|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Pope announces plans for Anglicans to convert in groups
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
From Damian Thompson (a horrid blog, but he seemed to get there first) quote:
The Vatican has announced that Pope Benedict is setting up special provision for Anglicans, including married clergy, who want to convert to Rome together, preserving aspects of Anglican liturgy. They will be given their own pastoral supervision, according to this press release from the Vatican:
“In this Apostolic Constitution the Holy Father has introduced a canonical structure that provides for such corporate reunion by establishing Personal Ordinariates which will allow former Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony.”
[ 06. May 2010, 19:07: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Interesting story, cor. What intrigued me was the para in the link which you left out.
Are there thousands of disaffected Anglicans (I mean disaffected in that particular direction)? I suppose the Pope would not have done this without some evidence that there are significant numbers who might welcome such and opportunity. There may be some on board, I suppose, but I'm not asking them to come out.
The other side of this is the question of whether Lambeth was consulted/informed in advance. Any news about that yet?
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
B62, I left out that last paragraph because Damian's blog is so tendentious -- though compared to his commenters he's a model of sweet reason.
A press conference started in London at 10 am UK time involving Abp Nichols (Westminster) and the Archbishop of Canterbury. I haven't seen any report of what was said. So Lambeth was involved in some way, if not consulted in advance.
--------------------
Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Thanks, cor - fair point about the blog and commenters!
Re your Lambeth news, my curiosity tastebuds have just started salivating ...
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
The press release says former Anglicans, so I presume the Pope means Continuing Anglicans. Who strictly speaking are not really Lambeth's concern any more than the Methodists are.
Lambeth might conceivably welcome the move, as a way of calling the bluff of Continuing Anglicans. I am rather suspicious of groups who claim to be maintaining the "Catholic" tradition and yet put themselves outside of any "Catholic" structure*. If the Pope is allowing them to retain aspects of Anglican liturgy, then ISTM their last reservations towards union with Rome must evaporate.
* Quotes round "Catholic" because I mean "Catholic according to their own definitions of the term".
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Just about to link it, but Anthropax got there first. Looks good. Some clear signs pointing to mutual co-operation and understanding.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Fr Aquilina has various statements on this.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
I think something along these lines has been expected ever since the announcement about the TAC discussions. So yes, it does seem to be primarily a response to activity by continuing anglicans.
But its significance goes well beyond that to affect parts of Anglicanism directly. Those parts of FiF which seem to be hovering on the brink of departure - have they been asked to wait for this announcement? Where does B16's forthcoming visit to Britain fit into all this? Will this interest people outside the papalist wing of FiF? Just some questions that spring to mind -
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
I still find myself asking why this is necessary. If people genuinely want to become Catholics, rather than simply not be Anglicans, what is their problem with joining already-existing communities of Roman Catholics?
[ 20. October 2009, 10:45: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anthropax
Shipmate
# 11234
|
Posted
I think the part about Anglican liturgical patrimony means an appeal to those beyond A-Pism, as most Anglo-Papalists I know simply use one form or another of the Roman rite - although I imagine that's only in England - so an attempt to reach out to those in other parts of the world, not just one little island
--------------------
Be joyful and keep the faith! St David
Posts: 142 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
What I have seen pass for 'Anglican patrimony' amongst non-English traditionalist Anglicans is some sort of mixture of pre-Vatican II RC worship with the BCP. It is hardly an ancient tradition; just a fall-out from 20th century Anglo-Catholicism. These groups are in a completely disimilar position from, for example, the Eastern groups who formed uniate bodies.
Pastoral provision has been made already for Anglican Use amongst those attached to it. I don't see why anything more robust is needed. To put it bluntly: when I was an Anglican, I got the feeling that most reluctance about joining mainstream RC ecclesial structures on the part of A-Cs was along the lines of 'I don't want to go to those nasty churches full of foreigners and polyester vestments'. Doesn't seem a very good reason for creating a prelature.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Max.
Shipmate
# 5846
|
Posted
I've asked this on both my facebook and my twitter and I'm going to ask it here:
What will the Traditional Anglicans do when 20 years down the road, the Vatican decides to ordain women to the priesthood?
In response to Anglicans joining RC Churches with nasty vestments and buildings, all I can say is that the sacristy cupboard in my house chapel has some lovely fiddleback chasubles and spade stoles (including a rose set and a black set) as well as rainbow stoles and ethnic stoles with tassels hanging down the back.
It's all about variety! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Max.
[ 20. October 2009, 10:58: Message edited by: Max. ]
--------------------
For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world.
Posts: 9716 | From: North Yorkshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
Form the Holy and Continuing Catholic Apostolic Church of Our Lady of the Fiddleback and St King Charles Stuart the Martyr (Croydon).
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
More details from the Vatican here.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Corvo
Shipmate
# 15220
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
What will the Traditional Anglicans do when 20 years down the road, the Vatican decides to ordain women to the priesthood?
I do not think 'Traditional Anglicans' (of the catholic persuasion) deny that women can be priests, rather that the Church of England as a branch of the Church catholic (as they would understand it to be) lacks the authority to take such a decision on its own. I don't think it would be inconsistent with this position for them to welcome women into the Catholic priesthood in '20 years time'.
Posts: 672 | From: The Most Holy Trinity, Coach Lane, North Shields | Registered: Oct 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
I think that's a very silly question anyway. It's like asking a former Anglican "what would you do if the Pope infallibly declared Mary to be co-Redempteix and Mediatrix of all grace?" In other words, you are setting up a litmus test as to whether they accept the authority of the Pope or not, based upon an imponderable unlikelihood.
I think the point of this new step is to widen the Pastoral Provision to which DOD refers. At the moment that is confined to the United States, but this now makes that provision universal.
This is a similar move to the Pope's Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, and his lifting of the excommunications on the SSPX. I don't just mean a lurch in a conservative direction, but more of a gesture of inclusion. On the one hand these have all been rather conservative actions politically, but on the other they have been ecclesially very very liberal because they have introduced a diversity into the Western Rite which had hitherto operated on the lines of strict uniformity.
This may well have been prompted by TAC - but I wonder how FiF will respond. It seems like they could have a "Third Province" in union with Rome rather than Canterbury - if they but asked for it!
[ 20. October 2009, 11:39: Message edited by: Triple Tiara ]
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Max.:
I've asked this on both my facebook and my twitter and I'm going to ask it here:
What will the Traditional Anglicans do when 20 years down the road, the Vatican decides to ordain women to the priesthood?
In response to Anglicans joining RC Churches with nasty vestments and buildings, all I can say is that the sacristy cupboard in my house chapel has some lovely fiddleback chasubles and spade stoles (including a rose set and a black set) as well as rainbow stoles and ethnic stoles with tassels hanging down the back.
It's all about variety!
Max.
What Sacred london said re- the ordination of women in the RCC.
As for fiddlebacks, they are never 'lovely'. They are as bad fashion is mini skirts lave and flared trousers (I have only ever worn the third of those three!).
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelicum
Shipmate
# 13515
|
Posted
A distant acquaintance of mine who was at the press conference in London suggested that those coming in are likely to be the Damian Thompson of the Anglican communion in the sense that they had little respect for the office of Bishop and a war-like mentality. Would those familiar with the groups in question suggest that this was a fair assessment?
Posts: 364 | From: Full in the panting heart | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
I think that's a very silly question anyway. It's like asking a former Anglican "what would you do if the Pope infallibly declared Mary to be co-Redemptice and Mediatrix of all grace?" In other words, you are setting up a litmus test as to whether they accept the authority of the Pope or not, based upon an imponderable unlikelihood.
I would welcome the Holy Father defining Our Lady as co-Redemptice and Mediatrix of all graces - I ave a paper on the desirability of this to the Ecumenical Society of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Interestingly, the RC Bishop in attendance argued against it while the former Master of the Guardians of (Anglican) Walsingham thought it would be a good thing.
[ 20. October 2009, 12:00: Message edited by: leo ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
I take the point TT. I suppose I'm just concerned that 'inclusion' be a two way affair. If I am incorporated into the catholica, my borthers and sisters should act generously towards me, but so should I towards them. It seems a legitimate question to ask why people wish to join the Catholic Church but not to join the wonderful and diverse Catholic communities which already exist.
It is also hardly a secret that there are major problems with the culture of a lot of conservative Anglo-Catholic groupings: a seige-mentality, an aggressive hostility to a (frequently imagined) ubiquitous liberalism, a liturgical prissiness tied up in an occasionally sinister way with a peculiar subculture, and so on. It seems in order for Catholics to worry about these groups being corporately received into the Church. And, less selfishly, I just think it is a shame that individuals within these groups are being denied the opportunity for growth and conversion which goes with individual reception. I remember quite vividly sitting at Mass* after my own reception when some minor liturgical 'error' was made. I felt the part of me which had been conditioned by A-Cism leap into action and say 'that's wrong'. But almost immediately a new instinct pushed it aside and said, 'It doesn't matter. God's Church doesn't stand or fall with the position of the priest's hands'. And I felt at home.
*Not presided at by anyone connected with the Ship!
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Well, I agree with you entirely. It's what my gut reaction is towards this move. It was my gut reaction to the SSPX overtures. To give a theological foundation to my gut reaction: should not those who have skirted the margins of communion within another Church be brought more closely into the practice of FULL communion in the Catholic Church, rather than be allowed to skirt the margins once again. Which is exactly what you are saying.
On the other hand, this is not simply a accommodation on all their terms. It is an exercise in creating space, something the Catholic Church is very good at doing. If this is made a much wider provision, then perhaps all that talk of "united not absorbed" will have born fruition.
I think it will also call the bluff of many of the huff-puffers. Now there is nowhere left to run simply because they want to make whoopee and be crazies. Here is the door: come in if you wish to follow your logic. And that's a massive challenge now to FiF as well.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
And, less selfishly, I just think it is a shame that individuals within these groups are being denied the opportunity for growth and conversion which goes with individual reception. I remember quite vividly sitting at Mass* after my own reception when some minor liturgical 'error' was made. I felt the part of me which had been conditioned by A-Cism leap into action and say 'that's wrong'. But almost immediately a new instinct pushed it aside and said, 'It doesn't matter. God's Church doesn't stand or fall with the position of the priest's hands'. And I felt at home.
Isn't that interesting! Only a couple of weeks ago, I had a similar conversation about parishes converting en masse to Orthodoxy in the Western Rite. I'm pleased to read this and that I'm not alone in this concern.
Whatever happens, inculturation is part of conversion too, and I'm sure there is a Catholic "spirit" that is more difficult to acquire for people who are stuck in ex-Anglican ghettos. I hope that this is considered properly and they are looked after.
[ 20. October 2009, 12:22: Message edited by: Michael Astley ]
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
angelicum
Shipmate
# 13515
|
Posted
http://www.forwardinfaith.com/artman/publish/article_493.shtml
quote:
It has been the frequently expressed hope and fervent desire of Anglican Catholics to be enabled by some means to enter into full communion with the See of Peter whilst retaining in its integrity every aspect of their Anglican inheritance which is not at variance with the teaching of the Catholic Church.
We rejoice that the Holy Father intends now to set up structures within the Church which respond to this heartfelt longing. Forward in Faith has always been committed to seeking unity in truth and so warmly welcomes these initiatives as a decisive moment in the history of the Catholic Movement in the Church of England. Ut unum sint!
Posts: 364 | From: Full in the panting heart | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
trouty
Shipmate
# 13497
|
Posted
What about the practical side of this? If a FiF church decides to go into this new set up, who is going to bear the costs of it? I don't think the Cof E will or should and I doubt that the RCC will want to either.
Posts: 205 | From: Somewhere out there | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
FCB
Hillbilly Thomist
# 1495
|
Posted
I share TT and DOD's worries. I think a lot of Anglicans think that the differences between Anglicanism and the RCC are relatively minor. And for some Anglo-Papalist this might be true in terms of doctrine. But, at least from my experience in the US, the differences in ecclesial and ecclesiastical culture are huge (ranging from parish size to the exercise of authority to attitudes toward liturgy), and many former Anglicans find life in the Catholic Church something of shock to the system. But that's the reality of Catholicism and it's probably best to face up to it sooner rather than later.
One question I have is whether the Pastoral Provision parishes in the US will want to join one of these persona prelatures, or whether, after a couple decades as parishes of a Catholic diocese they now feel at home and will want to stay.
--------------------
Agent of the Inquisition since 1982.
Posts: 2928 | From: that city in "The Wire" | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anthropax
Shipmate
# 11234
|
Posted
I wonder about the use of Local Ecumenical Partnerships in this - there must be plenty of places with a large Anglo-Catholic Church building, and a good proportion of people who would convert- sensitivity by both bishops could let there be a lot less heart-ache, and maintenance cost could be split, freeing up cash for mission.
--------------------
Be joyful and keep the faith! St David
Posts: 142 | From: Yorkshire | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
The Bishops of Ebbsfleet and Richborough on the former's website:
quote:
This is not a time for sudden decisions or general public discussion. We call for a time of quiet prayer and discernment. The coming season of Advent and the celebration of the mystery of the Incarnation at Christmas, seem to us to provide a good opportunity for this quiet prayer and discernment to take place, as well as some pastoral discussions. Some Anglicans in the Catholic tradition understandably will want to stay within the Anglican Communion. Others will wish to make individual arrangements as their conscience directs. A further group of Anglicans, we think, will begin to form a caravan, rather like the People of Israel crossing the desert in search of the Promised Land. As bishops we would want to reassure people that, whatever decisions people, priests and parishes make, they will find peace and blessing in following what they discern to be God's will for them. We have chosen 22nd February, The Feast of The Chair of Peter, to be an appropriate day for priests and people to make an initial decision as to whether they wish to respond positively to and explore further the initiative of the Apostolic Constitution. Many, understandably, will need a much longer period of discernment and we would counsel against over-hasty reactions of whatever kind.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
aumbry
Shipmate
# 436
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anthropax:
I wonder about the use of Local Ecumenical Partnerships in this - there must be plenty of places with a large Anglo-Catholic Church building, and a good proportion of people who would convert- sensitivity by both bishops could let there be a lot less heart-ache, and maintenance cost could be split, freeing up cash for mission.
This is a very good point. In England I don't think it would be incorrect to consider that 95% of churches of architectural merit are currently Anglican. A lot of them were not subject to the wreckovations that so may RC churches were subject to in the 1960s as well. It would be a great tragedy if some of the finest anglo-catholic churches were to be left empty and decaying while their less distinguished catholic counterparts were packed.
If in the hypothetical situation where the vast body of anglo-catholics did cross over (and I think in fact that is unlikely) what sort of church will the Church of England be? Presumably something akin to the Methodists with a few rather enfeebled affirming parishes tacked on.
Posts: 3869 | From: Quedlinburg | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
The worries about bringing an antithetical culture over are worth considering I'm sure. It's no secret that we (i.e. Anglicans) have some characters with odd ideas, not to mention extremists. But a moment's perusal of the letters following Damian Thompson's blog would appear to indicate that they will have their work cut out if they want to maintain their chief bad-boy status if they become Catholics. (Not of course that such folk are the sole domain of A-Cism).
However, I did know several people who went over at the last exodus (OOWP). I think most of the noisy ones found themselves unwelcome and headed back to Canterbury, though I understand that the rest integrated without any undue problem. Is there any reason to think that the same may not apply again? I realise the parallels are not exact, but they are close enough I think.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
As to the degree of consultation, here is comment from Fr Aqulina (emphasis added): quote:
The Italian vaticanologist Andrea Tornielli has written his thoughts about the unilateral decision of the Holy See to receive Anglicans in full communion with the See of Peter. He says that the Archbishop of Canterbury was not privy of this up to two days ago. He says that the Holy Father has changed the old policy of receiving people individually and now he is open to receive whole communities. Ordination to the priesthood will be offered to those whom the Church believes to be called. There is no provision for first generation married bishops. As is the custom of the Church, East and West, episcopacy will be celibate. The (married) Anglican bishops will be invited to work as priests.
On a different theme: it seems clear that married Anglican priests can now be received and become married Catholic priests. But under the pastoral provision, as I understand it, one cannot marry again once ordained -- just as a married candidate for the permanent diaconate vows that he will not remarry if his wife dies. Presumably an unmarried Anglican priest who becomes a Catholic priest under this new provision will thereby commit himself to lifelong celibacy.
I think the Orthodox discipline is similar: a cleric can be married before ordination, but once ordained can no longer marry.
--------------------
Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
daronmedway
Shipmate
# 3012
|
Posted
I think it's great. Hopefully, the FiF types will go to Rome and leave FCA-UK to the Con-Evos. Much better.
Posts: 6976 | From: Southampton | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
You wish, CmN!
(FCA-UK???)
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anthropax:
Joint Press Release from the Archbishops
When I saw that link I assumed it mean Archbishops of Canterbury and York. But actually its Canterbury and Westminster. Very carefully prepared beforehand - and Rowan Williams seems to have signed up to it.
Well, I guess it lets him & General Synod off great big hook next year. I mean the problem that the concessions to those who iobject to the ordination of women already go beyond what a large number of Anglicans will tolerate but not far enough for FiF, which has left the bishops stuck in the middle getting pelted from three sides.
I suspect that the revised provision that Pete and others have hinted at here that is intended to be stronger than a "Code of Practice" but less than a "Third Province" becomes a lot easier to set up with this in place.
Anyone who rejects the ordination of women and really wants to stay in the CofE now has to deal with the CofE as it is. No more fantasies about a "Third Province".
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Fr Aquilina has various statements on this.
Including, apparently from the Vatican:
quote:
The forthcoming Apostolic Constitution provides a reasonable and even necessary response to a world-wide phenomenon, by offering a single canonical model for the universal Church which is adaptable to various local situations and equitable to former Anglicans in its universal application. It provides for the ordination as Catholic priests of married former Anglican clergy. Historical and ecumenical reasons preclude the ordination of married men as bishops in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Constitution therefore stipulates that the Ordinary can be either a priest or an unmarried bishop.
Which implies to me that someone in Rome is thinking about doing the same thing for some other groups. Lutherans I suppose (in some ways the present Pope seems nearer in doctrine to Martin Luther than he does to the Popes of the 18th or 19th century). Maybe even others. Making the RCC into a sort of federal institution, an alliance of churches. How very Anglican! Though no doubt still tightly controlled from the centre, which is not very Anglican.
Maybe we should follow the Archbishop's advice and not try to speculate in detail on how this will work out in practice, or how many people will avail themselves of it. But as a general pronciple I imagine that the Vatican does not want to blur the boundaries between who is "in" and who is "out". Personally I would prefer it if that is exactly what happened, but I'd be surprised if that was their intention. (Though there is the whole Brother Roger thing) And there is a risk (or from my POV an opportunity) of such blurring happening if some congregations more or less move over as a lump. Like most Anglican chruches, FiF parishes have tended to have a very open attitude to who can take communion or not. Which might cause some tensions.
Also this is interesting:
quote:
In the years since the Council, some Anglicans have abandoned the tradition of conferring Holy Orders only on men by calling women to the priesthood and the episcopacy. More recently, some segments of the Anglican Communion have departed from the common biblical teaching on human sexuality - already clearly stated in the ARCIC document "Life in Christ" - by the ordination of openly homosexual clergy and the blessing of homosexual partnerships.
It talks about the ordinatin of openly homosexual priests as having "departed from the common biblical teaching". But ordaining women is only abandoning a tradition. I bet some of those Roman Catholics who want to ordain women will be reading between these lines like mad.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
Of course, I'm delighted. But I doubt that I will see anything come of it locally.
My concern over the so-called "nasty subculture" of ACism in the C of E or the SSC is minimal. Perhaps that is because I am partial to that subculture, with the exception of reputed camp mockery of religion that goes on behind closed doors, to which I was never given entre to begin with anyway.
As to whether Anglo-Catholics will play nice with their bishops, this is a big issue, but perhaps not in the way that most on the board think. If the English ACs are more or less willing to be docile to their PEVs, then mutatis mutandis, there should not be problems with these new-fangled "Personal Ordinaries." The same is true with any PECUSA clergy that might come our way. Morally speaking, they probably should be thoroughly disloyal to the Episcopal Bishops of Washington, New York, Pennsylvania, etc. but yet they are not.
However, I have little to no confidence in our American continuing Anglican clergy who, for the most part, have been little more than independent contractors and incorrigible besides. (It doesn't help that the majority of continuing Anglican bishops are either wicked or incompetent...an even greater problem.) The Vatican is going to be exceptionally careful about who will be ordained to the Episcopate and, in turn, the Ordinaries will have to be VERY CHOOSY about who they will ordain.
The Catholic scene in my diocese has Polish apostolates, Nigerian apostolates, an Ethiopian congregation, an Etririan cogregation, a French congregation, a Croation congregation, a bunch of Hispanic-oriented ones, several Greek Catholic congregations that are part of eparchies other than the Latin bishop, and congregations under the purview of the Military Ordinariate. (The American Polish apostolates, by the way, have often had an observer from the Polish episcopate providing some sort of oversight in addition to that of the local ordinary.) If we can do all these things, then there is no reason why, in of itself, there can't be an Anglicanish Ordinary, provided the right people are ordained.
[ 20. October 2009, 14:25: Message edited by: Shadowhund ]
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
At least Pope Benedict has acknowledged that Anglicans have a spiritual and liturgical patrimony. It's considerably more than many of his predecessors have done.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
You would need to go back a bit for that assertion to be true. Beyond the past 5 popes at least.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoker
Shipmate
# 11939
|
Posted
Who gives a toss what man made religion and rules people follow or align themselves with?
What's important is what their hearts believe and submission to the authority of scripture.
1 Corinthians Chapter 1:
I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, "I follow Paul"; another, "I follow Apollos"; another, "I follow Cephas"; still another, "I follow Christ."
Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? I am thankful that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized into my name. (Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don't remember if I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.
Posts: 428 | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
Well, there is one cultural difference that seems significant. Catholic bishops have a way of shushing clergy who are too outspoken for the bishop's comfort level. This would be resented by many AC clergy who like to publicly bang on about whatever topic is pissing them off at the moment. We have our share of rude priests like Father Euteneuer of Human Life International who are always seeming to be talking out of turn, but they are an exception.
[ 20. October 2009, 15:21: Message edited by: Shadowhund ]
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I think a lot of Anglicans think that the differences between Anglicanism and the RCC are relatively minor. And for some Anglo-Papalist this might be true in terms of doctrine. But, at least from my experience in the US, the differences in ecclesial and ecclesiastical culture are huge (ranging from parish size to the exercise of authority to attitudes toward liturgy), and many former Anglicans find life in the Catholic Church something of shock to the system. But that's the reality of Catholicism and it's probably best to face up to it sooner rather than later.
Possibly a lot of Catholics think the differences are minor too. As a non-papalist (at least in the usual sense) anglo-catholic I don't deny there are substantial differences. FCB is right about the cultural ones too; and ISTM that in this area most MOTR Anglicans and Catholics are much closer to each other than either are to the F-i-F style Anglicans.
I don't think that those members of the C of E (Forward in Faith or not) who are thinking about crossing the Tiber should count their chickens about taking their church buildings with them. While inevitably some of these will become redundant in an Anglican context, and therefore a transfer of ownership should not be a problem, the fact remains that they are parish churches and belong to the whole parish. Even assuming that a majority of a congregation want to change allegiance (and that's a big assumption), the parish is much wider than the congregation and the C of E will want to assure continued pastoral care for the 90% of the population who rarely darken the doors of the church. This might mean amalgation with a neighbouring parish, but might well mean instead the appointment of a new priest to care for the remnant of the congregation and to serve the parish.
I'd love to see the figures, but I doubt if there are any churches where 100% of the PCC, let alone the general congregation, has signed up for the F in F agenda. And that's their agenda as existing, not an active proposal to seek papal oversight.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Scrumpmeister
Ship’s Taverner
# 5638
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cor ad cor loquitur:
I think the Orthodox discipline is similar: a cleric can be married before ordination, but once ordained can no longer marry.
That's right, cor. Readers (and, where they are still ordained, Chanters and Acolytes), may marry, and this is welcomed if they are to be ordained to higher orders, but a man may not marry after ordination to the subdiaconate.
--------------------
If Christ is not fully human, humankind is not fully saved. - St John of Saint-Denis
Posts: 14741 | From: Greater Manchester, UK | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
The press release says former Anglicans, so I presume the Pope means Continuing Anglicans. Who strictly speaking are not really Lambeth's concern any more than the Methodists are.
Lambeth might conceivably welcome the move, as a way of calling the bluff of Continuing Anglicans. I am rather suspicious of groups who claim to be maintaining the "Catholic" tradition and yet put themselves outside of any "Catholic" structure*. If the Pope is allowing them to retain aspects of Anglican liturgy, then ISTM their last reservations towards union with Rome must evaporate.
* Quotes round "Catholic" because I mean "Catholic according to their own definitions of the term".
Well...not exactly.
There are lots of flavors of Continuing Anglican, and even some of the very high-churchy types aren't all that interested in communion with Rome, because it will always be on Rome's terms. And there is good reason to be skeptical of the RCC's commitment to an ongoing Anglican Use as anything more than a stopgap rite to ease the transition to Latin Rite Catholicism.
The Traditional Anglican Communion appears to be gung-ho with regard to reunification, but this can be deceptive; it's mostly the clergy that are moving this forward. Many of the laity will resist a move to Rome; in fact, a couple of their parishes joined our gang recently because they didn't want to be part of the Tiber expedition. And of course, opinions vary among the Continuum from "Sure, let's reunify" to "Never will I become a Papist!".
I suspect that most of the jurisdictions that arose out of the St Louis Affirmation & the Denver consecrations will be more or less content to remain as they are, and to focus their energies on strengthening their bonds with each other rather than being swallowed up in a big church that doesn't appear to have a clue what to do with them.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
If in the hypothetical situation where the vast body of anglo-catholics did cross over (and I think in fact that is unlikely) what sort of church will the Church of England be? Presumably something akin to the Methodists with a few rather enfeebled affirming parishes tacked on.
Why, how many rebel Anglo-Catholics do you imagine there are? I'm assuming that no parish would go over to Rome unless it had already signed Resolution C, and there aren't too many of those.
I can't find any total statistics, but looking at individual dioceses:
Gloucester comprises 327 parishes of which 1 is ABC
Guildford: 165 parishes, 4 ABC
Hereford: 356 parishes, 0 ABC
Leicester: 237 parishes, 3 ABC
Lichfield: 427 parishes, 26 ABC
Lincoln: 514 parishes, 15 ABC
Liverpool: 250 parishes, 3 ABC
etc etc. (Figures from the FiF registry and from the respective diocesan websites.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
Angloid - I think you are right about not keeping church buildings. One of the docs. I read this morning from the Catholic side specifically stated it wasn't going to include buildings, so that would make it from both sides.
re your later point - quote:
I'd love to see the figures, but I doubt if there are any churches where 100% of the PCC, let alone the general congregation, has signed up for the F in F agenda. And that's their agenda as existing, not an active proposal to seek papal oversight.
I suspect there may well be churches where all the PCC is signed up, but I'm sure you are probably right about the congregation. FiF congregations - outside obvious "shrines" - can be quite diverse. But that goes the other way too. There are likely a whole raft of people in non-FiF parishes who may find these developments of interest.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
I think visions of a mass exodus from the Church of England are rather too hopeful. As much schadenfreude as that would give certain shipmates, I think both extremes of the doctrinal spectrum need to realize that the vast majority of people aren't invested enough in the issues to actually leave the Church over it.
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
I'm afraid this is the sort of thing that makes me want to reach for my bowler hat and Lambeg drum. Quite illogical I know (because quite honestly if I were in the CofE rather than CinW I would be more than happy to see the back of dodgy characters like Ebbsfleet) and indeed uncharitable to those whom I should regard as fellow Christians continuing on their journey of faith. But there you are.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
Is it a "Journey of faith" when the central pillar of that journey is glee at destroying a Christian fellowship for the sake of another sect?
Zach
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
uncletoby
hobbyhorsical
# 13067
|
Posted
Andrew Brown has commented on this on the Guardian website, under the perhaps over-the-top headline The end of the Anglican Communion.
[ 20. October 2009, 16:39: Message edited by: uncletoby ]
--------------------
`` L--d! I cannot look at it ----
Posts: 1150 | From: Cambridge | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
cor ad cor loquitur
Shipmate
# 11816
|
Posted
A couple of interesting bits from Andrew Brown's piece: quote:
this establishes a tradition of married Roman Catholic clergy in the west...
If the former Anglicans can train up successors who will also be able to have wives, the Roman Catholic church may have found a way to escape the prospect of a largely gay priesthood to which the doctrine of compulsory celibacy appeared to condemn them. It is ironic that Anglican efforts to deal honestly with the problem of sexuality should have provided the Catholics with the excuse they needed to strike this decisive blow.
and Damian Thompson adds that quote:
...there is even the possibility that married Anglican laymen could be accepted for ordination on a case-by-case basis – a remarkable concession.
though where he gets this last conclusion I don't know; he has a long history of announcing substance-free "facts" and "inside information".
--------------------
Quam vos veritatem interpretationis, hanc eruditi κακοζηλίαν nuncupant … si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonant. (St Jerome, Ep. 57 to Pammachius)
Posts: 1332 | From: London | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
