The Apostolic Constitution establishing these Personal Ordinariates offers “a single canonical model for the universal Church which is adaptable to various local situations and equitable to former Anglicans in its universal application”, the statement continues. Among its features:
1. The Ordinary can be either a priest or an unmarried bishop;
2. The Ordinariate provides for the ordination as Catholic priests of married former Anglican clergy;
3. The Ordinariate allows seminarians to be trained in separate houses of formation in order “to address the particular needs of formation in the Anglican patrimony”.
Archbishop Vincent Nichols of Westminster told journalists this morning that the new Apostolic Constitution was a response to various approaches made in the past three or four years by groups in the United States, Australia and the UK. Some were in communion with Lambeth, while others — such as the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), which claims 400,000 members worldwide — were not.
The Personal Ordinariates would allow for the pastoral care of lay people, clergy and religious in a corporate body under an Ordinary, but in collaboration with existing dioceses. Their geographical scope would correspond to the territory of a bishops’ conference. It would be a “cumulative jurisdiction”, meaning that the jurisdictions would overlap — insofar as the activity pertained to the wider Church, the authority would rest with the bishop of that diocese; insofar as it pertained to an internal activity, it would be a under the Ordinary of the Ordinariate. The process of reception of married Anglican priests would be unlikely to differ much from the current system, he said. Nor would he expect transfers of church property as part of the process of corporate reception.
I am simply staggered. I said on this site some six or nine months ago that such a thing was impossible. I am busy eating my way through every hat in my possession. Two quick comments if I may:
1) My guess, as a Roman Catholic priest, is that Pope Benedict is hoping that something of the Anglican style of dignified liturgy may feed back into the Catholic church as a whole. Improving liturgical standards seems to be close to his heart and part of the motivation behind approving the Extraordinary (ie Tridentine) rite for everyday use. Incoming Anglicans tend to be quite conservative theologically and liturgically. This again must affect the temper of the Catholic Church as a whole.
2) Even although this development is an exception to the requirement of clerical celibacy, I wonder how it will feel to the thousands of laicized priests who are cradle Catholics. They may feel hurt, or have even stronger feelings than that.
Praise God!
I find the assertion by the Archbishop of Canterbury that this would have no real effect on the Anglican Communion either naivete in the extreme, or disingenuous to the same extreme. How can this NOT have an effect on the Communion, when in essence the Roman Catholic church is setting up Anglican shops now, potentially, worldwide? This is utter and total humiliation for a very weak Archbishop, who has proven himself unable (because of personal ideology or constitution or both) those who are tearing the Communion apart. The Pope gave him plenty of time–and no doubt plenty of warning–before acting as he did.
If Rowan Williams cares to save the Communion and keeping it from fracturing, he has to begin supporting the orthodox. The statement from the Vatican specifically called out the Americans (although not by name) as a cause of this action, and he would do well to cut them loose, as his own supporters, like Tom Wright, have in essence urged him to do. He won’t of course, because he is unable to do so. But when folks look back for a “tipping point,” this is surely bound to be one of them, and the blame will lie at Rowan’s feet.
It will doubtless cause a problem for Williams if the Church of England pursues the idea of women bishops without due care of England’s Anglo-Catholic clergy and laity. But he seems rather accepting of the move, judging by his statement.
It probably will mean that ACNA evangelicals will have to be careful so as not to alienate the FIF-NA people who have signed on.
An amazing development. We will not know its consequences for some time.
On the one hand, this could speed up the rapprochement with Rome which Rowan Williams, an Anglo Catholic who seriously considered becoming Roman Catholic himself, makes no secret of taking very seriously indeed. On this model, the Apostolic Constitution would represent a vanguard, which the rest of the Church of England could follow, leaving the evangelicals behind.
Evangelicals from Chris Sugden’s Anglican Mainstream wing appear increasingly unAnglican, with no real commitment to the threefold ministry or to the Book of Common Prayer or even Common Worship or any authorised liturgy. They no longer accept the authority of their bishops and, with GAFCON, seem indifferent to their connection with the Archbishop of Canterbury. If they are the obstacle to ever closer union with Rome, Dr Williams may well feel they have already removed themselves from the Church of England picture.
On the other hand, if Forward in Faith types in England bolt in large numbers to Rome – and the current proposals to consecrate women as bishops in England make this more likely, now that their move to Rome has been facilitated by the Apostolic Constitution – there may not be many Anglo Catholics left in England. This would tend to alienate the Church of England from Rome, and make it more, not less, evangelical.
Everything depends on how many take the Apostolic Constitution route. If it is all the liberal Anglo Catholics barring the most liberal Affirming Catholicism people, the Church of England could simply disintegrate – Anglo Catholics to Rome in one direction, evangelicals to house churches in the other direction, and a less than viable remnant left behind.
The Anglican Communion will play no part in this, except to the extent that it has already undermined the Archbishop of Canterbury’s position since 1998.
An Anglican bishop of London has already converted to Rome in his retirement. Perhaps we may yet see an Archbishop of Canterbury, in retirement, do the same.
I think it would be great for the ACNA to go to Rome!
I know this announcement can be sorted through like so many tea leaves, but I’m going to accept it at face value for now. It makes sense – various former Anglican groups have approached Rome, and Anglicans of most stripes and Rome do have a high level of agreement and affection for one another. The more catholic-oriented former Anglicans obviously have an even higher level of agreement. I’m glad for them, as this gives them a place to be while also being connected to a larger body. It is definitely a healing in the Body of Christ for groups that have been splintered from larger communities.
That said, I think it remains to be seen what this means for internal Anglican politics. It might be more of an issue for England than for North America because the catholic wing their seems to be more traditionalist.
For the most part, I don’t think much of the Anglican Communion is interested in formal union with Rome at this time, based on full acceptance of all Roman doctrines as currently held or practiced. Evangelicals would have their issues, the broad middle isn’t really interested in giving up on the ordination of women or accepting a more monarchical primacy, and the catholic wing really isn’t all of one mind, either. For some, being catholic means growing towards Rome. For others, being catholic means being Anglican.
I also noted that the statement made clear that dialogue will continue between the Roman Catholics and the Anglican Communion.
I’ll be curious to see how the Jack Iker Ft Worth and the Schoefield San Joaquin communities approach this. I can see both groups becoming a part of this once the property issues are resolved.
#5, Badman,
Rowan Williams has also written very sharply against Petrine Primacy as currently practiced by Rome. Given his affection for Eastern Orthodox spirituality as well as his affection for much of the Catholic tradition, I suspect he will stay Anglican where he can have something of all htree traditions. He might see it as his cross to bear, but I would be surprised if he made the leap.
After all, David Hope has remained Anglican after retiring as Abp of York. If anyone would have made the switch, I would have thought he would be a more likely candidate.
“He had had no input into it, and first knew of it two weeks ago. It would have no negative impact on the Anglican Communion worldwide, he stressed, adding that for more than 150 years Anglicans had entered the Catholic Church in varying numbers, sometimes responding to crises and sometimes not, and meeting a variety of responses from Rome; in this sense, he said, there was “nothing new” in today’s announcement, which should not be seen as “a commentary on the Anglican Communion by Rome” — a remark that met with hearty agreement by Archbishop Nichols”.
So the AB of C had had no input into it. That means Pope Benedict and co. engineered most or all of it. When that Holy Man was elected and enthroned as Pope I knew it would be a good thing. And it is. He has probably fixed a lot of Anglican mess while others dithered and tried to act like it was all not happening.
When the Anglican Church started to hedge its theology(even more than usual) and leave TEC, with its unilateral unBiblical and unChristian innovations, undisciplined, I told my spouse that Pope Benedict would probably have no problem absorbing millions of disaffected Anglicans. He has demonstrated guts, brains, and decisiveness with this move.
Everyone in PR mode can say that this is no reflection on the Anglican Communion, but watch their actions, not their lips. If that initial statemen is true(which it is not) it’s awfully funny that it has happened at a time when the Anglican Communion has been allowed to devolve into theological shambles.
Leave it to an organized, courageous, insightful German to fix this mess. The Pope has made me grateful for my own German heritage.
God bless him. I am also glad that God knows exactly who to choose to develop, evangelize, and unify His Church.
It’s a good, traditional day… 🙂
Terry Tee,
I agree, this has a liturgical angle. Benedict’s criticism is of the Vat. II reforms is that they were not organic. If the process had been more organic and less ideological, we might have a liturgy that looks more like the Anglican Rite I. He has signaled that the 1962 rite is also still in development by making changes in it in the very first year of its open use. From his writings, I believe he sees the Novus Ordo and the 1962 rites growing toward each other in the generations to come, possibly giving us something like the Anglican Rite I. Of course, these are implications only. This is really about the pastoral care of Anglicans left homeless by the innovations of the Anglican Communion.
As a reappraiser, this seems like a justifiable thing. I don’t see where the conflict is or why it is bad for the ABC.
This isn’t going to actually cause much of anything to happen.
While it allows for what amounts to an “Anglican Flying Bishop” within the RCC framework, the priests are still required to proceed under the Pastoral Provision instituted by John Paul II. That means they must undergo training (how much is determined on an individual basis, but it can be anywhere from a few months to several years) and then be ordained by an RCC bishop. Their Anglican ordination is still considered to be null and void, and all sacraments performed within the Anglican church (except Baptism) are deemed invalid.
How many priests are going to leap at the chance to 1) declare that they’ve been, in effect, frauds in their ministry, 2) go back to school to learn how to be a priest when they’ve already been doing it (sometimes for decades), and 3) be ordained all over again?
This is certainly a charitable and impressive offer by Pope Benedict. But – IMHO, until Anglican orders are recognized, there will be no “mass movement” to the kind of arrangement he proposes. Any priest who is willing to accept the conditions should have already swum the Tiber; there’s nothing new here for clergy.
#12,
But up to now Anglican Rite parishes have always lapsed on the death/retirement of the incumbent, haven’t they? This seems to imply a Western Rite (Anglican) to complement the Eastern Rite (Uniate) in perpetuity.
For laypeople (those who’ve already crossed the Tiber and those who haven’t) that’s a big change.
Jeremy,
No newRite here, I don’t think. This seems to be an expansion of the Pastoral Provision created by Pope John Paul II as a response to a desire in America by Protestant clergy (Episcopal, Lutheran, and others), some married, who wished to convert and become ordained as priests in the Roman Catholic Church. The Anglican Use (notice, NOT Anglican Rite) was an adaptation to the particular Anglican patrimony – there are several Anglican Use parishes in the US – and more being established, I think. I have attended an Anglican Use conference, and they have a website (www.anglicanuse.org). This Apostolic Constitution seems to be a universalization of the particular pastoral response of JP2 (and a natural one, I think, because I understand that Cardinal Ratzinger himself had a hand in the development of the Pastoral Provision!).
Fr. Darin Lovelace+
St. David’s Anglican Church (ACNA)
Durant, Iowa
http://www.stdavidsdurant.info
John Wilkins, it is an excellent thing for revisionists.
But I don’t think the ABC is a revisionist and I think he had fancied keeping a lot of AngloCatholics in the COE. Again, this isn’t something revisionists would want, but the ABC I think did.
Uh Clint,
I agree with your conclusions, but you over-state a couple of matters.
First, I have been at two ordinations of former Episcopal ministers, and the bishop specifically thanked Episcopalians present for nurturing the graces that have flowed through the Anglican tradition. “Fraud” is a way-wrong term: service done to the Lord is never to be denigrated, and there are graces other than sacramental. As one Catholic writer said of Zwinglian memorialism: it’s a great thing to remember Christ and his sacrifice. What faithful Anglicans do with a good conscience, is truly a great thing. I have certainly known Episcopalians who are better Christians than I could think of being. Baptists as well (family ties!).
Episcopal ministers I’ve known did not have to go back to school at all, but went through some testing and then studied under private tutalege to fill in any gaps which their Episcopalian training would have not covered (surely it works the same when the movement is from Catholic to Anglican, although the ordination itself may be accepted).
I do agree that this could portend nothing momentous, although I will be delighted to be wrong.
This generous offer by His Holiness will certainly up the ante as the CoE determines whether or not to provide real protections for AngloCatholics concerned with keeping an all-male priesthood and valid (in AngloCatholic eyes) consecrations.
It may also woo the more Catholic elements of the ACNA to at least consider this arrangement. While ACNA is a “big tent” for both Evangelicals and AngloCatholics a lot of its formative statements, and especially the work coming out of GAFCON were highly tilted toward the Evangelical (especially a non-Tractarian understanding of the 39 articles [which is, admittedly, the original reading of the 39 articles] and failure to recognize ALL Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church.)
As for damage to TEC, since the last few AngloCatholic diocese have left, with the exception of Albany, there will probably a few parishes seeking to reunite, however, I think the biggest departure would be the catholic-leaning laity like myself who would be very attracted to an Anglican Use church plant.
#12- Anglican orders as they currently stand have almost zero chance of being recognized by the Roman Catholics. The CoE gave up any serious attempt to get their orders recognized in the West when they began having married priests and bishops and the last straw occurrred when they began ordaining women priests. (I’m not trying to thread hijack and I’m personally neutral on the woman priest angle.)
Furthermore, Affirming Catholicism, while taking on many of the trappings of Catholic practice, has divorced itself from the catholic/orthodox theology on which such practice was based.
None of this means that we as Anglicans should not consider our orders valid, I’m just stating why there is almost no chance that Rome would. After all, Rome didn’t change, the Anglicans did.
Those who would most likely take His Holiness up on this offer would be the AngloCatholics who I believe consider this offer to be exceedingly generous.
Wow. Just Wow. I wonder if there’s sufficient time left in the career to move from Lutheran to Anglican and then reception by Rome….
I don’t think there’s going to be a mass run (pun intended, hee-hee) to Rome. Those who have been petitioning Rome for some sort of membership will be pleased and grateful but other disaffected Anglicans won’t drop everything and jump into the Tiber unless they were already considering it.
But picking up on the comments of a few others, I, too, wonder what effect this will have on RC priests and members. This new development actually might cause more angst in RC circles than in Anglican ones. Growing up RC as I did, I am quite aware of the plethora of “new things” going on in liberal RC circles and, after four decades of working for lefty reforms, I can’t imagine that those folks would be all too happy about a bunch of married Protestant priests moving in and a Protestant liturgy being used as an example of good, traditional worship toward reforming the Novus Ordo. Heh, but you can’t help chuckle at the irony of it!
I believe there are four Anglican Use parishes in Texas and a few more around the country, decades after the Anglican Use provision was approved. To me, at least, this doesn’t indicate that there are scores of Anglicans with their priests who have a burning desire to join the Roman fold. A sizable percentage of Anglicans/Episcopalians are former RCs and have no desire to return, no matter how things turn. If Anglicanism disappeared tomorrow, I’d be looking at Orthodoxy or LCMS, not the RCC. Been there, done that, and still bear some of the scars.
Subscribing for now please.
Intercessor
God Bless Pope Benedict
subscribe
As an Anglican who describes himself as a Patristic Catholic, the new provision is a non-option. I will remain faithful to the Principles of the English Reformation: I believe in the Primacy of Holy Scripture, believing the Scriptures to be the Word of God and to contain all things necessary for salvation and I humbly submit myself to the Biblical Faith and Catholic Order of the undivided Church.
Brian of Maryland,
I believe a Methodist pastor and maybe a Lutheran have availed themselves of the Pastoral Provision in place these past 20+ years. If that’s correct, there’s no need to side-step over to the Anglicans.
If you can sign off the on Catechism of the Catholic Church, I’m betting the local bishop would be glad to talk with you.
🙂
I stand by my original phrasing. When an Anglican priest is ordained in the RCC under the Pastoral Provision, he is agreeing publicly that he was in fact never a priest. This means that if that priest meets someone who went to a church he served at and is asked “did I really receive communion from you, and what about the marriage you did for my friends John and Mary?” the priest must answer “you received no grace – nothing but bread and wine, and there was no marriage”. You can phrase it “service done to the Lord” and “graces other than sacramental”, but the people in the Anglican pews are still being told nothing their priest did was legitimate, because he was never a priest. The conundrum remains; if you take away the validity of the minister, the validity of the sacrament goes along – so it is not just the minister who is being affected, but also the former congregation. It’s not easy to explain to friends and relatives that although the priest who stood at their altar has now sworn before God that he was never a priest, they were in fact attending legitimate services at a real church.
Re #25
Uh Clint,
I think you are taking a rather rigid position on this that in some ways is no less so than Rome’s. Perhaps even more so since you appear somewhat dismissive of the supernatural graces which can come from sincere belief absent valid orders.
It is the immemorial teaching of the Church that there are no sacraments outside it. Heresy nullifies the grace of true sacraments since such belongs only to God’s Church and work only with the power and cooperation of the Holy Spirit. To suggest that heretics can have true sacraments simply by virtue of reciting the right words and using the right “formulas and matter” is to reduce them to magic.
Rome and the Anglican Communion have profound and irreconcilable differences on doctrine. Both can not be right on all that they teach. if one accepts the Patristic understanding of the Holy Mysteries and their relationship to the Church then one must reject logically either Anglican or Roman Catholic orders. (If you do not accept that teaching then you are outside the catholic tradition and the validity or lack thereof of sacraments becomes somewhat meaningless.) On the other hand if you believe, as evidently you do, that Anglican orders are valid than Rome’s must be empty of grace as they are ergo a heretical body.
Yet even so this does not justify the complete denigration of heterodox sacraments as “frauds.” It merely means they do not confer that which the full and grace filled sacraments of the Church do. We note that the Fathers accepted converts without re-baptizing them in many cases because their previous one had been so close in both form and intent that whatever was lacking could be repaired through Holy Chrismation.
Further it has been the consistent teaching of the Fathers and saints that heterodox sacraments should not be denigrated as worthless since beyond the limitations already noted God may through his mercy extend any manner of supernatural graces to those who sincerely pray to Him. I think one should be careful not to ascribe words or beliefs to others which they clearly do not hold.
Under the mercy,
John
I’m going to stand by my position yesterday that this is not any kind of slap in the face to the Anglican Communion.
Any Christian — Anglican or otherwise — who is “willing to declare that they share a common Catholic faith and accept the Petrine ministry as willed by Christ for his Church,” as the joint Canterbury/Westminster statement put it, really should be Roman Catholic. If you accept “the Petrine ministry as willed by Christ for his Church,” then there is no other consistent position but to place yourself under the authority of that ministry. So far as I can see, this provision allows such people, who happen to be Anglicans at the moment, the opportunity to move to Rome in a body rather than one by one and also keep some aspects of their familiar worship. That’s gracious of the Roman church, and no doubt very welcome to the people who want to place themselves under her wing.
Meanwhile, I don’t see how this affects Rome’s relationships with other churches that do not want to “accept the Petrine ministry as willed by Christ for his Church” and place themselves under that authority — and that includes, I’m pretty sure, the bulk of the Anglican Communion. The extent of my ecumenical desire vis-a-vis Rome would be full Eucharistic communion, and while I don’t see that happening any time soon I don’t think that this provision makes it either more or less likely.
So, I’m happy for those to whom this provision provides something they’ve been yearning for, and I will admit that I’m curious to see what affect it has on the internal politics of the C of E and the wider Anglican Communion, as well as ACNA. But viewing it as some kind of ecumenical “dis” directed at Canterbury? I don’t see it.
Re #27
Ross,
The problem is that Rome does not do full Eucharistic communion with those who are not on board with its teachings. Communion means full unity in faith. What Rome did was to announce that the Anglican Communion has drifted so far off the rails that they don’t see it coming back. Are they going to continue to talk to them? Of course. But the 40+ year old goal of corporate restoration of communion is now dead. Rome would not be creating what is in fact (if not name) and Anglican Rite if they had even a modicum of hope for Canterbury’s return to the fold.
In ICXC
John
I know a gentleman who was in the Charismatic Episcopal Church who has been accepted for Catholic ordination. Additionally, my current Catholic parish was home to a priest who converted from Methodism. He was married with two kids. His kids went to the Catholic school where I teach. He is still a priest, but has moved to a larger parish. I am not sure if he came over via the Pastoral Provision (or some other means), but he is now a valid, married Catholic priest in the Columbus (Ohio) Diocese.
[blockquote]It is the immemorial teaching of the Church that there are no sacraments outside it. Heresy nullifies the grace of true sacraments since such belongs only to God’s Church and work only with the power and cooperation of the Holy Spirit. To suggest that heretics can have true sacraments simply by virtue of reciting the right words and using the right “formulas and matter†is to reduce them to magic.[/blockquote]
John,
And to suggest that God cannot answer prayers and grant grace where He will — without the sanction of human religious authorities — makes God in man’s image. I didn’t buy it when I was a Catholic and I certainly don’t buy it now as an apostate and, as you put it, a heretic. Why couldn’t I buy it as a Catholic? Because there were FAR too many Scripture passages in which Jesus teaches something other than legalism.
I’m afraid that I couldn’t believe in a God who would deny His faithful people the Body and Blood of Jesus simply because they were believing, asking, and praying in a Protestant church rather than a Roman Catholic one.
Teatime,
This is not an appropriate thread for a discussion of sacramental theology. I will simply note that your position is not consistent with the consensus patri and the unbroken teaching of the Apostolic and Orthodox Catholic Church. When we set our private judgments above those of the Fathers, the Church Councils and Holy Tradition then we have taken a very large step down a slippery path that ends with the chaos we see throughout the Protestant world.
Under the mercy,
John
John, I note your note, have no idea what “consensus patri” is (are?) and am content to let God be God. Enough said.
Sarah1: An “excellent” thing? Perhaps. I don’t know.
But if “Traditional” Anglicans feel that they can get better care in the RC church, they God bless them. Those who don’t can still remain in their smaller sects and have traditionalist, married bishops. I see no reason why any Anglican should interfere with their movement. It’s their conscience. We’re in such an age where if you don’t like your church, move. Capitalism meets Church. If one restaurant isn’t feeding you, you can eat at another.
Pope Benedict’ new initiative challenges all Anglo-Catholics and invites them to make a decision: Do you really have a future within the Anglican Communion? And all of you who call yourselves Anglo-Catholics know the answer! You do not have a future!
Seven years ago I had to advise my third son: “You must leave the Episcopal Church. Investigate Catholicism, investigate Orthodoxy, but make a choice. You, and your future family, have no future within the Episcopal Church. If you remain within the Episcopal Church, even within an Anglo-Catholic parish, you will only be raising your (future) children to be generic Protestants. Anglo-Catholicism has no future!”
Nothing has changed in the past six years to alter my judgment. The situation has only worsened. I cannot think of a single good reason for Anglo-Catholics to remain within the Anglican Communion. The future of Anglicanism is evangelicalism, not Anglo-Catholicism. Wake up and smell the coffee!
Now is the time of decision. Choose Rome or Constantinople (or Antioch) … but choose! There is no honor in going down with the Anglican ship. Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have offered you (and your parishes) life rafts. Avail yourselves of them!