealed. The fullness of that faith includes the doctrines of the primacy of St.Peter, the necessity of being in communion with his successor the Bishop of Rome, the indefectibility of the Catholic Church as guaranteed by papal infallibility, and all else that flows from those truths.
We Catholics are in no position to be smug and complacent about all this. Yes, we have been given the gift of faith. Yes, we are in full communion with the Holy Father. Such undeserved privileges carry with them grave responsibilities, not least the imperative to give the best possible witness to the truths of the faith by what we say and do, and by what we are. We are also bound in charity to pray fervently for our separated brethren and to give them every possible encouragement and assistance, as brethren, as friends, as fellow disciples of the Lord Jesus. Those of us who at different times and in varying circumstances left the Church of England in order to become Catholics, we know that for any number of contingent human reasons it is often difficult to pursue the right path. How deep the difficulties can be is seen in the long journey made by John Henry Newman. He thought, and studied, and prayed. The most efficacious of these activities was, and always is, prayer. It is also worth remembering that ultimately the decision belongs to God and not to us. Dominus dat incrementum.
If any Anglicans would like to talk to us about all this, please get in touch. We are here to help.
“Be Not Afraid!” As We Embark on This Historic Venture
Mar 4th
Back when I was a television producer at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, I used to receive a lot of free books from publishers hoping I would book the author for a TV interview.
I was attending a seeker-friendly Baptist Church at the time, and adhered to the “It’s just me and Jesus, baby” guide to the Christian faith. I had to understand before I could believe; I had a personal relationship with Jesus and I trusted my conscience to guide me, but would not accept any external authority to guide me except Scripture, which I interpreted with solemn eisegesis.
My exposure to the intellectual tradition of the Catholic Church was only just beginning. One of the few journalists in town who was a practicing Christian was a Catholic convert, and I used to meet him and a group of conservative Catholics for lunch once a week. It was where I found out there was such a chap as G.K. Chesterton. But I staunchly defended my “Solas” which, of course, I interpreted my own way too.
One day a package arrived in the mail at work. It was “Crossing the Threshold of Hope” by John Paul II. I confess that I had a little flicker of derision as I opened up the book. Aside from that, I had been indifferent to the man, and I can kick myself now that I was working in Halifax when he visited in 1984 and I didn’t even bother using my press credentials to get close enough to see him.
I opened the book, and I remember reading “Be not afraid,” that he repeated as a refrain, echoing what he had said in his first homily in St. Peter’s Square. The book’s open pages seemed to glow with a warm light and the room got a little brighter.
That was only one of the many little epiphanies, the step by step “clicks” into place of understanding and spiritual growth that have led me to a place where I say “Yes!” to becoming Catholic. It’s been a gradual process over more than 15 years.
All of us are not at the same stage yet. There are “fightings and fears, within, without,” to borrow from a lovely hymn. We are leaping into an unknown, but what is clear, is this: we cannot remain the same. We have been offered a choice and some of us will say “Yes!,” others have not made up their minds, and others seem to have dug in their heels and say they will never fall under the pope’s authority.
I am thankful for the refining fires ahead and I choose to “Be not afraid!” I exhort all of us to “Be not afraid!”
I believe God will richly bless us for our obedience and I look forward to the flow of graces that are bound to come when we are in official communion with the See of Peter.
John Paul II said:
“In the Church–built on the rock that is Christ–Peter, the apostles, and their successors are witnesses of God crucified and risen in Christ. They are witnesses of the life that is stronger than death. They are witnesses of God who gives life becauase He is Love. They are witnesses because they saw, heard, and touched with their hands the eyes and ears of Peter, John, and many others. . . .
You rightly assert that the Pope is a mystery. You right assert that he is a sign that will be contradicted, that he is a challenge. The old man Simeon said of Christ Himself that He would be “a sign that will be contradicted.”
You also contend that, confronted with such a truth–that is, confronted with the Pope–one must choose; and for many the choice is not easy. But was it so easy for Peter? Was it easy for any of his successors? Is it easy for the present Pope? To choose requires man’s initiative. Christ says: “For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.”
He then goes on to explain the Petrine Ministry in terms of service, Servant of the Servants of God.
I have experienced such love and generosity from so many of the Catholic bishops and priests I have come to know in my work for the Catholic Church. We can expect kindness and prayers.
We need not fear. It is Jesus who is calling us home. “Be not afraid.”
Becoming a Family
Mar 3rd
Just a few hours ago I returned from meeting with the members of the House of Bishops, Anglican Church in America. I thoroughly enjoyed getting to know them, and we spoke extensively about the implementation of the Holy Father’s Apostolic Constitution, Anglicanorum coetibus. It was immediately evident that our common hope should become a common effort, and so the request being made to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith is a joint request.
Of course, our situation in the Anglican Use is somewhat different from that of the ACA. Our clergy and parishes are ready to act immediately because we are already in communion with the Holy See, whereas the Anglican bishops have a process to follow to reach that point with their parishes. For some of them, it will happen quickly; for others it will take longer. But we all agreed that having an Ordinariate “up and running” will allow them to enter it when each one is ready.
Entering into this closer relationship between the ACA and the Anglican Use parishes is a welcome gift from God. We’ve needed to get know one another as we prepare to become a “blended family” in the Ordinariate. I’m looking forward to having more occasions to be together. And let’s all pray for the speedy implementation of Anglicanorum coetibus.
Cardinal Levada on Anglicanorum Coetibus
Mar 3rd
William Cardinal Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, preached at the consecration, in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, of the seminary church of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter (FSSP) in Nebraska, USA:
Liturgical diversity is not inconsistent with the unity of the Catholic faith. This has been clear through the centuries in the diversity of rites, East and West. And it is clear with special relevance to your priestly fraternity in Summorum Pontificum. It is also the same principal that is operative in the new Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus, establishing Ordinariates for former Anglicans who desire full communion with the Catholic Church, whilst at the same time preserving some of the richness of their liturgical and spiritual patrimony.
The full homily can be heard here.
TAC Formally Requests Personal Ordinariate for USA
Mar 3rd
The House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America, the American Province of the Traditional Anglican Communion, have issued the following press release.
Orlando, FL – 1 pm EST – Bp. George Langberg
Released by the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America, Traditional Anglican Communion 3 March 2010
We, the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America of the Traditional Anglican Communion have met in Orlando, Florida, together with our Primate and the Reverend Christopher Phillips of the “Anglican Use” Parish of Our Lady of the Atonement (San Antonio, Texas) and others.
At this meeting, the decision was made formally to request the implementation of the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum cœtibus in the United States of America by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
ACA HOB Meeting Day 2
Mar 2nd
As I write this, the bishops have successfully concluded Day 2 of the conference. Due to the nature of the deliberations, there is little that can be reported except to say that things are developing very positively and that an official statement should be published on The Anglo-Catholic as soon as tomorrow evening. Please continue to pray for the bishops as they continue to meet on Wednesday.
Audio of Fr. Fessio’s Anglicanorum Coetibus Talk
Mar 2nd
The Institute of Catholic Culture has just posted audio of a presentation entitled “The Pope, The Anglicans, & The Mass” recently given by Fr. Joseph Fessio. Having just returned from Day 1 of the ACA HOB meeting here in Orlando, I have not yet gotten the chance to listen, but perhaps our readers could review the talk and post their reflections in the comment box? The presentation can be found here.
ACA House of Bishops Meeting Begins Today
Mar 1st
Beginning later today, the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America (TAC) will assemble in Orlando, Florida for discussions expected to last several days. The ACA HOB is to be joined by Archbishop John Hepworth, Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, along with representatives of Forward in Faith UK and the Anglican Use/Pastoral Provision in the USA. This House of Bishops meeting is an important step toward the implementation of Anglicanorum Coetibus in the USA. Please pray the the Holy Spirit will guide the bishops in everything they do!
A Matter of Property
Feb 27th
When the possibility of becoming part of an Ordinariate became a reality, like many others we had questions about some of the more practical issues, especially matters relating to property. Our Lady of the Atonement Church was founded nearly twenty-seven years ago, and when we were received into the Church the parish had very little property at all – just a modest rectory where my family and I were living. It had very little value, perhaps thirty thousand dollars or so. Nonetheless, it was listed with the archdiocese as our parish property, and the archbishop’s name went on the legal documents. Over the years the assets of the parish have steadily increased, and now our total property is listed at something over 23 million dollars, all with the Archbishop of San Antonio listed as the “owner,” but canonically the property of Our Lady of the Atonement Parish. Was there going to be any problem in having our property and parish assets transferred to an Ordinariate? I spoke to our archbishop, and he left no question whatsoever about his cooperation in doing whatever is necessary in both civil and canon law to complete the transfer when the time comes.
This did raise the question of property in my own mind, however. There will no doubt be parishes and communities becoming part of an Ordinariate, and they may have questions about the status of their property after they become Catholics. I asked Charles Wilson of the St. Joseph Foundation for a synopsis of the Church’s canon law, when it comes to this issue. He wrote me the following letter, which should be of interest to many who are preparing to act on the Holy Father’s offer in Anglicanorum coetibus.
* * * * *
The Saint Joseph Foundation
11107 Wurzbach, Suite 601B
San Antonio, Texas 78230-2570
(210) 697‑0717 (Voice)
(210) 699-9439 (FAX)
cwilson@st-joseph-foundation.org
Charles M. Wilson
Executive Director
February 26, 2010
Rev. Christopher G. Phillips
Our Lady of the Atonement Catholic Church
15415 Red Robin Road
San Antonio, Texas 78255
Dear Father Phillips:
I write in response to some questions that have been asked about the status of property now owned by groups of Anglicans or former Anglicans and how that status might change if the groups should come under the jurisdiction of a personal ordinariate erected according to the norms of the Apostolic Constitution, Anglicanorum coetibus (AC).
When the Apostolic Constitution and Complementary Norms (CN) were released on November 10, 2009, the first questions asked of the Saint Joseph Foundation came from members of existing Anglican Use Catholic parishes. The primary interest was whether these parishes would be part of a new personal ordinariate and whether their members, even those not of Anglican background, would be able to remain as such. Now we are hearing from current and former Anglicans who wish to be received into the Church; and a special concern among those who are part of local communities that own property is to insure that they maintain control over its disposition. I understand that some have even expressed fear that their property could be sold by the diocesan bishop to satisfy obligations arising from abusive conduct by Catholic clergy. Such a concern is certainly understandable; but we need to recognize some canonical barriers that would significantly reduce the chances of such an injustice actually taking place.
As we know, neither AC nor CN have anything to say about parish property. This is not surprising because secular law on religious property varies from country to country and from state to state in the United States. The authorities in Rome apparently foresee that detailed norms will be contained in the particular law of each ordinariate. And because no personal ordinariates have been erected, there is no such legislation to which we can refer. However, existing law does contain restrictions on the practice of selling the assets of a diocesan parish for any purpose other than for the benefit of that parish; and I am confident that these restrictions, as well as other norms on temporal goods will be reflected in the laws of future personal ordinariates.
We must acknowledge that, in the wake of the clergy sexual misconduct scandal, some diocesan bishops did indeed sell parish property in order to pay damages or settle with accusers before lawsuits were filed. Some bishops have used this opportunity to merge parishes, close an existing church edifice, and sell it for diocesan profit. In similar scenarios, some bishops have simply told a pastor that a piece of property owned by the parish (a convent, school, house, etc.) would be sold and the money used by the diocese; but I would view such acts as blatantly unlawful. While a bishop may hold civil title parish property and is free to dispose of it according to secular laws, he does not own it under canon law. A parish is a separate juridic person and it owns patrimony distinct from the diocese. The pastor is the proper administrator, and his obligations are those of a steward (cf: canon 1284, §1).
In a decision made in 2006, the Congregation for Clergy (prot. no. 2006/0481) provided some much appreciated clarification of key points about parish and parish patrimony. First, the Congregation makes it absolutely clear that when we speak of a parish, we are speaking about people and not a “thing.” Quoting from canons 369 and 515, a parish is recognized as a community of God’s faithful. The letter goes on to note, “While the parish church and the parish physical plant may be closed, and the name of a particular parish extinguished, the spiritual needs of the portion of the Faithful which once constituted that parish must continue to be provided for in accord with their rights in law.” With this in mind, the Congregation clearly notes that the assets of a parish MUST be used for the sake of the people who constitute that parish. And, if the parish is merged with another parish, the assets must be given to the parish or parishes that now provide pastoral care of the faithful who previously made up the extinguished parish. In other words, a diocese cannot close a parish and keep its assets. An exception, which would not apply to parishes of personal ordinariates, can be made for personal parishes erected to serve a certain ethnic or national group in cases where that group has become dispersed.
The legal points and argumentation found in the Congregation’s letter are very similar to those used by the St. Joseph Foundation in previous cases that predate the clergy sexual abuse crisis. As those who have challenged a bishop’s decree of parish suppression know, the chance of winning such cases is very low. However, it is refreshing to see the expressed intentions of the Holy See on this point. If we apply the principles, we must accept the fact that the assets of a parish are held in trust under canon for the good of the parishioners. In recent cases from New England, the Vatican has revoked decrees issued by bishops who sought to dispose of parish assets to benefit their dioceses. In practice, parish assets can no longer be viewed as a source of funds to satisfy diocesan obligations and I believe that the same rule would probably apply to the ordinary of an “Anglican Use” ordinariate.
The possibility of a diocesan bishop attempting to sell the assets of the parish of a personal ordinariate that happened to be located in his diocese has also been mentioned. My opinion is that such an act would be ultra vires and that a bishop would not be able to do it any more than he could sell the assets of a parish in a neighboring diocese.
One remaining question concerns how parishes are structured according to civil law. (As you know, I am not an attorney and claim no expertise in the field of bankruptcy law. Moreover, the Foundation does not provide legal services, even though some of our staff and consulting canonists are civil as well as canon lawyers; so whatever I say here is not to be taken as legal advice.) While parishes and dioceses are separate entities according to canon law, this is not always true in secular law. Over time, in the United States dioceses and parishes have been structured under state law in several ways. This remains true today and, for the purposes of this discussion, these structures fall into two broad categories. The first is known as the corporation sole, with a single civil corporation with the diocesan bishop as its sole “member” holding civil title to all the property of the canonically separate parishes. The other is called the corporation aggregate, which follows the pattern of canon law more closely. Each parish is a separate corporation, usually controlled by five trustees: the bishop, the vicar general, the pastor and two lay trustees chosen by the first three. If ordinariate parishes were structured in a similar way, the articles of incorporation or by laws might include a requirement that the dissolution of the corporation or the sale of any real property would require a unanimous vote of the trustees. I believe that this would probably be consistent with canon law. The details of the canonical and civil structures will, of course be decided by the competent ecclesiastical authorities with the assistance of canonical and civil counsel.
The preceding observations should be regarded as personal opinion. Please let me know if you have any questions or need further assistance.
Sincerely,
Charles M. Wilson
An Informal Report
Feb 27th
I keep in touch with one of my classmates from the years when we were studying together at the Salisbury and Wells Theological College. He’s the rector of a Forward in Faith parish, under the pastoral care of the Bishop of Ebbsfleet. After the recent Day of Prayer on the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter, I wrote and asked him how it went. He wrote back, in part:
I’ve just returned from the Bishop’s Council of priests (Traditionalists) where the atmosphere was quite upbeat at times, whilst at others cautious. There are, of course, problems peculiar to the church in England, and we recognise that the offer from the Holy Father more easily fits the American scene. Having said that, a number of the brethren are ready to begin the journey. Any worry about ordination seems to have evaporated, but practical and financial considerations still need some clarification.
Personally my current situation leaves me in a quandry, so that at present I intend to put all the options to my folk, whilst riding out the waves until retirement doesn’t necessitate abandoning some of the flock who will, inevitably, stay with Auntie.
As to the general mood in the Cof E who knows. I am sure that the vociferous nature of the Synod is not the universal feeling, but their actions will determine our future.
No earth-shaking developments, but I thought it was an interesting glimpse into the present situation there. My friend is probably pretty typical of many of the clergy who are in their late fifties and early sixties – they’ll try to “ride it out” until retirement, taking care of their parishioners as best as they can, while at the same time encouraging those who want to become part of an Ordinariate. It’s another indication to me that the beginnings will be small and slow.
I did find it interesting, however, when he made the point that “any worry about ordination seems to have evaporated, but practical and financial considerations will need some clarification.” I was apprehensive that the issue of ordination would be the biggest sticking point, and it’s encouraging to learn that apparently it’s not. I’m not so worried about the practical and financial matters. Those of us in the Anglican Use have found that those things can usually be solved without too much difficulty, with some creative thinking and action. I’m sure the same will be true in the Ordinariates.
