Posts tagged Disinformation
The Smoke of Satan
Feb 17th
Damian Thompson has commented on the despicable report by The Guardian blogger Andrew Brown of a “leaked” email from the Bishop of Ebbsfleet, Andrew Burnham, to Melbourne auxiliary (and the Australian bishops’ delegate for Anglicanorum Coetibus), Bishop Peter Elliott. This whole episode is reprehensible, but I am moved to offer a few observations and a short reflection on the matter. My emphases and comments.
* * *
The cloak and dagger Catholics
An email from an Anglican ‘flying bishop’ to a Catholic bishop in Australia sheds light on the machinations of the Anglo-Catholics
An extraordinary correspondence has fallen into my hands showing some of the detail of the Anglo-Catholic intrigues about their departure from the Church of England. [I think that it's the other way around.] It shows the Anglican “flying bishop” of Ebbsfleet, Andrew Burnham, conspiring with a sympathetic Roman Catholic bishop in Australia to work behind the back of the Catholic bishops here. He talks about his “cloak and dagger” correspondence with a sympathiser in the Vatican, and suggests that he can write personally to Pope Benedict XVI to smooth things over if his correspondent is caught. This may come as news to the pope.
Firstly, we have to assume that the email is genuine (did Mr. Brown confirm its authenticity with either the sender or the recipient?). And why is it that Mr. Brown has not seen fit to publish the message in its entirety? Certainly quoted passages such as “clearly a charming man … but not everything he says … synchronises fully with what we know from other sources” are open to interpretation (and look as if their sense has been manipulated).
And does Mr. Brown really think it surprising that FiF UK might be working directly with the Roman authorities, bypassing a bishops’ conference which, even now, is working to undermine Anglicanorum Coetibus? I am happy to independently confirm from my TAC sources, for what it’s worth, that no one in Rome trusts the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales to deal charitably with incoming Anglicans!
The Australian bishop, Peter Elliott, is himself an Anglican convert [Boo, hiss!], and is in charge of the pope’s outreach to Anglican opponents of women priests in Australia [Yeah, we're "disaffected" too.]. Most of these are grouped in a body called the Traditional Anglican Communion, which claims to have half a million members world wide: Burnham warns Bishop Elliott against complete confidence in their leader, Archbishop Hepworth (“clearly a charming man … but not everything he says … synchronises fully with what we know from other sources”).
I’d like to see the full quotation in context. Still, it seems quite a stretch to characterize this as a warning that Bishop Elliott should not have confidence in the TAC Primate. I have the opportunity to consult with (extremely well-placed) TAC and FiF UK sources almost daily and I can personally vouch for the fact that there is a lack of “synchronicity” all around. There is a good deal about the future of the personal ordinariate scheme that is, for the moment, uncertain. Mr. Brown obviously desires to interpret this uncertainty as division or suspicion.
I would also point out that, much to the chagrin of the pundits, history has shown (so far) Archbishop Hepworth to have been correct at every turn. Today we take the revolution of Anglicanorum Coetibus for granted, but before October 20, 2009, it was merely the fantastic dream of the TAC Primate, a dream which certainly failed to synchronize fully with what the experts thought they knew from other sources.
But the passage which will cause discomfort in this country is this:
“I am taking the liberty of mentioning, in confidence and with his permission, that we are in touch with Mgr Patrick Burke at the CDF [the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith]. It has all felt a little bit like Elizabethan espionage but, truly, the informal contact with the CDF has been invaluable, and, if ever Mgr Burke got into trouble, I should write to the pope and say how splendidly helpful he has been.
This is not known about fully in England and Wales because we are trying to ensure that the whole Anglicanorum Coetibus project, which will begin in small ways, is not smothered by the management anxieties of a hierarchy, some of whom think that Anglicans are best off doing what they are presently doing and some of whom think the project would impact adversely on the Catholic Church in England. Needless to say Fr Pat’s help, and the support of Archbishop DiNoia, need, to a lesser extent, to be protected from disapproval at higher levels of the dicastery [Vatican department]. Hence the cloak and dagger.”
Anglicanorum Coetibus is the pope’s plan to allow disaffected Anglicans to convert as a group, and to keep their own bishops. As Bishop Burnham says, the Catholic hierarchy in this country is not enthusiastic about the prospect. The plan was sprung on Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the head of the Catholic church in England and Wales, with very little notice and although attention at the time was concentrated on the obvious discomfort of Rowan Williams, the Catholic archbishop had known no more than him.
This is the whole point. The Apostolic Constitution was “sprung” on the Archbishop of Westminster and the other English bishops precisely because the CDF did not trust them to respond obediently and charitably to the will of the Holy Father. And they have not reformed since! ”Hence the cloak and dagger.”
It’s still not clear how much autonomy the Anglican “ordinariates” will have; but Bishop Elliott told an Australian audience they would be comparable to the Eastern churches in communion with Rome; the Maronite Christians of the Lebanon, and the formerly orthodox “Uniate” churches of the Ukraine. “The structure … is much closer to an Eastern Rite Church in its autonomy than some might imagine.”
Yes, Bishop Elliott said that the Anglican personal ordinariates would be similar to these Eastern structures in some respects. This is exactly what Archbishop Hepworth has said all along. To beat a long-dead horse:
There will be an Anglican leader who relates to the Holy See on behalf of the Anglican Catholics. Thus establishing a body that is Anglican Catholic as distinct from Roman Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, Maronite Catholic, or whatever. It’s not a rite but it looks awfully like one… (Archbishop Hepworth at the 2009 National Assembly of FiF UK)
This kind of autonomy, a church within the church, has long been the dream of the former Anglicans who converted in the early 70s. But it is not what the Catholic hierarchy thinks it is getting in this country. Monsignor Andrew Faley, the assistant secretary to the Bishops’ conference here, said “He’s wrong – he’s not entirely right, would be more ecclesially correct … Uniate status is concerned with rite; but the Anglican liturgy is so close to ours that it’s not possible in this case. The Pope asked our bishops to ‘be generous’ and in asking this was recognising their generosity to be genuine. Their hospitality to former Anglicans is 100% assured and the authority of the Church in working this out rests with the bishops’ conferences and not with the CDF.”
Allow me be very blunt. I would not trust a single thing Msgr. Faley has to say about the matter. This spokesman for the obstructionists has already been sent out to spread disinformation about the Apostolic Constitution (and was smacked down by Rome for it, as I understand).
This nonsense about “uniate status” (and it is most assuredly nonsense) is simply a misdirection. The Apostolic Constitution and the Complementary Norms speak for themselves — and these documents do provide for an ordinary authority that will exist independently of — and in no way subject to — the local territorial dioceses or the national episcopal conference. The English Catholic hierarchy may not yet fully appreciate this — and they certainly won’t like it when they do — but it’s coming nonetheless.
And Msgr. Faley’s contention that the Holy Father recognizes the English bishops’ generosity is utterly laughable! Is he speaking of the same Joseph Ratzinger, who, just a few short years ago, asked, “Why are the English bishops so unapostolic?” Were the Holy Father to be assured of the genuine nature of the bishops’ generosity, he would hardly need to ask. In this request, Msgr. Faley would, no doubt, like to be assured that Rome intends the bishops’ conference to have a decisive role in the erection of the English ordinariate. I think he’s going to be sorely disappointed.
But no groups have yet actually approached the Roman Catholic authorities in this country, according to Mgr Faley.
Why should they? Applications for the erection of a personal ordinariate will go directly to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Do not pass the bishops’ conference. Do not collect $200. As I wrote a few days ago:
On the subject of bishops’ welcoming committees, I will also note that it is the understanding of the TAC bishops involved in discussions with Rome that the two principal parties to be involved in the erection of any future personal ordinariates are 1) the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; and 2) the interested Anglican group itself – and that all applications must originate from the Anglican group seeking full communion. Local episcopal conferences will be consulted in due course, but the notion that these bodies will be the originators (or even decisive factors in the erection) of the new structures (as the episcopal conferences in England and Wales and Australia seem to think and as Cardinal DiNardo has recently suggested) seems to run contrary to the intentions of the CDF.
There is plenty of work going on behind the scenes. And, I am proud to say, at the present moment, the readers of The Anglo-Catholic are just as informed as most English Catholic bishops.
The other intriguing admission in Bishop Burnham’s letter is that “the project … will start in small ways”. This suggests that enthusiasm for the ordinariates is still much greater among the priests and bishops who hope to lead it than among the ordinary Anglicans who are supposed to follow them and fill its churches.
* * *
If the Holy Father’s offer in the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus is indeed a movement of the Holy Spirit, it should come as no surprise that the Enemy will stop at nothing to destroy it. Whoever leaked this message, and the one who published it, knowingly or unknowingly, are his instruments.
In the coming several months, Anglican groups around the world will request of the Holy See the erection of personal ordinariates and will begin to cross the threshold into the full communion and unity of the Catholic Church. The timing of this “leak” is not a coincidence. Just this past Saturday, Forward in Faith Australia directed its National Council “to foster by every means the establishing of an Ordinariate in Australia.” In just a few days, on February 22, the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter, Anglicans in Forward in Faith UK, led by the provincial episcopal visitors, will be praying for discernment. Beginning on March 1, the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America (TAC) will convene in Orlando, Florida; the ACA bishops, together with Primate John Hepworth, will be joined on March 2 by representatives of FiF UK (the Bishop of Fulham) and the Anglican Use/Pastoral Provision in the USA. This conference will be an important step in formulating our response to Anglicanorum Coetibus. In mid-March, bishops of the TAC and Forward in Faith will be in Rome to consult with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and to seek clarification on a number of important points. In Low Week, the College of Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion will meet in Rome. And it is expected that the first personal ordinariates will be erected as soon as the end of June 2010.
The Adversary who has thwarted our desire for corporate reunion with the rest of the Western Church for over 400 years now sees that our vindication is at hand! He despises our Holy Father and all who would cooperate with him. And as we move ever closer, we should expect that more manipulative reports like this one from Andrew Brown will surface.
I have had the opportunity to hear from so many readers of The Anglo-Catholic who are patiently waiting for news from Archbishop Hepworth, the PEVs, sources in Rome, or even the Holy Father himself. Many of you visit the site several times a day for the latest information (which I, of course, very much appreciate). And, no doubt, many of you feel like there is nothing that you can do to help. This ecclesiastical politics, after all, seems to be the exclusive province of insiders — priests, bishops, archbishops, and even popes! But there is something you can do to help. Pray! Pray for the Holy Father. Pray for the shepherds of the Anglican groups who will shortly be leading their people into full communion with the Holy See. Pray that God beat down Satan — and our many enemies — under our feet. And never for a moment underestimate the forces arrayed against us!
Is the Archbishop of York a “Proper Anglican”?
Feb 7th
With Archbishops like these, who needs enemies? The “Continuing” sectarians claim that those of us who go over to Rome have no right to call ourselves “Anglicans” and now the Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu, says that we won’t be “proper Catholics” either! The Archbishop made the following remarks to BBC Northern Ireland presenter William Crawley.
Archbishop Sentamu: “If people genuinely realise that they want to be Roman Catholic, they should convert properly, and go through catechesis and be made proper Catholics. This kind of creation [the Apostolic Constitution] — well, all I can say is, we wish them every blessing and may the Lord encourage them. But as far as I am concerned, if I was really, genuinely wanting to convert, I wouldn’t go into an Ordinariate. I would actually go into catechesis and become a truly converted Roman Catholic and be accepted.”
William Crawley: “So those Anglicans who take advantage of the Apostolic Constitution, you’re saying, would not be ‘proper Catholics’?”
Archbishop Sentamu: “Well, I mean, I’d be very surprised –”
William Crawley: “What would they be if they are not ‘proper Catholics’?”
Archbishop Sentamu: “They would be what they are: an Ordinariate of the Vatican.”
William Crawley: “Anglican Émigrés?”
Archbishop Sentamu: “(Laughter) Well, if I was a Roman Catholic bishop and I had this group within my diocese being looked after by an Ordinariate whose reference was back to the Vatican, I’d have to ask a number of questions.”
As to the method of “conversion,” Dr. Sentamu is welcome to his opinion, I suppose. Any Anglican desirous of becoming Roman Catholic may go to the nearest Catholic Church, demean himself (Ed. Please see comments #5 and #20 below) by participating in RCIA (which is properly for non-baptized persons even though Christians — including Anglicans — are routinely subjected to it), and be assimilated into the mainstream Novus Ordo culture; he may cease to be Anglican. Thankfully, the Holy Father has recognized the beauty that subsists in the Anglican tradition, and he has provided a means for us to remain truly Anglican whilst being in full communion with the Holy See. The Vicar of Christ desires us to be Anglicans and Catholics. And despite Dr. Sentamu’s provocative statements to the contrary, Anglican Catholics of the personal ordinariates, in union with the Successor of St. Peter and sharing a common faith with the rest of the Church, will be every bit as Catholic as the Pope himself — and for the Archbishop of York to suggest otherwise is truly offensive. Indeed, protected in their faithful Anglican enclaves under the patronage of the Holy Father himself, I suspect that those same Anglican Catholics will stand a good chance of being more genuinely Catholic than many of their brethren who are subject to the corrupting, demoralizing influences of faithless, modernist bishops and priests in the regular dioceses!
The Anglo-Catholic calls upon Dr. Sentamu to apologize for these insensitive, ignorant, and grossly erroneous remarks immediately!
Bishop Elliott Clears the Air
Feb 5th
In his article United in Communion, but Not Absorbed: Understanding the Pope’s Welcome, Bishop Peter Elliott helps set the record straight, confirming the public statements of Archbishop Hepworth and the analysis of The Anglo-Catholic which have been questioned by armchair theologians and Internet controversialists, who, through their own study of the Apostolic Constitution, have concluded that the TAC’s characterizations of the scheme provided by Anglicanorum Coetibus were unsupported by the plain reading of the texts. The Apostolic Constitution, we are told, is but a slightly more generous revision of the Pastoral Provision in the USA, now extended throughout the world — and those who believe otherwise are simply deluding themselves (or else falling into a popish trap!). Bishop Elliott, the delegate of the Australian Catholic bishops’ conference for the implementation of Anglicanorum Coetibus, a former curial official and distinguished liturgist, has gone on the record to support the genuine interpretation of the Holy Father’s most gracious invitation to Anglican Catholics.
The Pastor of the nations is reaching out to give you a special place within the Catholic Church. United in communion, but not absorbed – that sums up the unique and privileged status former Anglicans will enjoy in their Ordinariates.
Catholics in full communion with the Successor of St Peter, you will be gathered in distinctive communities that preserve elements of Anglican worship, spirituality and culture that are compatible with Catholic faith and morals.
The detractors of the Apostolic Constitution interpret the injunctions requiring cooperation between the Anglican ordinary and the local Roman Catholic bishop as the subordination of the personal ordinariate. The local bishop will interfere with the personal ordinariates at every step, they say, preventing their erection wherever he is able, vetoing the decisions of the Anglican ordinaries, and generally making things as difficult as possible. The “converts” will only begrudgingly be allowed to retain a few incidentals of Anglicanism. There will be no honored place for a genuine expression of our tradition in the Catholic Church.
Bishop Elliott echoes the words of Dom Lambert Beauduin at the Malines Conversations: “The Anglican Church united but not absorbed.” We are to have a “unique and privileged status” in the Catholic Church.
Each Ordinariate will be an autonomous structure, like a diocese, but something between a Personal Prelature (as in Opus Dei, purely spiritual jurisdiction), or a Military Ordinariate (for the Armed Forces). In some ways, the Ordinariate will even be similar to a Rite (the Eastern Catholic Churches). You will enjoy your own liturgical “use” as Catholics of the Roman Rite.
This is reminiscent of Archbishop Hepworth’s characterization of the personal ordinariate structure at the 2009 Forward in Faith UK National Assembly.
There will be an Anglican leader who relates to the Holy See on behalf of the Anglican Catholics. Thus establishing a body that is Anglican Catholic as distinct from Roman Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, Maronite Catholic, or whatever. It’s not a rite but it looks awfully like one…
Legally, the personal ordinariates will be part of the larger Latin Rite, governed by the Code of Canon Law, but the provisions for our unique Anglican liturgical use, elements of our synodical tradition, and our practice of married clergy, for examples, will give the new structures many of the distinguishing characteristics of a ritual church.
There is no “hidden agenda” here, no popish trap! So beware of warnings from certain traditional Anglican bloggers or pamphleteers. They distort the Pope’s offer because they cling to small fiefdoms and purist enclaves – where they do as they wish. Indeed, the Ordinariates come under the discipline of the Church and her laws, but the Code of Canon Law is also a detailed charter of our rights as clergy and laity.
And we know who these folks are, of course… unless… wait… could Bishop Elliott himself be part of the papist plot?
In the end, I am sure that Bishop Elliott’s analysis will prove true. Few of our people will reject the Holy Father’s offer on theological grounds. These are almost always a cover for meaner excuses. It’s much easier to “cling to small fiefdoms and purist enclaves” — where everyone’s a canon, a bishop, or even a metropolitan — than to sacrifice for the unity of Christ’s Church. It’s much less demanding when everyone’s his own pope.
Yet you do not come to the Ordinariates with empty hands. As I learnt forty two years ago, you will lose nothing – but you will regain an inheritance stolen from us four centuries ago. That heritage was largely recovered by the giants of the Oxford Movement. I believe they smile on us now. In these early days, let us keep praying with them, so that together we may patiently work out how Pope Benedict’s project can be achieved.
I do hope we’ll lose a few things, actually. While valuing all that is good and true in the English Reformation, we must forever lose our sectarianism and anything and everything that does not accord with the Catholic Faith that comes to us from the Apostles. Above all, we must lose our pride — and finally submit to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in humility and with filial obedience to the Successor of St. Peter, to whom we owe a tremendous debt for allowing us to finally achieve that goal of “united but not absorbed” that we have so long desired.
“Live peaceably with all…”
Feb 2nd
In his entry on Disinformation, Christian Campbell spread a much-needed dose of herbicide on a pesky weed patch. It’s a shame it was necessary, but crabgrass left unchecked tends to take over the garden.
In the years since I resigned my ministry in the Episcopal Church, I’ve thought about why some people react as they do. My experience was nearly thirty years ago in the tiny state of Rhode Island. It’s an overwhelmingly Catholic state, but the Episcopal Church is next in size. It has the longest name – The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations – but it’s the smallest in area, smaller than a decent ranch in Texas, so whatever happens in one corner of the state is automatically next door to everybody. And you know how people are, when something’s happening next door. What the state lacks in size, it makes up in expressing opinions, and there were plenty of them when my plans to become a Catholic became public.
I remember an editorial in one of the local papers at the time. It started out protesting the fact that anybody should pay any attention to this at all. “If it was a ‘man bites dog’ story, it would be interesting,” the editorial said, ”but this is just an ordinary ‘dog bites man’ story.” It then went on for several column inches describing what was supposed to be an uninteresting story, finishing with a list of Catholic priests who had become Episcopalians, in a “so there, take that” climax.
The purpose of this isn’t to keep the discussion going. But we’re going to be dealing with these attitudes for a very long time because of the very nature of the Ordinariates. We have to be long on patience, thick of skin, faithful in example. There may be personal cost. An Episcopal priest whom I considered to be my best friend hasn’t spoken to me at all since I became a Catholic. To this day, some thirty years later, I miss him.
Why these reactions? I don’t really know, since I’m not a psychologist. Maybe our spiritual journey is taken by them to be an insult to their own spiritual life. It could be that our decision pricks some consciences, and it’s uncomfortable. Maybe they just want everybody to be as miserable as they are. I don’t know. But also, don’t discount the influence of the Evil One. There aren’t many things that twisted creature hates more, than for someone to embrace the fullness of God’s truth – and there seems to be no shortage of otherwise good people who will step right into the role of the devil’s dupe.
It’s important that we never stop praying, especially for the ones who seem most upset by our decision to become Catholics. Who knows? Their anger could just be a reaction to the devil’s last kick before they submit to the gentle Spirit of God. I’ve lost count of the people who tell me, “I never thought I’d be doing this!” just as they’re about to make their Profession of Faith as a Catholic – and I’d put myself in that number.
St. Paul says it best:
Let love be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love one another with brotherly affection; outdo one another in showing honor. Never flag in zeal, be aglow with the Spirit, serve the Lord. Rejoice in your hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints, practice hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. Live in harmony with one another; do not be haughty, but associate with the lowly; never be conceited. Repay no one evil for evil, but take thought for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends upon you, live peaceably with all.
-Romans 12:9-18
Disinformation
Feb 1st
Though I have long since ceased reading the so-called Anglican Continuum blog of my own volition (about the time that the infamous Fr. Hart went off the deep end over the TAC’s response to Anglicanorum Coetibus and denounced Archbishops Hepworth and Falk as liars), a reader has brought to my attention a recent post on that site so filled with distortions — and outright lies — about the Apostolic Constitution that I feel it necessary to set the record straight. But first, a word about the Continuum blog itself…
The Anglican Continuum was once home to thoughtful discussion about the Anglican Patrimony and the Continuing Church scene. It boasted contributors from both the Anglican Catholic Church (Original Province) and the Traditional Anglican Communion and differences between the various Continuing bodies were (usually) treated respectfully and with charity. Over the course of the past year or so, however, the character of the discussion on the site radically changed. A strident anti-Roman tone, coupled with frequent denunciations of the leadership of the TAC (which body has long been seeking full communion with the Catholic Church), poisoned the forum and drove away all of the non-ACC contributors and most of the readership. The entire staff of the blog (and the few remaining regular commenters) are all affiliated with the ACC (which has now become the spiteful, twisted corpse of a once legitimate Continuing Anglican jurisdiction) and, as Fr. Hart, the principal contributor, has himself admitted, its only object is to oppose (what they perceive to be) the agenda of Archbishop Hepworth as he leads the TAC into full communion with the Catholic Church. The Continuum is, for all intents and purposes, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the ACC and their “Metropolitan” — Archbishop Mark Haverland — posts on the site with some frequency.
Though the readership of the site is now evidently quite small (they have site statistics available on the home page), the fact that Fr. Hart & Co. portray themselves as the only legitimate voice of traditional Anglicanism is troubling — especially inasmuch as, in the not too distant past, I would have recommended the site to inquirers.
[I must point out, for the record, that one of their contributors, Fr. Matthew Kirby, while himself a priest of the ACC, has never conducted himself in the manner of the others. I have admired his attempts to gently correct his collaborators although his entreaties have fallen on deaf ears.]
The post in question is a blow-by-blow response to Archbishop Hepworth’s recent interview in the Church Times. In like manner, I will reproduce the Continuum’s disinformation and respond to each point individually. ”RH” denotes Fr. Robert Hart, sometime priest in several episcopi vagantes and Continuing Anglican groups, now priest-in-charge at St. Benedict’s Anglican Catholic Church in Chapel Hill, NC. ”JH” is Fr. John Hollister, Assisting Priest, Christ Anglican Catholic Church, Metairie, LA and ACC Chancellor.
To begin with, the very name Anglicanorum Coetibus requires closer examination than anyone has yet applied to it. As, Fr. Laurence Wells recently put it: “To date no one has picked up on the meaning of the term coetibus. This is the ablative (maybe dative) plural of the 4th declension noun coetus, translated ‘meeting, assemblage.’ The Vatican authorities could not bring themselves to describe TAC/ACA as a ‘church’ or even as an ‘ecclesial community’ (the term popular after Vatican II). Just an assemblage, a mob.” Therefore, translated, Anglicanorum Coetibus could be “The Anglican mob.”
Despite the past claims of the Continuum blog, the Traditional Anglican Communion has never — and will never — renounce the validity of its episcopal orders. The TAC would likely consider its dioceses to be particular churches under the definition of the August 6, 2000 declaration Dominus Iesus of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. However, for the sake of unity, and with the understanding that other Catholics may have legitimate doubts about the apostolic integrity of the TAC, the bishops of the Communion have not decided to press ecclesial claims that would unnecessarily complicate that reunion of our churches with the Apostolic See which we believe Our Blessed Lord desires.
In any event, the use of the term coetus in the Apostolic Constitution is obviously to meant to accommodate the multiplicity of Anglican bodies — not all of them proper churches — that have appealed to Rome for an accommodation and desire to be reunited with the Holy See. For example, many FiF UK parishes in the Church of England may decamp to Rome, but this “group” will be composed of detached clergy, laity, and perhaps whole congregations — but not necessarily entire dioceses of the Established Church (which only might rightly have a claim to be particular churches).
In current Roman jargon, “becoming Anglican Catholics, not Roman Catholics” is code for “becoming a church sui juris, i.e., a “uniate” body. Anglicanorum Coetibus makes it crystal clear that this is one thing that is not happening. Instead, it is expressly set out that the new “ordinariates” will be placed within the so-called “Latin Church” and thus, in Roman terminology, any transferee “former Anglicans” will most definitely be “Roman Catholics”, not “Anglican Catholics”.
Who says? Neither Rome nor Archbishop Hepworth has suggested that the personal ordinariates constitute a ritual church. In fact, Archbishop Hepworth is on record making it absolutely clear that Anglicanorum Coetibus does not erect a church sui juris, but that there are definitely aspects of the provision that provide for a distinctive Anglican identity in some ways comparable to one.
There will be an Anglican leader who relates to the Holy See on behalf of the Anglican Catholics. Thus establishing a body that is Anglican Catholic as distinct from Roman Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, Maronite Catholic, or whatever. It’s not a rite but it looks awfully like one… (Archbishop Hepworth at the 2009 FiF UK National Assembly)
The appellation “Anglican Catholic” is in no way tied to uniate status. To claim otherwise is simply false. The Apostolic Constitution makes its purpose very clear. We had a commenter on the site just the other day who identified himself as a ‘French Catholic’. Does this imply the existence of some Gallican uniate church? Hardly.
…so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.
Anglican Catholics will have a distinct identity in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. And no one has claimed that under the Code of Canon Law that Anglicans would legally be anything other than Catholics of the Latin Rite.
Though the personal ordinariates will not constitute a ritual church sui juris (the context in which one most frequently sees an “hyphen Catholic” appellative), their peculiar circumstances will, all the more, require such a qualifying term. The personal ordinariates will essentially form a “church within a church” and we intend to (and the Holy Father desires that we) be “united but not absorbed”. Members of the personal ordinariates will be legally Latin Rite Catholics, subject to the Bishop of Rome as their Patriarch, and bound by the (Roman Catholic) Code of Canon Law. (From the January 21, 2010 post ”Certain Appellations“)
Fr. Hart comes to the crux of the matter quite quickly though.
Only from a Roman Catholic perspective can Abp. Hepworth speak of Anglicans who adhere to the Affirmation of St. Louis as “becoming” Catholic in any sense of the word. I expect this from someone who knows only Roman Catholicism, but not from a man who claims in some way to be Anglican himself. It is, frankly, offensive. It indicates yet again that Abp. Hepworth cannot identify with the Anglican ethos, indeed, begging the question of whether he can even so much as understand it. I am an Anglican Catholic already, and I plan not to take part in the exodus.
Though the ACC boasts but a couple of thousand communicants (on a good day), their claims of catholicity are every bit as legitimate as those of Rome or Constantinople. Archbishop Haverland is nothing less than an equal peer of the Successor of St. Peter — and only when the other corrupt Apostolic Churches repent of their errors and additions can the “pure” Anglican Catholic Church (so-called) treat with their fallen away brethren. It does not seem to bother these folks one bit that though they claim to be Catholic — universal — they are, at the end of the day, in communion with fewer souls than one would find in a single suburban Roman Catholic parish!
Yes, a pastoral letter which seemed to have one purpose; to get around the clear meaning of the letters from the Vatican (which was one letter, really, copied and sent to each TAC bishop). That purpose was to present Rome’s letter as an anticipated and welcome part of the the plan. In fact, that letter said to the TAC bishops, in effect, This constitution as written is all you get: No special deal. Take it or leave it.
No representative of the TAC has ever claimed that Rome was set to offer any “special deal” or accommodation that did not accord with Anglicanorum Coetibus — but the Apostolic Constitution and Complementary Norms themselves do refer to additional statutes and norms specific to each personal ordinariate. And it ought to be obvious to even the most ignorant casual observer that the published documents do not alone answer many practical questions about how clergy and laity will be received into the new structures and how the personal ordinariates will function in real life.
JH: Does he really think Richard Hooker will survive this transition?
RH: Or Andrewes, etc.?
To the extent that their writings are in accord with the Catholic Faith, yes.
Our group will have the right to elect our bishops.
JH: That’s not what the Apostolic Constitution said.RH: In the context of the Roman Catholic Church, even if it were true, election of your own bishop may be granted theoretically; but, a RC bishop is not a bishop at all until the Pope appoints him. Even after consecration, he is not a bishop “until his name is read in the consistory in Rome.” But, the text of Anglicanorum Coetibus makes it clear that the former Anglicans will be under the bishop of the local Roman Catholic Diocese, granting only that each local diocesan bishop has to allow for the structure of the ordinariate (which directly affects only the clergy who want to be postulants).
The Apostolic Constitution says the following.
Article 4
§1. The Ordinary may be a bishop or a presbyter appointed by the Roman Pontiff ad nutum Sanctae Sedis, based on a terna presented by the Governing Council. Canons 383-388, 392-394, and 396-398 of the Code of Canon Law apply to him.
Fr. Hart is correct that the final appointment of the ordinary is reserved to the judgement of the Holy Father. But the right of the Anglican Governing Council to submit a terna from which the Holy See will choose is extraordinary. Largely bypassing the byzantine procedures of the local episcopal conference, the apostolic nuncio, and the Congregation for Bishops (by which virtually all of the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church are appointed), the Governing Council will deal with Rome directly.
Fr. Hart’s second contention is utter nonsense. The personal ordinariate structure is proposed — above all — to ensure that Anglican Catholics will not ordinarily be subject to the local Roman bishop! While the Apostolic Constitution and the Complementary Norms speak frequently of consultation between the Anglican ordinary and the local bishop and episcopal conference in matters of mutual interest, nowhere is it suggested that either has a decisive role in the erection of an ordinariate or that the Anglican ordinary must do anything more than seek the opinion of the local bishop in matters appertaining to the internal life of the ordinariate.
Fr. Hart’s contention that the Apostolic Constitution “directly affects only the clergy who want to be postulants” is absolutely ridiculous (and shouldn’t that be the other way around?).
From Article I of Anglicanorum Coetibus:
§3 Each Ordinariate possesses public juridic personality by the law itself (ipso iure); it is juridically comparable to a diocese.
§4 The Ordinariate is composed of lay faithful, clerics and members of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, originally belonging to the Anglican Communion and now in full communion with the Catholic Church, or those who receive the Sacraments of Initiation within the jurisdiction of the Ordinariate.
The personal ordinariate — unlike a personal prelature with which Fr. Hart seems to have willfully confused it — is constituted essentially as a diocese. The ordinary has authority over his subjects — clerical, religious, and lay — and this is the principal novelty of the Apostolic Constitution. The members of the ordinariate will share a common life, in the Anglican tradition, protected from the whims of the local diocesan bishop (who may be ignorant, indifferent, or even ill-dosposed to the legitimate desires of the Anglican Catholic faithful).
From the Complementary Norms:
Article 3
The Ordinary, in the exercise of this office, must maintain close ties of communion with the Bishop of the Diocese in which the Ordinariate is present in order to coordinate its pastoral activity with the pastoral program of the Diocese.
There is nothing sinister about this. What Fr. Hart is incapable of understanding is that the personal ordinariates will not be isolated sects in the Catholic Church. Genuine Catholic Anglicans yearn for full communion and a common life in the Universal Church — and all that this entails. The personal ordinariates will not exist in a vacuum. Their clergy will cooperate with the local dioceses and vice versa — and when interactions involve mutual interests, coordination with the other juridic personalities involved is not only necessary, it is reasonable and right. Some Anglicans have gotten far too comfortable with the notion that each bishop, each pastor, and indeed each layman is his own pope.
We signed the Catechism as ‘the most complete and authentic expression and application of the Catholic faith in this moment of time’.
“We did that to put our commitment beyond dispute, but we did not have to agree to Apostolicae Curae [which declares Anglican orders absolutely null and utterly void], because that is not in the Catechism.”
JH: But, as Benedict XVI previously stated (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger), it is something that all Roman Catholics are required to assent to and abide by.
It is a small matter to assent to the disciplinary decision in Apostolicae Curae when we have moved beyond it. For those interested, I would recommend the following posts (among many others on The Anglo-Catholic):
and this reflection from the “Ecclesiastical Sundries” post of November 26, 2009:
Joseph Ratzinger considers “apocryphal” Anglican orders. The Holy Father’s point about a “formally assured legitimacy” without revising the ecclesial context (i.e. outside of the visible unity of the Church) is key. In Ratzinger’s mind, this reduces ordinations to a “liturgical-juridical” formality. The English reformers reworked the ordinal and removed late medieval accretions perhaps, but they did so with bad intent and against the ‘mind of the Church’. In the Continuing Church, we have restored these ceremonies — and we (or our Anglican forebears) may also have remedied a breach in Apostolic Succession with the influx of Old Catholic orders — but even so, the “apocryphal” nature of our orders (from the perspective of the larger Church) is the issue. The Bishop of Ebbfleet also notes (in the comments to this post) that it is reasonable to ask whether “the traditional Western criteria of ordination have been adequate to the task.”
The bottom line on this is simple. The bishops of the TAC have not — and will not — deny the validity or the reality of our sacramental life outside of the full communion of the Catholic Church. The Holy Father is not asking them to do so. Once we have come into the fullness of communion with the Universal Church, I feel certain that our folks will not give the old shibboleth of Apostolicae Curae a second thought.
The laity, by the way, will have to be “confirmed” “again.” Has anyone told them this? Conditional ordination and conditional confirmation have, in some cases, very real justification, related to the compromise of Holy Orders in churches of the Anglican Communion, and also the willful removal in the 1979 American Confirmation Rite of the Form stating the Intention. But, the 1896 Bull provides no valid reason for ana-confirmation or ana-ordination, conditional or not (as the case may never again be).
Whether it be priestly ordination or the Sacraments of Initiation, as referenced above, there are other reasons beyond the tired — and now irrelevant — arguments of Pope Leo XIII’s Bull to be open to the re-administration of these rites. Fr. Hart — a self-proclaimed “theologian” — would do well too ponder Joseph Ratzinger’s thoughts on Holy Orders outside the visible unity of the Church.
They requested a way to have their own structure and a degree of self-determination. To that request, with its variations, Anglicanorum Coetibus is really an answer of “no,” with a different offer in return.
Really? A novel juridic structure, equivalent in law to a diocese, with an ordinary who exercises power vicariously in the name of the Roman Pontiff, with incardinated clergy, religious, and lay subjects, erected for the express purpose of “maintain[ing] the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church” is not our “own structure” or “a degree of self-determination”? Puh-leeze…
I could go on… but honestly, I’ve run out of patience. In my opinion, Fr. Hart’s post is part of a truly satanic campaign to dissuade traditionalist Anglicans at all costs from entering into the full communion of the Holy See. And before anyone suggests that I am being uncharitable, I have just recently spoken with the notorious Fr. Robert Hart — and at great length. I am certain that he knows his claims are false and misleading. He makes no bones about his mission to “obstruct” the TAC Primate (as if he’s all alone in this) and to steal parishes from the ACA and the TAC around the world. This is “church building” ACC-style. Contributors and commenters on the Anglican Continuum have branded at least two TAC bishops liars. They have intimated that high-ranking Roman prelates are willing facilitators of child abuse and have warned that any parish that “goes over to Rome” runs the risk of having its property sold off to pay sex abuse settlements! The Anglo-Catholic has tried very hard to avoid even a mention of this vile site for fear of sending folks astray, but this demonic campaign needs to be identified for what it is!
