|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Questions about the Ordinariate
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
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
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
Since by September 2010, they had presumably both decided to go to Rome, it feels somewhat inauthentic to me.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
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
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
+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 ]
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
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
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Comper's Child
Shipmate
# 10580
|
Posted
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
Posts: 2509 | From: Penn's Greene Countrie Towne | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
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
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gashead
Apprentice
# 15296
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6 | From: Bristol UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gashead
Apprentice
# 15296
|
Posted
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
Posts: 6 | From: Bristol UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gashead
Apprentice
# 15296
|
Posted
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
Posts: 6 | From: Bristol UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aggie
Ship's cat
# 4385
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
“I see his blood upon the rose
And in the stars the glory of his eyes,
His body gleams amid eternal snows,
His tears fall from the skies.”
(Joseph Mary Plunkett 1887-1917)
Posts: 581 | From: A crazy, crazy world | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aggie
Ship's cat
# 4385
|
Posted
Thank you for the link Honest Ron Bacardi!
--------------------
“I see his blood upon the rose
And in the stars the glory of his eyes,
His body gleams amid eternal snows,
His tears fall from the skies.”
(Joseph Mary Plunkett 1887-1917)
Posts: 581 | From: A crazy, crazy world | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aggie
Ship's cat
# 4385
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
“I see his blood upon the rose
And in the stars the glory of his eyes,
His body gleams amid eternal snows,
His tears fall from the skies.”
(Joseph Mary Plunkett 1887-1917)
Posts: 581 | From: A crazy, crazy world | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
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).
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Aggie
Ship's cat
# 4385
|
Posted
Thank you for the clarification
--------------------
“I see his blood upon the rose
And in the stars the glory of his eyes,
His body gleams amid eternal snows,
His tears fall from the skies.”
(Joseph Mary Plunkett 1887-1917)
Posts: 581 | From: A crazy, crazy world | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
