|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Pope announces plans for Anglicans to convert in groups
|
chiltern_hundred
Shipmate
# 13659
|
Posted
The name currently appearing the blogosphere as a potential episcopal ordinary is that of + Robert Mercer, who is a TAC bishop who manages also to be a monk of the Community of the Resurrection, and IIRC lives in Canada. Presumably if there is to be only one global Ordinariate, the holder of that office will be a flying bishop in the truest sense of the word.
AFAIK all the current PEVs are married and therefore ineligible. I would also expect them to stay on and minister to those of their integrity who are not in a position to take the ferry across the Tiber - indeed, I would be likely to think less highly of them if they didn't.
The only unmarried bishop who would seem to be eligible is + Urwin, currently the Administrator of Walsingham*.
If they're going to consider unmarried priests who might be eligible for episcopal consecration, then the list is rather longer.
I am probably ignorant on these matters and look forward to being corrected.
* and one wonders what is going to happen to that institution - and to a certain house in Oxford. Hmmm?
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
Who is eligible to be the Ordinary - in England?
Of the CofE bishops who might go (PEV or otherwise) who is single and acceptable to Rome and the transferring constituency?
Or would Rome consecrate a priest who converted in the post-1994 period who has experience in both the CofE and ordinary Roman Catholic life?
Or would the Ordinary be a senior priest as no-one is eligible to be bishop? (Doesn't sound as convincing to me.)
I get the impression that Ebbsfleet and Richborough will go soon (but they are both married?). Beverley and Fulham wait a bit. Likewise Chichester and Horsham don't need to go while in office. I don't know of many others.
--------------------
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." - Galileo Galilei
Posts: 691 | From: Duck City, UK | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chiltern_hundred:
The name currently appearing the blogosphere as a potential episcopal ordinary is that of + Robert Mercer, who is a TAC bishop who manages also to be a monk of the Community of the Resurrection, and IIRC lives in Canada. Presumably if there is to be only one global Ordinariate, the holder of that office will be a flying bishop in the truest sense of the word.
AFAIK all the current PEVs are married and therefore ineligible. I would also expect them to stay on and minister to those of their integrity who are not in a position to take the ferry across the Tiber - indeed, I would be likely to think less highly of them if they didn't.
I gather your PEV and PEOs are the same? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Much of the strength of the TAC seems to lie in Australia, including the Primate and his closest Anglican collaborator, the current Bishop of the Murray (both conveniently live almost next door to each other in suburban Adelaide). The Primate will be ineligible for ecclesiastical office. + Murray is close to retirement age, I believe.
We had a character similar to + Mercer, the now TAC Bishop David Chislett, who could've provided alternative episcopal oversight in the Brisbane archdiocese, had he not jumped the gun and been consecrated for the TAC whilst attempting to retain his Brisbane parish.
Is + Mercer actually licensed anywhere in the Anglican Church in Canada? What is his status with the CR?
As far as I can see, there would be no easily remediable canon law hurdle for a suitable Latin Rite bishop to be given control of an ordinariat or a suitable Latin Rite priest to be consecrated for this purpose.
A worldwide ordinariat IMO will not be instituted.
I suspect, once the ordinariats are fully established, we will see what happens. Til then?
[ 08. November 2009, 23:44: Message edited by: Sir Pellinore (ret'd) ]
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
So far as I know, +Mercer is not licensed in the Anglican Church of Canada. He came over here to be the bishop in the Anglican Catholic CHurch, which had split from the Anglican Church of Canada over the ordination of women and modern language liturgy. He succeeded the man who actually led the breakaway for several years.
I never did understand how he squared a continuing role in the C of E, which I believe he has, with being bishop of a breakaway. Normally one would have looked to the CofE to take steps, but then, one knows how much one can rely on the CofE to enforce any set of rules.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
I actually wonder whether + Mercer is in good standing with the CofE and is licensed anywhere in England.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
His wiki page says he was Bishop of Matabeleland in Zimbabwe, in the Church of the Province of Central Africa from 1977 to 1987. From 1988 to 2005 he was a bishop in the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada, and now resides in England.
Just reading wiki. So it seems he was a regular bishop in the Anglican Communion before entering the Continuum. The page says he retired to England. Dunno what he's doing no.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
This page from the ACC of Canada site shows him as retired and living in Sussex, not Mirfield, where one would imagine a professed CR priest would.
http://anglicancatholic.ca/bishops/housbish.htm
I suspect he holds no licence in the CofE and wonder how regular his status with the Community of the Resurrection is.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clavus
Shipmate
# 9427
|
Posted
The Mirfield 'Who We Are' page still includes him at the bottom in an old black and white photo. He is not listed in Crockford's Clerical Directory or the Chichester Diocesan Directory, so he does not appear to have permission to officiate in the Church of England.
Posts: 389 | From: The Indian Summer of the C of E | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stranger in a strange land
Shipmate
# 11922
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chiltern_hundred:
...Presumably if there is to be only one global Ordinariate, the holder of that office will be a flying bishop in the truest sense of the word.
AFAIK all the current PEVs are married and therefore ineligible.
The Constitution (published today) provides for Ordinariates within the existing territorial boundaries of Bishops' Confereneces - one or more per conference as required.So no global flying bishops!
There is no requirement for the Ordinary to hold Bishop's orders in the Catholic Church; it specifically discusses married Anglican bishops holding the role of Ordinary and being ordained as Catholic priests. They would stil have jurisdiction and can be given the right to use episcopal symbols of office (in the same way that abbots do).
Posts: 608 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manipled Mutineer
Shipmate
# 11514
|
Posted
English text of the constitution here and complementary norms here.
In addition to the points of interest noted by Stranger in a Strange Land, the following are worth noting:
(i) on ordination of married men, the constitution provides that "The Ordinary... as a rule ... will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis" (italics mine.) This reference the norms expand to state: "In consideration of Anglican ecclesial tradition and practice, the Ordinary may present to the Holy Father a request for the admission of married men to the presbyterate in the Ordinariate, after a process of discernment based on objective criteria and the needs of the Ordinariate. These objective criteria are determined by the Ordinary in consultation with the local Episcopal Conference and must be approved by the Holy See." This would seem to envisage the possibility of future married ordinands.
(ii) on liturgy, the constitution states that "Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite , the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See," thus suggesting that Roman Rite congregations in Britain can continue to follow this practice. (Again, italics mine.)
(iii) on membership, the norms state that "Those baptized previously as Catholics outside the Ordinariate are not ordinarily eligible for membership, unless they are members of a family belonging to the Ordinariate." That said, this would not prevent lay Latin Rite Catholics habitually attending a personal parish.
--------------------
Collecting Catholic and Anglo-
Catholic books
Posts: 1533 | From: Glamorgan, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stranger in a strange land
Shipmate
# 11922
|
Posted
Thank you for those MM.
A further point that interested me (and which gives the lie to Hans Kung's pernicious little outburst) is the provision for clergy of the Ordinariate to assist in the regular Catholic diocese where they live, and for diocesan priests to assist in the Ordinariate.
It will also be interesting to see how the Bishops' conferences react to the suggestion that they make funds available for the support of clergy in the Ordinariate!
Posts: 608 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clavus:
The Mirfield 'Who We Are' page still includes him at the bottom in an old black and white photo.
Are you suggesting they should have brushed him out of the photo like the missing Trotskyists at Stalin's parades?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Manipled Mutineer:
English text of the constitution here and complementary norms here.
Ta!
I have no idea what a "complementary norm" is - thee documents seem to be written in a language that bears a passing resemblance to English but seems deeply unclear!
III. Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.
What does
quote:
The Ordinary has the faculty to incardinate in the Ordinariate former Anglican ministers who have entered into full communion with the Catholic Church, as well as candidates belonging to the Ordinariate and promoted to Holy Orders by him.
mean? It sounds as if it means that the Ordinary can choose to accept Anglican ordinations as valid and allow ex-Anglican priests to functiona s presbyters churches under his jurisdiction. I assume that it doesn't really mean that?
Also
quote:
§1. A married former Anglican Bishop is eligible to be appointed Ordinary. In such a case he is to be ordained a priest in the Catholic Church and then exercises pastoral and sacramental ministry within the Ordinariate with full jurisdictional authority.
§2. A former Anglican Bishop who belongs to the Ordinariate may be called upon to assist the Ordinary in the administration of the Ordinariate.
§3. A former Anglican Bishop who belongs to the Ordinariate may be invited to participate in the meetings of the Bishops’ Conference of the respective territory, with the equivalent status of a retired bishop.
§4. A former Anglican Bishop who belongs to the Ordinariate and who has not been ordained as a bishop in the Catholic Church, may request permission from the Holy See to use the insignia of the episcopal office.
Seems to go further than most people expected. Or at least hold out the possibility of going further. It also looks as if it might lead to a very blurry boundary around who is or is not a Bishop.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Anglicanorum coetibus - bit of an unfortunate title isn't it? Is the next word in the latin text interruptus?
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
What does
quote:
The Ordinary has the faculty to incardinate in the Ordinariate former Anglican ministers who have entered into full communion with the Catholic Church, as well as candidates belonging to the Ordinariate and promoted to Holy Orders by him.
mean? It sounds as if it means that the Ordinary can choose to accept Anglican ordinations as valid and allow ex-Anglican priests to functiona s presbyters churches under his jurisdiction. I assume that it doesn't really mean that?
I assume it means that those clergy who have previous poped and been anaordained can be incardinated into the Ordinariate rather than having to slum it in the mainstream Church.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
No. It's talking about those who have already exercised a minsitry as Anglican clerics, and also of those who would begin their formation for the priesthood in the Catholic Church without having been an Anglican cleric first.
In other words, there are two paths to ordination: ministry as an Anglican and formation ab initio in the Catholic Church.
So it is opening the way to future growth by specifying that priests of the Ordinariate do not have to have been an Anglican cleric first
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
DitzySpike
Shipmate
# 1540
|
Posted
What struck me was the reference to canon 845 in the complementary norms:
quote:
§1. The lay faithful originally of the Anglican tradition who wish to belong to the Ordinariate, after having made their Profession of Faith and received the Sacraments of Initiation, with due regard for Canon 845, are to be entered in the apposite register of the Ordinariate. Those baptized previously as Catholics outside the Ordinariate are not ordinarily eligible for membership, unless they are members of a family belonging to the Ordinariate.
Canon 845 says:
quote:
§1. Since the sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and orders imprint a character, they cannot be repeated.
§2. If after completing a diligent inquiry a prudent doubt still exists whether the sacraments mentioned in §1
were actually or validly conferred, they are to be conferred conditionally.
I'm presently going through the RCIA process of going to Rome: most parishes here don't have the resources to handle converts separately from the RCIA route. I assumed that I will be received partly by confirmation since Anglican confirmations aren't valid in the proper sense.
It is interesting that Canon 845 is mentioned at all for the reception of converts in the Ordinariate, with regard to the sacraments of initiation. There are no questions, of course as to issue of baptism, but why is there a need to invoke the indelibility of the rite of confirmation? Since all Anglican confirmations are invalid, there is really no need for a 'diligent inquiry' into whether or not they are 'validly conferred'.
Posts: 498 | From: Singapore | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Canon 845 applies in every case of baptism or reception into full communion of an adult. One has to be careful to establish whether someone is baptised or not. Sometimes people actually want to be baptised again, and one has to guide them through the reasons why this is not necessary or possible.
Also, the old custom of prudent doubt concerning all Anglican sacraments still persists for some. In them olden days prudent doubt dictated that you at least conditionally baptised all converts from other churches. Now the reverse is the case, and the conditional celebration of the sacraments is only done if there is real cause for concern. I should imagine that, in New Zealand for example, converts from Anglicanism in the future will need conditional baptism because there is the option to baptise in the name of the Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier. This is not regarded as a valid baptism by the Catholic Church.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
Doesn't this rather assume that the Methodist understanding of what its presbyters are and do, is a 'fully Protestant understanding'?
Angloid, you are right in correcting me. There is no single understanding of ordination or any of the other sacraments. So not a full Protestant understanding, but simply a Protestant understanding states the case correctly.
It's all a moot point anyway
the ordination of ministers coming from Anglicanism will be absolute, on the basis of the Bull Apostolicae curae of Leo XIII of September 13, 1896. Given the entire Catholic Latin tradition and the tradition of the Oriental Catholic Churches, including the Orthodox tradition, the admission of married men to the episcopate is absolutely excluded
Source
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leetle Masha
Cantankerous Anchoress
# 8209
|
Posted
A suggestion for everybody converting either to Catholicism or Orthodoxy:
Help your pastor and help your Bishop or Ordinary by writing up a spiritual autobiography of yourself. Don't hold anything back. Turn it in to the pastor of the parish you will be joining. If your Catholic or Orthodox pastor needs you to do it, release your former confessor/spiritual director so he can talk to your new Catholic or Orthodox pastor about you and your spiritual life up to now. Give details of how your baptism, confirmation and the other sacraments you have received were administered, including the formulas used. For example, if you were baptised in the name of the "Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier/Sustainer", that could create an issue.
--------------------
eleison me, tin amartolin: have mercy on me, the sinner
Posts: 6351 | From: Hesychia, in Hyperdulia | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
DitzySpike
Shipmate
# 1540
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
Canon 845 applies in every case of baptism or reception into full communion of an adult. One has to be careful to establish whether someone is baptised or not. Sometimes people actually want to be baptised again, and one has to guide them through the reasons why this is not necessary or possible.
Thanks. Perhaps I am too willing to read more into it hoping for an easier jump-over.
Posts: 498 | From: Singapore | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manipled Mutineer
Shipmate
# 11514
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
What does
quote:
The Ordinary has the faculty to incardinate in the Ordinariate former Anglican ministers who have entered into full communion with the Catholic Church, as well as candidates belonging to the Ordinariate and promoted to Holy Orders by him.
mean? It sounds as if it means that the Ordinary can choose to accept Anglican ordinations as valid and allow ex-Anglican priests to functiona s presbyters churches under his jurisdiction. I assume that it doesn't really mean that?
I assume it means that those clergy who have previous poped and been anaordained can be incardinated into the Ordinariate rather than having to slum it in the mainstream Church.
Thurible
A definition of incardination in case it is of use.
--------------------
Collecting Catholic and Anglo-
Catholic books
Posts: 1533 | From: Glamorgan, UK | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
"Given the entire Catholic Latin tradition and the tradition of the Oriental Catholic Churches, including the Orthodox tradition, the admission of married men to the episcopate is absolutely excluded"
I wonder how they dealt with St Peter?
Maybe they just made up a convenient legend that his wife was already dead. Though St Paul (at 1 Cor.9) seems quite clear that Peter and also Jesus's brothers had living wives
[ 09. November 2009, 14:12: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
ken, don't be silly. There is full awareness that the matter of clerical celibacy is one which developed in the Church.
In both East and West by the early fourth century there was an ecclesiastical law which forbade the marriage of those who were ordained. It did not of course forbid the ordination of those who were married.
In the West the precept of celibacy began to apply to all clerics, so that married men could not be ordained. This the East strongly resisted, and still rejects. However, both East and West agreed that Bishops needed to be celibate - this became a matter of precept for the Eastern Churches at the Council of Trullo in 692.
It may not be in the Bible, but by the seventh century the celibacy of Bishops was the norm in both East and West. That is an ancient tradition, wouldn't you say?
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
quote:
Doesn't this rather assume that the Methodist understanding of what its presbyters are and do, is a 'fully Protestant understanding'?
Angloid, you are right in correcting me. There is no single understanding of ordination or any of the other sacraments. So not a full Protestant understanding, but simply a Protestant understanding states the case correctly.
It's all a moot point anyway
the ordination of ministers coming from Anglicanism will be absolute, on the basis of the Bull Apostolicae curae of Leo XIII of September 13, 1896. Given the entire Catholic Latin tradition and the tradition of the Oriental Catholic Churches, including the Orthodox tradition, the admission of married men to the episcopate is absolutely excluded
Source
It is this that will stop many even considering going over. Corporate union where one has to 'absolutely' deny one's sacramental life up to the moment, what's so great about that?
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alt Wally
Cardinal Ximinez
# 3245
|
Posted
quote:
what's so great about that?
I guess you have to consider the alternative to answer that question.
[ 09. November 2009, 15:56: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
Posts: 3684 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
Well, the Anglican Orders bit will be a stumbling block for some. But anyone who thought that Apostolicae Curae would be repealed was living in a fantasy land.
Nothing that the Jesuit canonist said precludes an Anglican minister from actively petitioning the CDF for a request for sub conditione ordination. The CDF might allow it in a particular case, disallow it in another. I'll bet that this very issue is going to taken up more than once.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
The Holy Father is giving the Anglo-Catholics the red-carpet treatment, killing the fatted calf, and so on. As such, this is a HUGE "put-up or shut-up" moment for Anglo Papalists. They have talked a lot of talk about unity with Rome, but have made lots of excuses about why they can't or won't. Some of the reasons over the last century have been understandable, but other reasons cited are less worthy. How many of those who have repeatedly said that they wanted an invitation to the wedding feast, now that it has arrive in the mail, will nonetheless send their regrets?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
A worldwide ordinariat IMO will not be instituted.
It's more likely that there will be one ordinariate per province.
And the ordinary will not necessarily be a bishop; he will have the administrative responsibilities of a bishop, but not necessarily the sacramental responsibilities of one. Think of how the Celtic Church was overseen by an abbot, not necessarily in episcopal orders, who bossed all the bishops around.
--------------------
"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
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
I am guessing that they will need to be one bishop in the several ordinariates. Even if there is only an abbot figure in other adjoining provinces.
What about ordination candidates in future? If the Ordinary is not a bishop who ordains? Or will ordination candidates be sent to the rest of the Roman Catholic Church rather than remaining within the Ordinariate? If the Ordinary can't ordain within the community then doesn't it die out in a decade or two. (Is that what really worries FiF?)
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Shadowhund:
The Holy Father is giving the Anglo-Catholics the red-carpet treatment, killing the fatted calf, and so on. As such, this is a HUGE "put-up or shut-up" moment for Anglo Papalists.
In his response to today's publication, Bishop John Broadhurst of FiF, included the following:
quote:
What Rome has done is offer exactly what the Church of England has refused. Indeed it has offered the requests of Consecrated Women? with the completion of its ecumenical hopes.
When Consecrated Women? was published in 2003, I was an enthusiastic supporter of a free province, within the Church of England, as an answer to the problems created by women bishops, for those unable to accept their ministry. I subsequently came to realise that the C of E couldn't grant such a request for reasons, not the least being, that the "church within a church" created by such a move wanted freedom of ecumenical manoevre. It would always have used this freedom to seek what the Holy Father has now offered.
The question of orders shouldn't be a problem. The Holy Father was never going to repudiate Apostolicae Curae. This is about the future, not the past. I don't know what hoops people expect the Pope to jump through. On the recent Orthodox-Catholic unity thread, it seems that some Orthodox want the Pope to get up on his hind legs and admit that a thousand years of Catholic history are a big mistake. It can't and won't happen. What we have is a Pope who visits the Ecumenical Patriarch with an olive branch in his hand, who tries to heal the rift with the SSPX, and who makes an offer to Catholic Anglicans whice includes, in effect, a free province within the terms of Consecrated Women? and a chance to eneter into full comunion with the See of Peter.
It is truly time for Anglo-Catholics to put up or shut up!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Yup - the terms are now absolutely clear - unconditional surrender (as if we hadn't guessed it). Trad Caths will have to make up their mind - if they want to join another denomination, that's what's on offer. It does make all the stuff about refinding the Mother Ship a bit of a mythical nonsense, doesn't it? If you want to join, here's the deal. It's the same deal that there's always been, with a bit of finessing at the edges. Bulk transfer available, but still the same old Vatican when you get there.
Clear choice - and if you still believe that the CofE is a perfectly legitimate reformed catholic church, it's a choice that isn't even worth thinking about. But I guess folk will have to make up their minds where they want to be. At least any romantic notions of reunion with Rome are now scuppered.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Mmmm. Same old Anglican episcopal posturing.
What are you offering instead?
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
Reformed catholicism that doesn't have a supreme primate or a curia, neither of which I want any part of. A church rooted in scripture, tradition and reason. A church that is able to hold together Protestants and Catholics. That'll do. You like your brand. I like mine. See you at the eschaton. Let's get on with the job, separately, in the meantime.
We may have a bulk delivery for you, but I somehow doubt it...
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
It is a bit ridiculous to expect the pope not to be Roman Catholic, therefore it is unsuprising that an offer to come over is going to include the need to accept the structure and dogma of the Roman Catholic church. I thought the basics of this offer were effectively, you can come over on mass as a structure if there are enough of you - you can keep some local customs if they don't contradict the big ideas. I wasn't surprised.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
That's fine and quite appropriate for you. I have no problem with acknowledging your position for what it is. Those who buy into that position will never want union with the Catholic Church.
But given that this was a response to a request from those who said they professed the same Faith as that of the Catholic Church, and wanted union with the Successor of Peter, your position is quite irrelevant as this does not apply to you.
So let me change my question in response to your dismissive critique: what do you think the Catholic Church should have offered instead?
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
That was a response to pete173 of course, not Think
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I loves ya anyway ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I suppose the thing is, that the end goal of ecumenicalness is the reunification of the whole church. And I suppose people had felt that maybe, just maybe, this was little closer. This announcement a clear restatement that the fundamental position hasn't changed - and folk are disappointed ?
Is there anything intrinsic to the faith of the Roman Catholic Church that requires a Pope ? Rather than, say, a college of Cardinals ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
It's funny that I had not read Broadhurst's reaction until after I wrote that post! Amazing.
--------------------
"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
|
|
pete173
Shipmate
# 4622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
But given that this was a response to a request from those who said they professed the same Faith as that of the Catholic Church, and wanted union with the Successor of Peter, your position is quite irrelevant as this does not apply to you.
So let me change my question in response to your dismissive critique: what do you think the Catholic Church should have offered instead?
We've probably had this conversation before, but here goes:
I've never been under any illusions about the attitude of the RC Church. It seems to me entirely legitimate that if you want to convert, you do it under the ground rules of the denomination you're joining. It's the Trad Caths who have been naive. They've seriously thought that they could get a transfer on other terms than those being offered. The PEVs who went off to negotiate the deal have come back with a piece of paper that some of them quite like the look of. But for the majority of Anglican Catholics, they now have to face reality, abandon romantic notions and make hard choices, which will involve:
1. denying that their ministry up till now has been as priests in the Church of God [even though it patently has]
2. screwing themselves up to say that the "sacramental assurance" that they hold so dear hasn't been there in what they've received of the sacraments up to this point
3. buying into an authority structure that they *really* won't like when they get there (have just been negotiating a transfer the other way and marvelling at RC priests' relationship to their bishops...)
So, no, the RCs were absolutely true to themselves in offering this package. I just can't quite believe that Fulham, Ebbsfleet and Richborough want their priests to buy into it. It would of course be terribly convenient for those of us who want women bishops if there were to be massive take-up. But we'd lose a lot of people who wouldn't be being true to themselves or the way in which they've operated throughout their ministry - and they would be a loss. But I have quite a lot of faith that the CofE is inherently more attractive to these guys than Rome would be. We'll have to see. There are some grown-up choices to be made.
What I've said previously on this thread still stands, though. Those who don't understand the Trad Caths in the CofE need to do a lot more thinking about whether they value that part of our heritage enough to make provision for them to stay, and the Papal initiative (and the slightly wet response the CofE has made to it offically)hasn't helped that internal dialogue within the CofE. This is not a case of "if you know a better denomination, go to it" - the CofE has to be generous to those who want to stay.
--------------------
Pete
Posts: 1653 | From: Kilburn, London NW6 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
Don't we end up with yet another continuing Anglican church? For those who have now given up on Canterbury, but still can't handle the imminent reality of Rome while in parish ministry?
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Quam Dilecta
Shipmate
# 12541
|
Posted
In my opinion, Father Hunwicke's blog, to which Alt Wally provided a link, is painfully accurate in asserting that an "Anglican elite" has done everything in its power to preclude any corporate reunion of the Anglican and Roman churches. One by-product of this campaign to heighten rather than to diminish differences in doctrine and discipline between the two churches has been to make the position of Anglo-Catholics ever more precarious.
--------------------
Blessd are they that dwell in thy house
Posts: 406 | From: Boston, Massachusetts, USA | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
At least any romantic notions of reunion with Rome are now scuppered.
Not, as far as I can see, from Rome's point of view. Nothing in this provision - about which I have severe doubts, by the way - suggests anything about Rome's ecumenical approach towards the wider Anglican communion.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
Actually pete173, with that longer post I have little disagreement. It is an analysis of the issues confronting Anglicans, however, rather than an appraisal of the Holy See's provisions. Your earlier post was rather more confrontational of the Catholic Church, as if there had been a sleight of hand on the part of the Holy See.
There has never been any suggestion that all the obstacles to unity would simply be glossed over and swept under the carpet in order to poach willing and susceptible fish in a barrel. Those tough issues remain for discussion.
But this action of the Pope has been in response to an assurance that in fact those making the appeal accept:
(1) the Faith of the Church as it is expressed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church
(2) the Petrine ministry of the Pope.
That's a wholly different set of principles to respond to than your own position.
I share your doubts about there being a large influx of Anglicans into this Ordinariate. And I share DOD's reservations about these provisions. I may have expressed this earlier, I forget, but I'm not sure it is a good thing for people who have inhabited the edges of communion in one Church now to inhabit the edges of communion in another. The Apostolic Constitution tries to address that by promoting close pastoral and missionary activity between those in the Ordinariate and the wider Catholic Church. I hope that will be achieved. It will require effort on the part of both the Ordinariate and those of us who inhabit the wider Catholic Church.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Triple Tiara:
The Apostolic Constitution tries to address that by promoting close pastoral and missionary activity between those in the Ordinariate and the wider Catholic Church. I hope that will be achieved. It will require effort on the part of both the Ordinariate and those of us who inhabit the wider Catholic Church.
It would be an interesting gesture if the pope were to elevate an Anglican convert priest (unmarried, of course) to bishop and then cardinal, in order to oversee the ordinariate. This would be not without precedent, as some Eastern Rite patriarchs are elevated to cardinal.
(In fact, Eastern Rite patriarch-cardinals are treated with such honor that they are given the dignity of Cardinal-Bishop. Perhaps a patriarchate of Londonium could be established. Oh, the fun the Anglo-Catholics would have establishing the requisite tat! It would keep them busy for years! ]
[ 09. November 2009, 21:49: Message edited by: Martin L ]
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
Martin L, that is an excellent idea. Making all the tat will hopefully keep them occupied enough so that they won't be engaging in ecclesiastical intrigue, and the results will (usually) be pretty good. And, the point about the cooperation between the Ordinariate and the local diocesan is critical. The former Anglo-Catholics absolutely have to play well with others, and a few are not known for that sort of thing. (And vice versa. Cardinal Mahony, e.g. is morally obligated to play nice with the Ordinariate, even if really doesn't want to. No Teflon Cardinal shenannigans please! And that goes for some other bishops I won't name....)
--------------------
"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
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
Without wishing to be offensive I would have to take the Martin L/Shadowhund suggestion of a cardinalate as being hilarious.
The TAC's move towards Rome will, I fear, end with a whimper.
Anyone of any real ability moving to Rome would be well advised to join the Latin Rite.
At this stage any further prognostication as to what will happen is similar to those made before the invasion of Iraq. Everyone got it wrong.
For commonsense, perspective and charity.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Quam Dilecta:
In my opinion, Father Hunwicke's blog, to which Alt Wally provided a link, is painfully accurate in asserting that an "Anglican elite" has done everything in its power to preclude any corporate reunion of the Anglican and Roman churches.
It is not an elite. It is a view of the clear majority of CofE people, priests and parishes over the past 25 years.
Corporate reunion of the type dreamed of by some anglo-catholics 25 years ago was almost thinkable, now it is almost dead in the water. It is most nearest extinction in the House of Laity, and getting more so with each Synod.
It is going to be more than a generation before it even becomes thinkable again, and is likely to happen when the unthinkable changes have happened in Rome first.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Reformed catholicism that doesn't have a supreme primate or a curia (...).
A church rooted in scripture, tradition and reason.
A church that is able to hold together Protestants and Catholics. (...)
Let's get on with the job.
I'll sign up for that Bishop.
Sorry for the snips, but I think this makes a pretty good statement of what the Church of England is.
Especially the bit about getting on with the job.
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Olaf
Shipmate
# 11804
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
Without wishing to be offensive I would have to take the Martin L/Shadowhund suggestion of a cardinalate as being hilarious.
I'm afraid it was meant to be. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
quote:
Edward Green:
I'll sign up for that Bishop.
Sorry for the snips, but I think this makes a pretty good statement of what the Church of England is.
Especially the bit about getting on with the job.
And there are plenty of others who would agree. Many Lutherans, for instance. I've been extremely happy about our ecumenical relations in the last twenty years or so, and I hope for increased levels of unity in the future. Hopefully we won't get bogged down in non-essential, Dead-Horseish social teaching debates.
Posts: 8953 | From: Ad Midwestem | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
