Thread: Questions about the Ordinariate Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022977
Posted by Aggie (# 4385) on
:
Quite a few people, including the Vicar at the church I used to attend have joined the Ordinariate, and were recently received into the Catholic church. (The RC church is situated just across the road from the Anglican one). Over the Good Friday-Easter weekend my mum and I had lunch at the home of a friend of mine who attends my former church (he hasn't joined the Ordinariate), and his other guest was another person also from my former church who has just joined it.
She told me that at the moment the Ordinariate group attend one of the main Sunday Masses at the RC church, and their style of worship is very different to what she is used to: modern language, west-facing priest, girl-servers etc, but "very soon" they would have their own Mass, and the Vicar would be "deaconed and priested in the Roman Catholic church", and so these former Anglicans would then "do all the things that they were used to including using the English Missal as the liturgy for Mass." My former church is stratospherically high Anglo-Catholic: English Missal, east-facing, maniples, birettas, deacon and sub-deacon, all-male Altar party, lots and lots of smoke and lace etc.
I don't know much about the Ordinariate, as I missed most of the discussions about it that took place on the Ship last year due to studying (it was the final year of my OU degree), so please forgive me if this is a repetition, and if this topic has been discussed and answered before. However, several things that this lady said puzzled me, and I am sure they were incorrect:
1 Is it normal practice for an Ordinariate group to have their "own Mass" even after they have been officially received into the RC Church? Surely, this will create a "church within a church" situation??
2 Is an Anglican vicar "automatically" deaconed/ordained priest in the RC church upon joining the Ordinariate, and being received into the RC Church?
3 The lady at my friend's lunch party claimed that when Father is ordained priest, he will be able to say Mass in any RC church anywhere in the world, but yet the RC Parish priest cannot celebrate Mass for the Ordinariate group. Is this true? If so, why is it so, now that the Ordinariate group has been received into the Catholic Church?
4 I always thought that Ordinariate groups were permitted to use liturgy officially approved by the Church of England such as the BCP, correct me if I am wrong, but the English Missal has never been officially approved?
5 If it is the usual practice of this particular RC church to have Masses celebrated by west-facing priests, girls as well as boys serving at the Altar, won't the Ordinariate group be forced to conform to this? They are after all effectively newcomers to their host church. The lady I was speaking to thinks the Catholic clergy will make an exception for the Ordinariate group.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
I'm sure others will be better qualified to answer your questions, but my reaction (to this and other similar observations) is that it just shows what a strange and unreal bubble the sort of traditionalist anglo-catholic likely to join the ordinariate exists in. Most (Roman) Catholics are as bewildered as most Anglicans at the phenomenon (if not more so). But I am sure they will be generous hosts, and maybe the ordinariate members will lose their spiky (in both senses) edges and assimilate pretty quickly.
I'm sure it is not automatic that anglican clergy will be accepted for ordination by the RCC. Many, maybe most, are, but by no means all.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
It's sort of a church within a church, similar to a religious order. A priest duly ordained is a priest anywhere and always within the communion in question. The English Missal is, in its controversial bits, is simply a translation of the RC Tridentine rite, now I reckon authorised once again by Rome.
What is curious about the Ordinariate is that it cannot possibly continue beyond a generation or 2. From where, ultimately, will it be fed? Any married priests will have to have been Anglican priests first. There will come a point when ex-Anglicans, and those who know the patrimony, will dry-up.
Posted by chive (# 208) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aggie:
1 Is it normal practice for an Ordinariate group to have their "own Mass" even after they have been officially received into the RC Church? Surely, this will create a "church within a church" situation??
In our Ordinariate group we join with the rest of the church for Sunday mass and have an Ordinariate mass on a Tuesday night.
2 Is an Anglican vicar "automatically" deaconed/ordained priest in the RC church upon joining the Ordinariate, and being received into the RC Church?
No, priests are not automatically ordained. They have to go through quite a complex and deep psychological testing thing before its even considered. One of our priests has been ordained (and is going to take over as parish priest for the main congregation when the current pp retires) and the other chose not to go for ordination. I've no idea why, I've never asked him.
3 The lady at my friend's lunch party claimed that when Father is ordained priest, he will be able to say Mass in any RC church anywhere in the world, but yet the RC Parish priest cannot celebrate Mass for the Ordinariate group. Is this true? If so, why is it so, now that the Ordinariate group has been received into the Catholic Church?
Our priest, as I said, is taking over as parish priest for the main congregation in a couple of months. When he is unable to do the Ordinariate mass for whatever reason it's done by one of the other priests attached to the congregation. The Ordinariate is part of the Catholic church and therefore any priest can do an Ordinariate mass.
4 I always thought that Ordinariate groups were permitted to use liturgy officially approved by the Church of England such as the BCP, correct me if I am wrong, but the English Missal has never been officially approved?
We always used the Roman Missal when we were part of the CoE so nothings changed. I hope that regular BCP evensong and benediction will be introduced at some point because I really miss it.
5 If it is the usual practice of this particular RC church to have Masses celebrated by west-facing priests, girls as well as boys serving at the Altar, won't the Ordinariate group be forced to conform to this? They are after all effectively newcomers to their host church. The lady I was speaking to thinks the Catholic clergy will make an exception for the Ordinariate group.
We have conformed to the current practices of the church which our group is a part of. Joining the Ordinariate means becoming part of the wider Catholic church. I do miss aspects of the slightly higher worship at my old church but as I usually attended the eight o'clock spoken mass it's not a huge difference. There are cultural differences that have had a degree of dissonance for me but after a year I'm getting used to them and they're not really part of worship, just part of general Catholic culture.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
Hi Aggie. IANAMotO, but allow me quickly to attampt an answer to your questions according to my understanding.
quote:
Originally posted by Aggie:
1 Is it normal practice for an Ordinariate group to have their "own Mass" even after they have been officially received into the RC Church? Surely, this will create a "church within a church" situation??
It's kind of intended that there should be a church within a church situation, specifically in terms of pastoral oversight and the rite used - like there is for Eastern Catholics, say. The idea is to keep (some of) the distinctive traditions and existing communities of converts together, with their own clergy.
quote:
Originally posted by Aggie:
2 Is an Anglican vicar "automatically" deaconed/ordained priest in the RC church upon joining the Ordinariate, and being received into the RC Church?
No. Anyone seeking orders must submit a portofolio application to the Ordinary who then sends it on to Rome for approval. Approval has been withheld for some of those applying.
quote:
Originally posted by Aggie:
3 The lady at my friend's lunch party claimed that when Father is ordained priest, he will be able to say Mass in any RC church anywhere in the world, but yet the RC Parish priest cannot celebrate Mass for the Ordinariate group. Is this true? If so, why is it so, now that the Ordinariate group has been received into the Catholic Church?
Any Catholic priest of any rite or community can celebrate a Mass for any other, given the proper authority from the relevant ecclesiarch. But there may be a requirement to use a specific rite, different from the one they are used to, and existing Catholic priests may not have permission from their own bishops to celebrate any rite not already authorised by them. The Ordinariate rite has yet to be formulated and apporved, so what Ordinariate folks are getting at the moment will be versions of the existing Roman rite (which most of them were using beforehand anyway), in either "form" (i.e., novus ordo or usus antiquior). Ordinariate priests are currently saying many Masses for existing non-Ordinarite Catholic communities, and there's some reciprocation, I think. Any Catholic may attend and assist thereat.
quote:
Originally posted by Aggie:
4 I always thought that Ordinariate groups were permitted to use liturgy officially approved by the Church of England such as the BCP, correct me if I am wrong, but the English Missal has never been officially approved?
No, that's not right. - neither the BCP nor Common Worship is an authorised liturgy for any Catholic priest, Ordinariate or otherwise. They may not be used. The English Missal is pretty much a straight translation of the old rite Roman Mass (which in Latin is authorised for current use) into English (I used it to follow the Easter Vigil in the old rite on Saturday at my old rite Mass), but it is not explicitly authorised as far as I'm aware, though I think it would be wonderfully appropriate if it were. Some leeway in the meantime might be thought beneficial - not my call though.
quote:
Originally posted by Aggie:
5 If it is the usual practice of this particular RC church to have Masses celebrated by west-facing priests, girls as well as boys serving at the Altar, won't the Ordinariate group be forced to conform to this? They are after all effectively newcomers to their host church. The lady I was speaking to thinks the Catholic clergy will make an exception for the Ordinariate group.
There may well be specific rules and guidelines forthcoming that regulate the Ordinariate masses, but as things stand neither westward facing Masses not the use of women servers is compulsory at any Catholic Mass - in fact, the latter is merely permitted whereas the service of men and boys at the altar cannot be forbidden and is explicitly encouraged in the regulatory documents (because it helps foster vocations to the priesthood, amongst other things). Adopting the eastward position for celebrating Mass is also never forbidden and the current pontiff himself explicitly argued for it in preference to the versus populum position in his The Spirit of the Liturgy and has on many occasions celebrated this way himself.
Will that do for now?
Posted by Aggie (# 4385) on
:
Thank you for your replies so far. I too like Vaticanchic wonder about the future of the Ordinariate. I can quite foresee that a time will come when the RCC will increasingly push Ordinariate groups into integrating and amalgamating with their "host" churches and congregations.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
That is not what the Pope or the foundational documents envisage, Aggie - but it does seem to be what some of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales are working towards. I, personally, think it has legs.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
How? Apart from the odd posh undergraduate seeking high mass?
Posted by Aggie (# 4385) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
That is not what the Pope or the foundational documents envisage, Aggie - but it does seem to be what some of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales are working towards. I, personally, think it has legs.
If that is the case, then, I don't think some of "spiky" people in the Ordinariate group will be very happy. Is there provision for "dissappointed" Ordinariate members to return to the CofE? I am not being facetious here - people do change their minds, or find that the "grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence"
That is not to say that I hope it fails. On the contrary, I do genuinely wish those in that group, and any Shipmates who have joined the Ordinariate well.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
To Vaticanchic: By allowing already flourishing and well-established ways of "doing" liturgy in a particular way to continue amongst those who brought them with them.
The High Mass at my old anglo-cath-shack was the best celebrated Mass (if Mass it were) of any, Catholic or Anglican, in my old home town. It was not all posh university types either - but so what if some of our crowd were of that sort? English Missal High Mass and BCP Evensong & Benediction with Anglican musical "patrimony" - that's distinctive and worth preserving, it seems to me. And to the Pope, moreover.
[ 11. April 2012, 16:06: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aggie:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
That is not what the Pope or the foundational documents envisage, Aggie - but it does seem to be what some of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales are working towards. I, personally, think it has legs.
If that is the case, then, I don't think some of "spiky" people in the Ordinariate group will be very happy. Is there provision for "dissappointed" Ordinariate members to return to the CofE?
Provision by whom? The Catholic Church can't stop reverts. Layfolk who change their minds can just return to their old parishes and renounce their conversion, I suppose. Clergy may apply to get another parish in the C of E, but there won't be any guarantee of that. I honestly cannot see this happening in any but a very few cases.
quote:
Originally posted by Aggie:
I am not being facetious here - people do change their minds, or find that the "grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence"
Sure. But I'd like to think and have some reason to believe that most people have been converting to be communion with the Holy See, not merely to keep on doing what they always have under different colours. Time will tell, of course.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aggie:
Is there provision for "dissappointed" Ordinariate members to return to the CofE?
The doors of the parish churches are open. We welcome anyone baptised in a Christian church to Communion. Even if they are members of another denomination, and "just visiting".
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on
:
In this city there are two Ordinariate bound congos one of which has already been received. Of the two rectors, one has been accepted for ordination and other rejected.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
The future of the ordinariate is an intriguing issue. Given no changes over the next few decades, it may well wind itself into the greater church of which it is a part.
But it's rather unrealistic to expect no further developments within the CofE during that period. None of us have any idea what they might be, but there is surely scope for plenty of things. They may upset evangelicals more, in which case that won't so much be an issue that swells the ordinariate numbers. But if it destabilizes either the more catholic end or indeed the centreists, it might see more substantial numbers leaving for the ordinariate.
Last time we discussed this about a year ago, I said that it would hinge more upon what we as Anglicans do in the future rather than what Rome does. I see no reason to change my mind yet.
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Aggie:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
That is not what the Pope or the foundational documents envisage, Aggie - but it does seem to be what some of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales are working towards. I, personally, think it has legs.
If that is the case, then, I don't think some of "spiky" people in the Ordinariate group will be very happy. Is there provision for "dissappointed" Ordinariate members to return to the CofE?
Provision by whom? The Catholic Church can't stop reverts. Layfolk who change their minds can just return to their old parishes and renounce their conversion, I suppose. Clergy may apply to get another parish in the C of E, but there won't be any guarantee of that. I honestly cannot see this happening in any but a very few cases.
quote:
Originally posted by Aggie:
I am not being facetious here - people do change their minds, or find that the "grass is not always greener on the other side of the fence"
Sure. But I'd like to think and have some reason to believe that most people have been converting to be communion with the Holy See, not merely to keep on doing what they always have under different colours. Time will tell, of course.
Yes, but where will they come from now? Anglo-Catholics are able to be a little more accommodating than Rome ...
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chive
I hope that regular BCP evensong and benediction will be introduced at some point because I really miss it.
Sorry to disappoint but there is no such thing as 'regular BCP benediction', or for that matter a CW version. It would be difficult to reconcile it with Article 28.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Yes, but where will they come from now?
What Honest Ron said above.
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
Anglo-Catholics are able to be a little more accommodating than Rome ...
Meaning what in this context?
Posted by Vaticanchic (# 13869) on
:
Meaning there is a world of difference, despite what I was always encouraged to think, between the free glories of ACism and the sober delineations of Rome. Indeed the time has come to draw lines, perhaps.
I know AC congregations and people - for many, there are reasons why they are not RCs. Some with less interesting lives will "go with Father" to the Ordinariate.
My assertion is that those who are attracted and absorbed into AC churches, through love, grace or whatever means, will continue to do just that. The Ordinariate is now something else. Who will feed it? Not the same people.
How can there be more than this generation of children brought up in the Ordinariate? Clergy boys might well begin to wonder why they cannot do as their fathers do. In any case, in time it will need to integrate with the English hierarchy. I cannot see anything other than an interim measure here.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
How can there be more than this generation of children brought up in the Ordinariate? Clergy boys might well begin to wonder why they cannot do as their fathers do. In any case, in time it will need to integrate with the English hierarchy. I cannot see anything other than an interim measure here.
And I fully expect most US bishops to do whatever they can to sabotage it. Which, considering the way the Ordinariate has been set up, may not be much--but still.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
A few points:
1. With regards to the BCP question; the Book of Divine Worship (based on the 1979 Episcopalian BCP) used by existing Anglican Use parishes in the US has been approved for use by Ordinariate congregations by Msgr Newton. Fr Redvers-Harris, priest in charge of the Isle of Wight & Portsmouth Ordinariate group currently uses it. As and aside the BDW is currently being revised along the lines of the 1929 Scottish BCP. Another Missal, rather than BCP, based liturgy is being compiled by Msgr Burnham and Fr Aidan Nichols OP, among others, and is rumoured to have significant amounts Sarum incorporated into it.
Interestingly the Canadian groups entering the North American Ordinariate seem to have provisional permission to continue using their own liturgical books based on the 1962 Canadian BCP with a few alterations such as the insertion of the Roman Canon.
2. With regards to where future Ordinariate numbers will come from for them to remain viable, there will probably always be a certain amount of converts but I'd have thought it would have dawned on people that Ordinariate congregations are expected to have children...
3. The celibacy or otherwise of future generations of Ordinariate clergy has absolutely no bearing on the future viability of the Ordinariates. Frankly that is a bizarre issue to raise; certain of the Eastern Catholic Churches switched to compulsory celibacy over time, one as recently as the first half of the 20th Century IIRC. Their viability has not been affected.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
How can there be more than this generation of children brought up in the Ordinariate? Clergy boys might well begin to wonder why they cannot do as their fathers do. In any case, in time it will need to integrate with the English hierarchy. I cannot see anything other than an interim measure here.
And I fully expect most US bishops to do whatever they can to sabotage it. Which, considering the way the Ordinariate has been set up, may not be much--but still.
I fear that my Canadian sources are not in agreement. Perhaps encouraged by how eastern rite churches have worked but in any case not threatened by the convert crew, they do not seem to be undermining them. The norms document, in any case, provides an opening for a case-by-case continuation of the priestly ordination of married men. Whether or not that happens is yet to be seen.
Posted by Martin L (# 11804) on
:
In the "olden days" before the Ordinariate, I used to hear it said that those few Episcopal churches that had swum the Tiber would be required to give up their BCP/BDW ways when the Episcopal-convert priest finally retired, passed away, or left that church.
Nowadays, it sounds like there will be more convert-priests available, and that provision will be made for perpetuating the ordinariate priesthood.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
Whatever rite they may use, it is very possible that the relative regard for "decently and in order" likely to prevail in an Ordinariate parish will attract other Roman Catholics.
Aren't Roman Catholics still supposed to attend the parish within whose boundaries they live? Hereabouts, however, my immediate supervisor at work (among others) go to the Norbertine abbey some fifteen miles away, in a neighboring suburb, because the strumming and shambling in all the local parishes are offensive to them. If there were an ordinariate parish nearby, it would be another viable alternative.
Posted by gorpo (# 17025) on
:
What happens if an entire anglican community decides to convert to the ordinariate: the church buildings become empty and the congregation moves to the next Roman Catholic building in the area? Or the congregation actually owns the building, and it becomes a Roman Catholic Church?
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
What happens if an entire anglican community decides to convert to the ordinariate: the church buildings become empty and the congregation moves to the next Roman Catholic building in the area? Or the congregation actually owns the building, and it becomes a Roman Catholic Church?
Generally speaking, they leave the building behind, as it belongs to the Anglican diocese which they are leaving (a recent exception in Calgary, I believe). They then move to a nearby Latin parish where they are provided with temporary accommodation until such time as they can obtain their own building, should their numbers justify their own facility.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
What happens if an entire anglican community decides to convert to the ordinariate: the church buildings become empty and the congregation moves to the next Roman Catholic building in the area? Or the congregation actually owns the building, and it becomes a Roman Catholic Church?
Generally speaking, they leave the building behind, as it belongs to the Anglican diocese which they are leaving (a recent exception in Calgary, I believe). They then move to a nearby Latin parish where they are provided with temporary accommodation until such time as they can obtain their own building, should their numbers justify their own facility.
A good deal of the Continuing groups entering the Ordinariates will bring their own buildings. Also one of the Anglican Use societies (which includes current RCs, Episcopalians and Continuers) in the US has agreed the purchase of a church from the RC Bishop of Scranton including a rectory, a closed school and convent.
With regards to Anglican Communion groups/parishes besides Calgary other exceptions are the former TEC parishes of St. Luke's, Bladenburg and Mount Calvary, Baltimore. Both agreed leases with their local Episcopalian bishops.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
What is curious about the Ordinariate is that it cannot possibly continue beyond a generation or 2. From where, ultimately, will it be fed? Any married priests will have to have been Anglican priests first. There will come a point when ex-Anglicans, and those who know the patrimony, will dry-up.
I'm not sure that any of these assertions is necessarily true.
The Ordinariate may wither or be absorbed into territorial dioceses and parishes, it may even by likely, although there is no reason for that to be inevitable. There have always been a significant number of converts from Anglicanism (and, before the inevitable 'two-way street' comment is made, I know that Catholics swim the Tiber in the other direction too). It seems likely that, once Ordinariate communities are settled and established, some of those converts will choose that route if for no other reason that the parish culture/community dynamic will feel more comfortable.
It is not true that any married priests will have had to be Anglican priests first. In ten days time Deacon Daniel Lloyd will be ordained priest at St Patrick's, Soho Square for service in the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. He is married and was not an Anglican priest. He had been ordained a deacon and was destined for priesthood but the point remains. Being ordained with him is Deacon James Bradley who, although unmarried, was never in Anglican orders of any kind - his ordination was not conditional upon his being unmarried at the point of his ordination to the diaconate. He will, however, remain a celibate having made the promise so to do at his diaconal ordination. There are a number of other lay members of the OoOLW who are married and who are being considered for ordination. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the Vatican dicastery overseeing the Ordinariate - has made it clear that it will deal with these cases on a case-by-case basis.
Finally, it depends in what you think the patrimony consists. Liturgy is certainly a part of this. This extends to a certain care in liturgical praxis that is unusual (although by no means entirely absent) in most Latin rite parishes, together with a tradition of hymn singing and choral music that is distinctive. Considerable progress has already and is being made regarding the non-Eucharistic rites, but that is by no means the end of it. A certain attitude to the wider community, which I guess stems from the CofE's unique position in England, is felt by many to be part of it. The notion, within English Catholicism, that the priest is really the chaplain to the Catholic community leads to a definite insularity. The Ordinariate clergy don't seem to see themselves in that light. The formal participation of the laity in the structures of governance in a determinative way (rather than in the purely consultative way permitted within the Latin Rite canonical scheme) is specifically provided for in the Apostolic Constitution and the complementary norms and looks to me as if it is part of 'patrimony'.
Posted by Chorister (# 473) on
:
It all shows what a shame it is that these priests feel they have to leave the Anglican church at all. Those of us who value the catholic contribution to church life see it as part of the inevitable one-way progression of the Anglican church towards the evangelical end of the spectrum. In other words, the Anglican church is losing its wide base of churchmanship, little by little. And the wide base is very valuable, providing balance when some of the weirder and madder ideas come along, as they do from time to time.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
As long as the CofE remains the state church, or even if it is transitioned to the status of the national church along CofS lines, I don't think any faction will definitively and permanently take over or even establish lasting hegemony. I would base this on the fluctuating churchmanships and theologies of the CofE to date, from the mid-C16 to the present.
OTOH, should the CofE be totally disestablished in every way and become just another denomination amongst many, I would then think it could gradually become a niche church with only a few local exceptions departing from its (evangelical?)norm. This prediction might be supported by the evolution of non-established diaspora Anglican churches such as the Epicopal Church (USA), which largely has a particular MOTR-High house style with a relatively small number of evangelical, old style low church, and advanced Anglo-Catholic parishes along the peripheries. One should also bear in mind that the present homogenous style took a couple of hundred years to evolve and is still in process to some degree.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
Trisagion (and others), is it the case though that non-Ordinariate Catholics don't have a route to becoming Ordinariate Catholics? If that's not the case, how likely is it that the movement will occur in significant numbers? If converting Anglicans have a choice of going to the Ordinariate or not then assuming nothing happens to precipitate a huge Tiber-swimming exercise, doesn't the long-term viability of the Ordinariate depend largely on having some movement from (for want of a better term) mainstream Catholic congregations?
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
Trisagion (and others), is it the case though that non-Ordinariate Catholics don't have a route to becoming Ordinariate Catholics? If that's not the case, how likely is it that the movement will occur in significant numbers? If converting Anglicans have a choice of going to the Ordinariate or not then assuming nothing happens to precipitate a huge Tiber-swimming exercise, doesn't the long-term viability of the Ordinariate depend largely on having some movement from (for want of a better term) mainstream Catholic congregations?
Former Anglican who are already "diocesan Catholics", for want of a better term, are entitled to join the Ordinariate. While cradle Catholics are ordinarily precluded from joining, provision exists for allowing it under the Complimentary Norms accompanying Anglicanorum coetibus, specifically family members previously baptised Catholics outside of the Ordinariate.
All that said nothing stops cradle Catholics attending Ordinariate churches as their primary place of worship. It happens all the time in other contexts, e.g. attending Dominican or Norbertine churches, or Eastern Catholic churches.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
The CofE will gladly welcome them back any time. There is an informal rite which we use for those joining us from other denominations...
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Vaticanchic:
How can there be more than this generation of children brought up in the Ordinariate? Clergy boys might well begin to wonder why they cannot do as their fathers do. In any case, in time it will need to integrate with the English hierarchy. I cannot see anything other than an interim measure here.
And I fully expect most US bishops to do whatever they can to sabotage it. Which, considering the way the Ordinariate has been set up, may not be much--but still.
I fear that my Canadian sources are not in agreement. Perhaps encouraged by how eastern rite churches have worked but in any case not threatened by the convert crew, they do not seem to be undermining them. The norms document, in any case, provides an opening for a case-by-case continuation of the priestly ordination of married men. Whether or not that happens is yet to be seen.
I'm cautiously glad to hear that, Augustine. Thanks for the input.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chorister:
It all shows what a shame it is that these priests feel they have to leave the Anglican church at all. Those of us who value the catholic contribution to church life see it as part of the inevitable one-way progression of the Anglican church towards the evangelical end of the spectrum. In other words, the Anglican church is losing its wide base of churchmanship, little by little. And the wide base is very valuable, providing balance when some of the weirder and madder ideas come along, as they do from time to time.
I agree that it's a shame, but you must realize that most of them are either from continuing jurisdictions or members of Forward in Faith & the like. These are typically people with a very high ecclesiology, and if they take that ecclesiology seriously, they simply cannot remain in communion with people who deny basic dogmas of the Christian faith. WO, of course, is an issue as well, especially when it comes to the question of female bishops and whether their consecrations, or the ordinations they perform, are valid.
And although I agree that these people tend to balance out the lunatic fringe of what I might inaccurately refer to as "the left," they also tend to cause no little amount of trouble. There was a lot of moaning in TEC when +Iker, +Duncan et al. pulled up stakes, but I can't help thinking that +KJS was secretly relieved.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
These are typically people with a very high ecclesiology
I'm sure that once they have made the jump and joined the RCC their ecclesiology will be sorted out. But as long as they remain Anglicans but believe they can pick and choose their bishop, I can't see how you can describe their ecclesiology as 'high'.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
These are typically people with a very high ecclesiology
I'm sure that once they have made the jump and joined the RCC their ecclesiology will be sorted out. But as long as they remain Anglicans but believe they can pick and choose their bishop, I can't see how you can describe their ecclesiology as 'high'.
Good point, of course. You'd think they might have jumped ship earlier, if they really believed what they say they do...
Posted by Oferyas (# 14031) on
:
quote:
But as long as they remain Anglicans but believe they can pick and choose their bishop, I can't see how you can describe their ecclesiology as 'high'.
I'm sure the vast majority of Anglicans in the world, all of whom apart from the C of E elect (i.e. 'pick and choose') their own Bishops, would find this a surprising statement.
[code]
[ 12. April 2012, 22:27: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
quote:
But as long as they remain Anglicans but believe they can pick and choose their bishop, I can't see how you can describe their ecclesiology as 'high'.
I'm sure the vast majority of Anglicans in the world, all of whom apart from the C of E elect (i.e. 'pick and choose') their own Bishops, would find this a surprising statement.
I don't think that's what Angloid was referring to--I took him to mean Alternative Episcopal Oversight.
[ 12. April 2012, 22:28: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
quote:
But as long as they remain Anglicans but believe they can pick and choose their bishop, I can't see how you can describe their ecclesiology as 'high'.
I'm sure the vast majority of Anglicans in the world, all of whom apart from the C of E elect (i.e. 'pick and choose') their own Bishops, would find this a surprising statement.
To clarify, I wasn't talking about the election of bishops, but the strange idea that you can be a member of the C of E but refuse to acknowledge your diocesan as your bishop.
[ 12. April 2012, 22:29: Message edited by: John Holding ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
You'd think they might have jumped ship earlier, if they really believed what they say they do...
There are, so I am told, some FiF Anglican parish priests in our neighbourhood who have for some time iintended to go over to Rome but decided to stay in their jobs until the normal retirement age out of a sense of duty to their parish. The principle being that they signed up - took oaths even - to the cure of souls of the whole parish, not just the few who support their stance on church politics and want to carry on doing that. None of them are exactly close friends of mine or told me about it so this is second-hand rumour, but it sounds plausible from what little I know of them.
At least one of them is still in post in a parish very near me and its no secret he itends to join the Ordinariate. Another retired, but apparently continued to provide pastoral care (including baptisms and funerals) to some of his ex-parishioners causing some embarrasment and difficulty to his successor.
Someone more cynical than me might accuse them of hanging on for the stipend and the pensions, but I think we ought to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
I'm sure the vast majority of Anglicans in the world, all of whom apart from the C of E elect (i.e. 'pick and choose') their own Bishops, would find this a surprising statement.
But if someone they dislike wins the election do they ignore them and bring another one in from elsewhere?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Oferyas:
I'm sure the vast majority of Anglicans in the world, all of whom apart from the C of E elect (i.e. 'pick and choose') their own Bishops, would find this a surprising statement.
But if someone they dislike wins the election do they ignore them and bring another one in from elsewhere?
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
You'd think they might have jumped ship earlier, if they really believed what they say they do...
There are, so I am told, some FiF Anglican parish priests in our neighbourhood who have for some time iintended to go over to Rome but decided to stay in their jobs until the normal retirement age out of a sense of duty to their parish. The principle being that they signed up - took oaths even - to the cure of souls of the whole parish, not just the few who support their stance on church politics and want to carry on doing that. None of them are exactly close friends of mine or told me about it so this is second-hand rumour, but it sounds plausible from what little I know of them.
I can certainly understand that. Although I was hoping for a conclusion to your first sentence more along the lines of "I should have gone last Tuesday week, had not my wife objected."
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
These are typically people with a very high ecclesiology
I'm sure that once they have made the jump and joined the RCC their ecclesiology will be sorted out. But as long as they remain Anglicans but believe they can pick and choose their bishop, I can't see how you can describe their ecclesiology as 'high'.
As most of the Canadians (as well as US folks) entering the Ordinariate had already separated themselves from the Anglican Church of Canada (or the US counterpart), this hardly applies. Delegated oversight was available in some places but depended on diocesan authority, rather than that of the national church-- I would fault them for many things (list available upon application), but the separators were consistent in their ecclesiology.
The English situation with its many theoretical anomalies had many parents, to the point that I think it unfair to load the entire blame on one of the parents-- it was entirely consensual between all partners.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
Pond differences again! Will I ever learn?
I didn't realise that the Ordinariate was operating in Canada and the USA too. How does it differ from the "Anglican Use Catholics", or have they merged?
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Pond differences again! Will I ever learn?
I didn't realise that the Ordinariate was operating in Canada and the USA too. How does it differ from the "Anglican Use Catholics", or have they merged?
If the merge hasn't already happened, it will in time. IIRC there were only 4-6 Anglican Use parishes in the USA anyway.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Pond differences again! Will I ever learn?
I didn't realise that the Ordinariate was operating in Canada and the USA too. How does it differ from the "Anglican Use Catholics", or have they merged?
Canada for the time being will be a deanery of the US Ordinariate. It will be called the Deanery of St. John the Baptist and will be established this Sunday coming.
As for the existing Anglican Use parishes they have to go through the canonical process of transferring jurisdiction which is a fairly tedious and time consuming affair; even the Ordinariate's "cathedral" Our Lady of Walsingham in Houston still hasn't formally entered the Ordinariate yet as far as I'm aware, though I'm open to correction on that.
[ 12. April 2012, 20:32: Message edited by: CL ]
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
CL reports: quote:
It will be called the Deanery of St. John the Baptist and will be established this Sunday coming.
This is interesting; S Anne is the patron of Canada for RCs, but S John the Baptist has long been the patron for Anglicans.
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Pond differences again! Will I ever learn?
I didn't realise that the Ordinariate was operating in Canada and the USA too. How does it differ from the "Anglican Use Catholics", or have they merged?
Well, the pope established the rules to apply throughout the world, and its fairly well accepted that his primary target was not the CofE but the TAC's dioceses in Australia and, I think, India.
It is, if I may say so, not unusual (though not singling you out in particular, Angloid) for members of the CofE to believe that everything Anglican in the world is really just the CofE. Sooner or later the rest of us get used to it, and tend to ignore the CofE as a result. No doubt to our detriment.
John
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
John - I think I'm right in saying that amongst those petitioning Rome for action was a contingent from FiF - UK. Rome's response was to more than one approach.
Whilst I'm sure you are correct about us CofE types and our reprehensible attitudes, I think it unfair to pin that one on Angloid in this instance - he was merely remarking that he had missed the erection of a new ordinariate in N. America - the first one (The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham) having been established here over a year ago. The rules may apply worldwide but the resulting ordinariates are geographically based. At least as I understand it.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
John - I think I'm right in saying that amongst those petitioning Rome for action was a contingent from FiF - UK. Rome's response was to more than one approach.
Whilst I'm sure you are correct about us CofE types and our reprehensible attitudes, I think it unfair to pin that one on Angloid in this instance - he was merely remarking that he had missed the erection of a new ordinariate in N. America - the first one (The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham) having been established here over a year ago. The rules may apply worldwide but the resulting ordinariates are geographically based. At least as I understand it.
One Ordinariate per bishops conference was originally supposed to be the way it was to be organised but that hasn't happened either in Britain or North America; and won't in Australia either but possibly in reverse, i.e. two Ordinariates in one episcopal conference. Just the other day the Vicar General of the Church of the Torres Strait Fr Gordon Barnier wrote the following on a now defunct blog:
quote:
Allow me to once again state our position: We ARE committed to the Ordinariate, hopefully an Ordinariate for the Torres Strait and there are encouraging signs this will happen, although there are difficulties, mainly of clergy education and training. The Catholic Church is being very supportive and generous to us.
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
Thanks for that, CL.
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
One Ordinariate per bishops conference was originally supposed to be the way it was to be organised but that hasn't happened either in Britain or North America; and won't in Australia either but possibly in reverse, i.e. two Ordinariates in one episcopal conference.
Not quite correct. The Apostolic Constitution & Norms are clearly set up to deal with there being multiple Ordinariates in one Bishops' Conference, where this is felt expedient. Therefore the proposed Australian model entirely fits in to the legal drafting.
. §1 Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church are erected by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith within the confines of the territorial boundaries of a particular Conference of Bishops in consultation with that same Conference.
I §2 Within the territory of a particular Conference of Bishops, one or more Ordinariates may be erected as needed.
The other way round (Canada/Scotland being part of the E+W/USA Ordinariates)has needed, seemingly, some legal sleight of hand to fall within the text of the constitutional documents.
[ 13. April 2012, 15:04: Message edited by: The Man with a Stick ]
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
One Ordinariate per bishops conference was originally supposed to be the way it was to be organised but that hasn't happened either in Britain or North America; and won't in Australia either but possibly in reverse, i.e. two Ordinariates in one episcopal conference.
Not quite correct. The Apostolic Constitution & Norms are clearly set up to deal with there being multiple Ordinariates in one Bishops' Conference, where this is felt expedient. Therefore the proposed Australian model entirely fits in to the legal drafting.
. §1 Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church are erected by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith within the confines of the territorial boundaries of a particular Conference of Bishops in consultation with that same Conference.
I §2 Within the territory of a particular Conference of Bishops, one or more Ordinariates may be erected as needed.
The other way round (Canada/Scotland being part of the E+W/USA Ordinariates)has needed, seemingly, some legal sleight of hand to fall within the text of the constitutional documents.
I confess I was simply going on memory; it has been some time since I've read the texts of AC and the Norms closely.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Adopting the eastward position for celebrating Mass is also never forbidden and the current pontiff himself explicitly argued for it in preference to the versus populum position in his The Spirit of the Liturgy and has on many occasions celebrated this way himself.
Those of us who have a strong theological preference for consecration ad orientam find it sad, and in some ways shameful, that the Holy Father's view on this is so completely ignored. Apart from Masses celebrated in the Extraordinary Form, I've never been to a Mass in any Catholic Church where this ancient custom is followed. I saw it all the time as a High Church Anglican. I've heard rumblings that the Ordinariate may adopt the practice, but I haven't yet seen it anywhere, much to my dismay!
Posted by John Holding (# 158) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
John - I think I'm right in saying that amongst those petitioning Rome for action was a contingent from FiF - UK. Rome's response was to more than one approach.
Whilst I'm sure you are correct about us CofE types and our reprehensible attitudes, I think it unfair to pin that one on Angloid in this instance - he was merely remarking that he had missed the erection of a new ordinariate in N. America - the first one (The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham) having been established here over a year ago. The rules may apply worldwide but the resulting ordinariates are geographically based. At least as I understand it.
I thought I said that the CofE was not the primary target -- which surely in no way suggests that FiF was utterly uninvolved or that the Pope was unaware of groups outside the TAC that might also be interested.
As for pinning an attitude on Angloid, you seem to have missed the part of my post which said in as many words that my comments were not particularly aimed at him.
John
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
...I thought I said that the CofE was not the primary target -- which surely in no way suggests that FiF was utterly uninvolved or that the Pope was unaware of groups outside the TAC that might also be interested.
...
If I remember correctly John, it was the TAC which first approached the Vatican under their then (still?) Primate John Hepworth. They then seemed to unilaterally accept the full papal magisterium without being offered anything substantial in return.
Since then Hepworth's relationship with both the Catholics and his own Church seem to have worsened.
It was, I think, at the last Lambeth Conference that the Vatican fully realised that many non TAC Anglicans, from both the C of E and other Provinces, might be interested in joining Rome as more or less discrete groups.
The rest, as they say, is history.
From my own non TAC non FIF vantage point I suspect the Ordinariates will attract Anglicans from outside these two groups.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Adopting the eastward position for celebrating Mass is also never forbidden and the current pontiff himself explicitly argued for it in preference to the versus populum position in his The Spirit of the Liturgy and has on many occasions celebrated this way himself.
Those of us who have a strong theological preference for consecration ad orientam find it sad, and in some ways shameful, that the Holy Father's view on this is so completely ignored. Apart from Masses celebrated in the Extraordinary Form, I've never been to a Mass in any Catholic Church where this ancient custom is followed. I saw it all the time as a High Church Anglican. I've heard rumblings that the Ordinariate may adopt the practice, but I haven't yet seen it anywhere, much to my dismay!
Well it was Msgr Burnham himself who said ad orientem would be normative for for the forthcoming Ordinariate liturgy. Given Aidan Nichols involvement I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case.
Also there are several groups currently using ad orientem; e.g. Fr Tomlinson in Tunbridge Wells, Fr Elliot in Reading, Fr Redvers-Harris in the Isle of Wight & Portsmouth. I'm sure there are plenty others too.
[ 14. April 2012, 11:31: Message edited by: CL ]
Posted by AberVicar (# 16451) on
:
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
John - I think I'm right in saying that amongst those petitioning Rome for action was a contingent from FiF - UK. Rome's response was to more than one approach.
Whilst I'm sure you are correct about us CofE types and our reprehensible attitudes, I think it unfair to pin that one on Angloid in this instance - he was merely remarking that he had missed the erection of a new ordinariate in N. America - the first one (The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham) having been established here over a year ago. The rules may apply worldwide but the resulting ordinariates are geographically based. At least as I understand it.
I thought I said that the CofE was not the primary target -- which surely in no way suggests that FiF was utterly uninvolved or that the Pope was unaware of groups outside the TAC that might also be interested.
As for pinning an attitude on Angloid, you seem to have missed the part of my post which said in as many words that my comments were not particularly aimed at him.
John
John,
If you want the low down on the genesis of Anglicanorum coetibus and the respective roles of the CofE and the TAC read the following talk given by Dr William Tighe at the annual Anglican Use conference last Summer:
http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2011/07/the-genesis-of-anglicanorum-coetibus/#more-13767
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Being ordained with him is Deacon James Bradley who, although unmarried, was never in Anglican orders of any kind - his ordination was not conditional upon his being unmarried at the point of his ordination to the diaconate.
Bishop John Broadhurst ordained James to the sacred order of deacons in September 2010.
Thurible
Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on
:
Since by September 2010, they had presumably both decided to go to Rome, it feels somewhat inauthentic to me.
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Being ordained with him is Deacon James Bradley who, although unmarried, was never in Anglican orders of any kind - his ordination was not conditional upon his being unmarried at the point of his ordination to the diaconate.
Bishop John Broadhurst ordained James to the sacred order of deacons in September 2010.
Thurible
Quite so. My bad! That'll teach me to assert without checking first. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Since by September 2010, they had presumably both decided to go to Rome, it feels somewhat inauthentic to me.
No - he was on placement, from St. Stephen's House, in my parish. Like many of his contemporaries and like many in this parish, he was waiting to see what provision Synod would make. They made none, so he, and many from this parish, left.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Since by September 2010, they had presumably both decided to go to Rome, it feels somewhat inauthentic to me.
No - he was on placement, from St. Stephen's House, in my parish. Like many of his contemporaries and like many in this parish, he was waiting to see what provision Synod would make. They made none, so he, and many from this parish, left.
I disagree. Those who went knew they were going LONG before the Synod. Nobody made up their mind the day after, some years before.
AtB Pyx_e
Posted by FreeJack (# 10612) on
:
+Fulham had definitely decided to go by October 2010, and withdrew from public ministry in the CofE by November 2010. I see no reason why there would have been any justification for a change of mind in September, certainly no Synod meeting.
The deacon would have known that about +Fulham even if not about himself.
[ 15. April 2012, 16:47: Message edited by: FreeJack ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Since by September 2010, they had presumably both decided to go to Rome, it feels somewhat inauthentic to me.
No - he was on placement, from St. Stephen's House, in my parish. Like many of his contemporaries and like many in this parish, he was waiting to see what provision Synod would make. They made none, so he, and many from this parish, left.
I disagree. Those who went knew they were going LONG before the Synod. Nobody made up their mind the day after, some years before.
AtB Pyx_e
I disagree - I am in almost daily contact with many who have still not made up their mind but are hoping for something around the corner. I know them because my parish church (the one in which I am NOT a member but whose doors I often darken for weekday mass and occasional Sundays off when I get incense-withsdrawal symptoms) is Resolutions ABC
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
Two points. Firstly were discussing a particular move. My apologies for somewhat muddying the waters but as been clearly pointed out that Deacon knew about the Ordinariate before he was ordained into the Church of England. Let us be clear the talks began in 2008 we both know of people approached long before the Ordinariate was announced.
Secondly your sentence: quote:
I am in almost daily contact with many who have still not made up their mind but are hoping for something around the corner.
makes no sense. They are either making up their mind or hoping for something round the corner. That they are struggling, that they find it very difficult, that is this all very trying for them I have no doubt and a degree of sympathy. But let’s be honest everyone has made up their mind by now. All that is required is courage, to stay or leave. Either has a degree of integrity.
AtB Pyx_e
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Perhaps, pyx_e, there are some for whom making up their mind=struggling. One of my acquaintances said that changing churches (not to the Ordinariate in this instance) was for her like making her decision to end her marriage. Looking back, she realized that she knew for some time what the outcome was going to be, but kept on hoping for signs that it would be otherwise.
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
But let’s be honest everyone has made up their mind by now. All that is required is courage, to stay or leave. Either has a degree of integrity.
Nobody's ever accused me of an excess of integrity but my perception and understanding of theology and ecclesiology, and the positions and natures of the various branches of the Church are changing to some degree all the time and I don't think it would be fair to charge me with dishonesty if I crossed the Bosphorus (for example) one day.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I disagree - I am in almost daily contact with many who have still not made up their mind but are hoping for something around the corner.
The something around the corner they are hoping for is that the July synod will make adequate provision for those who can't, in conscience, accept the minsitry ofwomen bishops. When women were admitted to the priesthood, the provisions of the Episcopal Act of Synod were just that. The many with whom you are in contact need something which will enable them to remain, with integrity, within the Church of England. If, as I suspect, only an unenforcible code of practice is made, which can't happen until after the legislation is passed, perhaps some of them will seek to cross the Tiber or the Bosphorous.
Disgruntlement with one's own church is not a particularly good reason to join another, especially when most of the people you mention would rather remain within the C of E, otherwise they would have alrady swam. I don't pretend to know what the answer can be for such people. We should all pray for them. What we shouldn't do is question their integrity when there is such anguish in the decision making process.
Posted by Comper's Child (# 10580) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I don't pretend to know what the answer can be for such people. We should all pray for them. What we shouldn't do is question their integrity when there is such anguish in the decision making process.
Hear Hear
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Two points. Firstly were discussing a particular move. My apologies for somewhat muddying the waters but as been clearly pointed out that Deacon knew about the Ordinariate before he was ordained into the Church of England. Let us be clear the talks began in 2008 we both know of people approached long before the Ordinariate was announced.
Secondly your sentence: quote:
I am in almost daily contact with many who have still not made up their mind but are hoping for something around the corner.
makes no sense. They are either making up their mind or hoping for something round the corner. That they are struggling, that they find it very difficult, that is this all very trying for them I have no doubt and a degree of sympathy. But let’s be honest everyone has made up their mind by now. All that is required is courage, to stay or leave. Either has a degree of integrity.
AtB Pyx_e
You know full well that decision-making, especially at a time when one is in a prolonged state of shock, is mirky, muddy, often irrational.
I also think that some have not made up their mind. To quote one of my friends: 'I WISH I could believe that women were capable of receiving ordination.' Subtext: it would make my life easier.
[ 17. April 2012, 12:58: Message edited by: leo ]
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
You know full well that decision-making, especially at a time when one is in a prolonged state of shock, is mirky, muddy, often irrational.
I do know that full well but when it is mirky, muddy and irrational for over 18 years then it can no longer be described as "making a decision."
Also, it is perfectly feasable to remain in the C of E and be opposed to the ordination of women. Many are and will remain so until the end of thier ministry. With, in my opinion perfect integrity. And again, I have nothing against those who leave (or have left for) the Ordinariate, I wish them well in their rightful spirutual home.
But its is very unhelpful to pretend that everyone is acting with full integrity at all times. Positions may have integrity but as we struggle to find them sometimes we do not.
Given that no one is being thrown out and that many opposed to the ordination of women remain in ministry within the C of E I begin struggle with the hand wringing. The dice are cast. Everyone I know sees the way they are falling and have been falling for 18 years.
And God knows I have my fears. One day will I be faced with a similar Hobson's choice over Human Sexuality?
AtB, Pyx_e
Posted by Gashead (# 15296) on
:
Under the Act of Synod 1993 the General Synod made provision for those who in all conscious believed either that a) women can not ever be ordained or b) women can be ordained but that the Church of England did not have the authority to permit such a development independently of the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Those who took these positions were guaranteed an honoured and permanent place within the Church of England. It seems very unlikely that General Synod this time around will make such a commitment and even if it did the notion of ‘permanent’ has, to say the least been, devalued.
To me a key problem is about decision making. A General Synod can by a two thirds majority change anything. Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury said "The Church of England has no doctrine of its own save that of the one Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church" but if Sydney type evangelicals ever command a majority on General Synod then it is possible that a two thirds majority could decide that we don’t actually need deacons, priests and bishops at all.
I am an anglo-catholic who holds to position b) above and I am committed to remaining in the Church of England which I love not least because it somehow holds together a broad range of churchmanship. I accept that the C.of.E .has ordained women to the priesthood and will shortly decide to consecrate them as Bishops. I recognise and respect them as ordained persons and will work with them in all things as far as my conscience allows and even a bit beyond that. But I can understand that those who have left to join the Ordinariate, many of whom are my friends, feel they have been let down by a church that seems on one hand to be saying ‘you have an honoured and permanent place’ and then a few years later saying ‘well actually we didn’t really mean that we were only lending you that provision and now we want it back’. Those of us remaining represent probably less than 5% of the Church of England. I hope that the Church of England will give us a break and give an example to other churches on how generously a majority can treat a minority.
Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gashead:
...
To me a key problem is about decision making. A General Synod can by a two thirds majority change anything. Geoffrey Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury said "The Church of England has no doctrine of its own save that of the one Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church" but if Sydney type evangelicals ever command a majority on General Synod then it is possible that a two thirds majority could decide that we don’t actually need deacons, priests and bishops at all.
...
As an Australian, may I say I hope that this nightmare scenario never comes about?
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
I'm not quite sure how you'd describe the relationship between Sydney, Armidale, North West Australia and the other Anglican dioceses in this country. 'Schism when there isn't'?
The Church of England has always prided itself on being a comprehensive national church. I pray it stays that way.
Posted by Gashead (# 15296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
You know full well that decision-making, especially at a time when one is in a prolonged state of shock, is mirky, muddy, often irrational.
I do know that full well but when it is mirky, muddy and irrational for over 18 years then it can no longer be described as "making a decision."
Also, it is perfectly feasable to remain in the C of E and be opposed to the ordination of women. Many are and will remain so until the end of thier ministry. With, in my opinion perfect integrity. And again, I have nothing against those who leave (or have left for) the Ordinariate, I wish them well in their rightful spirutual home.
But its is very unhelpful to pretend that everyone is acting with full integrity at all times. Positions may have integrity but as we struggle to find them sometimes we do not.
Given that no one is being thrown out and that many opposed to the ordination of women remain in ministry within the C of E I begin struggle with the hand wringing. The dice are cast. Everyone I know sees the way they are falling and have been falling for 18 years.
And God knows I have my fears. One day will I be faced with a similar Hobson's choice over Human Sexuality?
AtB, Pyx_e
Posted by Gashead (# 15296) on
:
Sorry about simply quoting Pyx-E as my last post! It was unintentional. I was going to respond to something he said but then changed my mind. I am very new at posting and it all went terribly wrong. Apologies
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
You know full well that decision-making, especially at a time when one is in a prolonged state of shock, is mirky, muddy, often irrational.
I do know that full well but when it is mirky, muddy and irrational for over 18 years then it can no longer be described as "making a decision."
Also, it is perfectly feasable to remain in the C of E and be opposed to the ordination of women. Many are and will remain so until the end of thier ministry. With, in my opinion perfect integrity. And again, I have nothing against those who leave (or have left for) the Ordinariate, I wish them well in their rightful spirutual home.
But its is very unhelpful to pretend that everyone is acting with full integrity at all times. Positions may have integrity but as we struggle to find them sometimes we do not.
Given that no one is being thrown out and that many opposed to the ordination of women remain in ministry within the C of E I begin struggle with the hand wringing. The dice are cast. Everyone I know sees the way they are falling and have been falling for 18 years.
And God knows I have my fears. One day will I be faced with a similar Hobson's choice over Human Sexuality?
AtB, Pyx_e
Most of the FiF people are lay people so the issue about remaining in ministry isn't there issue.
As for 'Human Sexuality' - who don't they talk about 'animal sexuality'? It's just a way is saying 'homosexuality' without soiling their lips - many LGBT Christians already dissent from and try to ignore the official line already and have done so for far longer than 18 years.
Posted by Aggie (# 4385) on
:
I thought that Monsignori Broadhurst, Newton et al were no longer Bishops, so why do they still wear mitres and preside over the reception Masses for new Ordinariate groups joining the RCC?
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aggie:
I thought that Monsignori Broadhurst, Newton et al were no longer Bishops, so why do they still wear mitres and preside over the reception Masses for new Ordinariate groups joining the RCC?
It is part of the provisions of the ordinariate, Aggie - see the Wikipedia article here - scroll down to the section on "Provisions for former Anglican bishops".
In fact there is an analogous provision for Anglican abbots wearing the mitre. I'm not sure about abbesses though.
Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on
:
quote:
As for 'Human Sexuality' - who don't they talk about 'animal sexuality'?
Because they want it to all be about homosexuality without ever applying the same values to all human sexuality. Therefore I always refer to it as human sexuality to remind us all that we are NOT talking about one area of this complex subject. As much as some would like.
AtB, Pyx_e.
Posted by CL (# 16145) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aggie:
I thought that Monsignori Broadhurst, Newton et al were no longer Bishops, so why do they still wear mitres and preside over the reception Masses for new Ordinariate groups joining the RCC?
Pontificalia are not restricted just to bishops in the Catholic Church.
Posted by Aggie (# 4385) on
:
Thank you for the link Honest Ron Bacardi!
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
It is part of the provisions of the ordinariate, Aggie - see the Wikipedia article here - scroll down to the section on "Provisions for former Anglican bishops".
I'm sorry but I feel I have to share my vision of the negotiations on this one.
Catholic Negotiators: "Look, there's no way you're going to be bishops when you join up. We can COUGHre-COUGH ordain you as priests but you know as well as we do that bishops are historically unmarried and we can't fudge it that far."
Anglo-Catholic Bishops: "Bugger. [Long pause] Can we keep the pointy hats though?"
I'll get me coat.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
quote:
As for 'Human Sexuality' - who don't they talk about 'animal sexuality'?
Because they want it to all be about homosexuality without ever applying the same values to all human sexuality. Therefore I always refer to it as human sexuality to remind us all that we are NOT talking about one area of this complex subject. As much as some would like.
AtB, Pyx_e.
I see - and agree with you.
Posted by Aggie (# 4385) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
It is part of the provisions of the ordinariate, Aggie - see the Wikipedia article here - scroll down to the section on "Provisions for former Anglican bishops".
I'm sorry but I feel I have to share my vision of the negotiations on this one.
Catholic Negotiators: "Look, there's no way you're going to be bishops when you join up. We can COUGHre-COUGH ordain you as priests but you know as well as we do that bishops are historically unmarried and we can't fudge it that far."
Anglo-Catholic Bishops: "Bugger. [Long pause] Can we keep the pointy hats though?"
I'll get me coat.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
So a former Anglican bishop, now a Monsignor in the Ordinariate cannot ordain ex-Anglican vicars as RC priests?
A friend of mine who I was discussing this with the other day, seemed to think that they could, and that it is the Ordinary of the Ordinariate and his general Council (and not the local RC diocesan bishop/archbishop) who decide whether or not an ex-Anglican priest should be ordained an RC priest.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Is this true?
Posted by Thurible (# 3206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aggie:
So a former Anglican bishop, now a Monsignor in the Ordinariate cannot ordain ex-Anglican vicars as RC priests?
A friend of mine who I was discussing this with the other day, seemed to think that they could, and that it is the Ordinary of the Ordinariate and his general Council (and not the local RC diocesan bishop/archbishop) who decide whether or not an ex-Anglican priest should be ordained an RC priest.
Is this true?
The Ordinary may not ordain but does "ask" bishops to ordain on his behalf. The bishops must give their approval for the ordination of men for the Ordinariate within their dioceses. Sadly, though, that means that, Fr Hunwicke has still not been re-ordained.
Actually, that isn't sad. It is appalling. Utterly appalling.
Thurible
[ 20. April 2012, 11:33: Message edited by: Thurible ]
Posted by The Man with a Stick (# 12664) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Aggie:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
It is part of the provisions of the ordinariate, Aggie - see the Wikipedia article here - scroll down to the section on "Provisions for former Anglican bishops".
I'm sorry but I feel I have to share my vision of the negotiations on this one.
Catholic Negotiators: "Look, there's no way you're going to be bishops when you join up. We can COUGHre-COUGH ordain you as priests but you know as well as we do that bishops are historically unmarried and we can't fudge it that far."
Anglo-Catholic Bishops: "Bugger. [Long pause] Can we keep the pointy hats though?"
I'll get me coat.
So a former Anglican bishop, now a Monsignor in the Ordinariate cannot ordain ex-Anglican vicars as RC priests?
A friend of mine who I was discussing this with the other day, seemed to think that they could, and that it is the Ordinary of the Ordinariate and his general Council (and not the local RC diocesan bishop/archbishop) who decide whether or not an ex-Anglican priest should be ordained an RC priest.
Is this true?
The legal position is that the Ordinary makes decisions on Ordinations, subject to a "Nulla Osta" (basically 'no objection') letter from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This is done in consultation with the Bishop of the local Diocese, but it's clear from the constitutional documents that it is the Ordinary's decision, not the local Bishop's (as it should be).
However, it does seem that the the local Bishops are being involved to a certain extent in some decision making processes (read coverage on the David Moyer saga in the USA for further details). This makes sense on a political level (keep everyone on the ground happy) at this initial stage, but is not a formal legal requirement.
Ordinations themselves must be performed by a Bishop. To date, this has invariably been a Bishop of the local diocese in which the ordination takes place. However it could just as easily be a bishop in the CDF, the Papal Nuncio or any other Catholic Bishop.
The Ordinary can do pretty much anything a Diocesan Bishop does except ordain (as explained above) and celebrate a Chrism Mass (which was done by the Papal Nuncio this year).
Posted by Aggie (# 4385) on
:
Thank you for the clarification
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0