The sort of headline a newspaper person would love to have the opportunity to use – legitimately. In this case, is really that bold a move? I ask because I don’t know.
It’s bold enough, but hardly the boldest move since the Reformation. How about making John Henry Newman a Cardinal?
Again, as has been noted in thread after thread, on blog after blog, and by Catholics and Anglicans alike: the substance of what divides us remains. To become a Catholic, one will still need to affirm the Marian doctrines, papal infallibility, and so on. The biggest aspect of this is the separate authority structure. The English bishops, particularly, are known to have discouraged the movement of Anglicans to the Catholic Church. Certain American bishops have done what they could to keep the Anglican Use (and the Tridentine mass, as well) out of their areas.
Still, I think a bit too much is being made of all this, and the headline is downright silly.
I don’t think it is so much bold as significant. Not all Anglo-Catholics are going to put on their bathing suits and jump in the Tiber now (though some will). High Church types come in many different flavors. But the significance of this is move is great.
As I noted on my own blog (in a much longer post) this is the requiem for the old dream of Catholic Anglican re-union. Any further talks between Rome and the AC will have the same objective as discussions with Mohammedans and Buddhists, which is to say mutual respect and tolerance. Rome has at long last given up on Canterbury.
From all I’ve read so far, I am not sure how much of a pipe dream this is on Rome’s part. There does not seem to be a real framework in place to make this happen yet. They have gone out of their way in the press conferences/press releases to avoid saying this is a Uniate church option (like the Byzantine Catholic church). It just appears to be the Anglican-use Rite scheme they have in this country, just on steroids. I think Rome is waiting to see how many Anglicans are actually interested in swimming the Tiber and then will adapt a structure to suit it.
5. Archer. I dont think it is fair to call this Rome’s pipe dream. It is not so much a Roman action as a reaction in generosity to disenfranchised traditional Anglicans of whom there are relatively few. Rome would not have offered this if there had not be so many asking. It is interesting to me that the communication does not speak of TAC, but of numerous requests. I suspect there have been requests from FiF in the UK and US, too.
Also, this cannot be a “uniate” church, even if there were such a thing. Eastern Catholics do not use that term because their union with Rome is not something unique or odd. It represents the unity of the early church. Evenso, using the term, Anglicans cannot be uniates, for Anglicanism is not co-eval with Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Anglicanism is derivative. It is Latin. It is now a particular strand of the Latin Rite with some of its own history and layers, but it is by its nature a dependent aspect of the Church as are all national Latin churches. Eastern Catholics can have a separate canon law and name their own bishops in their own way because they are ancient churches which while in communion with Rome were never simply subject to her. I suspect there will be significant differences with this new structure from the Eastern Churches including Roman appointment of bishops. Eastern Catholic Churches are ancient churches enjoying a measure of autonomy now in communion with Rome. These new Anglican Catholics will be Latins with a twist.
The picture of Rowan W. and his pathetic response to a what could be the loss of some percentage of his dwindling flock, tells the whole tale of what a [edit] he is.
Fr. J, I beg to differ. I think that the English Church has had a distinct historical and liturgical patrimony (e.g., Sarum rite) that would allow for a RC western church sui juris to be formed. I don’t believe that it is considered derivative – though it is certainly Latin. There are enough historical elements present in which the English church can claim this. I believe that just because there maybe two distinctive western rites still in existence doesn’t mean that the Vatican couldn’t allow for the creation of another one. It isn’t impossible, they have existed before.
I think that the current situation is one in which after a few years the Vatican could reexamine the state of the Ordinariate and determine whether by numbers or by other factors it should be a full Church sui juris. This isn’t just Latin with a twist. These folks will have their own seminaries, hierarchy, churches, and distinctive liturgy, and at least the clergy will be under the authority of the ordinariate, not the local bishop. The structure is more similar to the Eastern Churches than even to the military ordinariate (which doesn’t have its own liturgy) or to Opus Dei (ditto), and seemingly is intended to be durable (it doesn’t seem like anyone intends for this to be phased out over time). I’m betting after the first generation of married Anglican Bishops-turned-prelates have cycled through and there are enough celibate Anglican priests to have a celibate heirarchy, then we’ll possibly see a Anglican Catholic Church sui juris. IMHO!
Dee in Iowa (#10):
The Immaculate Conception, assumption of Mary, papal infallibility, purgatory and indulgences are just a few of the doctrinal issues which are preventing me from swimming the Tiber. I think that none of these have any basis in Scripture (and are indeed are “contrary to the Word of God written”). Let’s face it: there was a [i] reason [/i] for the Reformation. Having said that, however, I have recently been grappling with the question of whether or not [b] all [/b] errant doctrines are equal (a) in terms of their deviation from Scripture and (b) the [i] requirement [/i] accept/submit to – in order to be reunited with Rome. In other words, if the rest of the “official” beliefs and teachings of the RCC are absolutely upheld by Scripture, would one’s inability to subscribe to those doctrines mentioned above, necessarily be a deal-breaker?
Yes, not accepting dogmas is a deal-breaker. To become RC, you would have to declare in the congregation that “I believe all the Catholic Church teaches to be revealed by God”. Or words to that effect.
You are, however, correct that not all doctrines are equal. The Creeds are proximate truths, but for Catholics, to reject the Assumption of Mary is heresy. There are also many matters that are really nothing more than pious opinion (the Marian apparitions, for example).
I have to ask, though, in what way the Assumption is contrary to scripture, granted that it’s not actually in the scriptures.
#18, fwiw, it seems to me that one who accepts the historic teachings of the undivided Church but not universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, and the Roman dogmas pronounced in the past several centuries would find it easier to join the Orthodox Church in good conscience. Although to do so, you likely won’t get the benefit of keeping your familiar liturgy.
On the other hand, if you do accept universal papal jurisdiction, it’s hard to understand how you would refuse papal teachings.
Maggie, I do see your point. And it is an excellent one. I think this is a virtual parallel to sui juris status. But, it is not the same as sui juris in that it does not have its own canon law. I believe it was the creation of the Canon Law of the Eastern churches which gave us the term sui juris. There already are several western rites in use including the Ambrosian rite of Milan and the Dominican rite. The first has roots in the first millenium, the latter does not. Either way, they are still rites within the Latin Rite. They remain juridically dependent. I dont see juridical autonomy for the new ordinariate. But who knows what things will look like in a decade or a century? and as you say, in so many words, it is all speculation at this point “IMHO.”
Was anyone else reminded of John Henry Newman’s sermon “The Second Spring” (1852), preached on the occasion of the restoration (in 1852) of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in England, after centuries of absence? I don’t say I agree fully with this point of view, but how it captures the history of Catholicism in England:
“Three centuries ago, and the Catholic Church . . . stood in this land in pride of place. It had the honours of near a thousand years upon it; it was enthroned in some twenty sees up and down the broad country; . . . and it was ennobled by a host of Saints and Martyrs. . . . Canterbury alone numbered perhaps some sixteen, from St. Augustine to St. Dunstan and St. Elphege, from St. Anselm and St. Thomas down to St. Edmund. York had its St. Paulinus, St. John, St. Wilfrid, and St. William; London, its St. Erconwald; Durham, its St. Cuthbert; Winton, its St. Swithun. Then there were St. Aidan of Lindisfarne, and St. Hugh of Lincoln, and St. Chad of Lichfield, and St. Thomas of Hereford, and St. Oswald and St. Wulstan of Worcester, and St. Osmund of Salisbury, and St. Birinus of Dorchester, and St. Richard of Chichester. . . .
“But it was the high decree of heaven, that the majesty of that presence should be blotted out. . . . The presence of Catholicism was at length simply removed,–its grace disowned,–its power despised,–its name, except as a matter of history, at length almost unknown. . . .
……………….
“O my Fathers, my Brothers . . . . Shall the past be rolled back? Shall the grave open? Shall the Saxons live again to God? . . . Yes; for grace can, where nature cannot. The world grows old, but the Church is ever young. . . . “Arise, my love, my beautiful one, and come. . . . Arise, Mary, and go forth in thy strength into that north country, which once was thine own, and take possession of a land which knows thee not. A second temple rises on the ruins of the old. Canterbury has gone its way, and York is gone, and Durham is gone, and Winchester is gone. It was sore to part with them. We clung to the vision of past greatness, and would not believe it could come to nought; but the Church in England has died, and the Church lives again. Westminster and Nottingham, Beverley and Hexham, Northampton and Shrewsbury, if the world lasts, shall be names as musical to the ear, as stirring to the heart, as the glories we have lost . . . .”
As a member of FIF who could benefit, it feels like rescue not poaching! Its not as if the Synof has been showing much desire to keep us or grant us an honoured place is it?
Quite the headline
The sort of headline a newspaper person would love to have the opportunity to use – legitimately. In this case, is really that bold a move? I ask because I don’t know.
It’s bold enough, but hardly the boldest move since the Reformation. How about making John Henry Newman a Cardinal?
Again, as has been noted in thread after thread, on blog after blog, and by Catholics and Anglicans alike: the substance of what divides us remains. To become a Catholic, one will still need to affirm the Marian doctrines, papal infallibility, and so on. The biggest aspect of this is the separate authority structure. The English bishops, particularly, are known to have discouraged the movement of Anglicans to the Catholic Church. Certain American bishops have done what they could to keep the Anglican Use (and the Tridentine mass, as well) out of their areas.
Still, I think a bit too much is being made of all this, and the headline is downright silly.
I don’t think it is so much bold as significant. Not all Anglo-Catholics are going to put on their bathing suits and jump in the Tiber now (though some will). High Church types come in many different flavors. But the significance of this is move is great.
As I noted on my own blog (in a much longer post) this is the requiem for the old dream of Catholic Anglican re-union. Any further talks between Rome and the AC will have the same objective as discussions with Mohammedans and Buddhists, which is to say mutual respect and tolerance. Rome has at long last given up on Canterbury.
In ICXC
John
From all I’ve read so far, I am not sure how much of a pipe dream this is on Rome’s part. There does not seem to be a real framework in place to make this happen yet. They have gone out of their way in the press conferences/press releases to avoid saying this is a Uniate church option (like the Byzantine Catholic church). It just appears to be the Anglican-use Rite scheme they have in this country, just on steroids. I think Rome is waiting to see how many Anglicans are actually interested in swimming the Tiber and then will adapt a structure to suit it.
Well, I think the picture is definitely worth the 1000 words.
Grandmother in SC
Grandmother, you are so right. Body language speaks volumes. The Roman Catholic Archbishop looks upbeat and confident. Williams looks beaten.
5. Archer. I dont think it is fair to call this Rome’s pipe dream. It is not so much a Roman action as a reaction in generosity to disenfranchised traditional Anglicans of whom there are relatively few. Rome would not have offered this if there had not be so many asking. It is interesting to me that the communication does not speak of TAC, but of numerous requests. I suspect there have been requests from FiF in the UK and US, too.
Also, this cannot be a “uniate” church, even if there were such a thing. Eastern Catholics do not use that term because their union with Rome is not something unique or odd. It represents the unity of the early church. Evenso, using the term, Anglicans cannot be uniates, for Anglicanism is not co-eval with Catholicism or Orthodoxy. Anglicanism is derivative. It is Latin. It is now a particular strand of the Latin Rite with some of its own history and layers, but it is by its nature a dependent aspect of the Church as are all national Latin churches. Eastern Catholics can have a separate canon law and name their own bishops in their own way because they are ancient churches which while in communion with Rome were never simply subject to her. I suspect there will be significant differences with this new structure from the Eastern Churches including Roman appointment of bishops. Eastern Catholic Churches are ancient churches enjoying a measure of autonomy now in communion with Rome. These new Anglican Catholics will be Latins with a twist.
Also, I dont see any “poaching” here. Though it may really look that way if some numbers of FiF in the UK and US come over.
Marian doctrines and papal infallibility vs. same sex blessings and same sex partnered clergy…….IMHO Rome will get a few….
The picture of Rowan W. and his pathetic response to a what could be the loss of some percentage of his dwindling flock, tells the whole tale of what a [edit] he is.
[Edited by Elf]
A problem for the ACNA.
Too early yet to say …
“Roma locuta est. Cantuaria finita est”.
Hmm, let me see. The Anglo-Catholics I know
a) Venerate Mary
b) go to confession
c) recognize the full 7 Sacraments
and so on. With this approach by Benedict they may become comfortable with Papal infallibility. And I know a whole lot of Anglo-Catholics.
[blockquote]“Roma locuta est. Cantuaria finita estâ€. [/blockquote]
Oh my! Hat tip to you, sir or madam.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSp5xZzL0fA&feature=player_embedded#
Fr. J, I beg to differ. I think that the English Church has had a distinct historical and liturgical patrimony (e.g., Sarum rite) that would allow for a RC western church sui juris to be formed. I don’t believe that it is considered derivative – though it is certainly Latin. There are enough historical elements present in which the English church can claim this. I believe that just because there maybe two distinctive western rites still in existence doesn’t mean that the Vatican couldn’t allow for the creation of another one. It isn’t impossible, they have existed before.
I think that the current situation is one in which after a few years the Vatican could reexamine the state of the Ordinariate and determine whether by numbers or by other factors it should be a full Church sui juris. This isn’t just Latin with a twist. These folks will have their own seminaries, hierarchy, churches, and distinctive liturgy, and at least the clergy will be under the authority of the ordinariate, not the local bishop. The structure is more similar to the Eastern Churches than even to the military ordinariate (which doesn’t have its own liturgy) or to Opus Dei (ditto), and seemingly is intended to be durable (it doesn’t seem like anyone intends for this to be phased out over time). I’m betting after the first generation of married Anglican Bishops-turned-prelates have cycled through and there are enough celibate Anglican priests to have a celibate heirarchy, then we’ll possibly see a Anglican Catholic Church sui juris. IMHO!
Dee in Iowa (#10):
The Immaculate Conception, assumption of Mary, papal infallibility, purgatory and indulgences are just a few of the doctrinal issues which are preventing me from swimming the Tiber. I think that none of these have any basis in Scripture (and are indeed are “contrary to the Word of God written”). Let’s face it: there was a [i] reason [/i] for the Reformation. Having said that, however, I have recently been grappling with the question of whether or not [b] all [/b] errant doctrines are equal (a) in terms of their deviation from Scripture and (b) the [i] requirement [/i] accept/submit to – in order to be reunited with Rome. In other words, if the rest of the “official” beliefs and teachings of the RCC are absolutely upheld by Scripture, would one’s inability to subscribe to those doctrines mentioned above, necessarily be a deal-breaker?
#18 –
Yes, not accepting dogmas is a deal-breaker. To become RC, you would have to declare in the congregation that “I believe all the Catholic Church teaches to be revealed by God”. Or words to that effect.
You are, however, correct that not all doctrines are equal. The Creeds are proximate truths, but for Catholics, to reject the Assumption of Mary is heresy. There are also many matters that are really nothing more than pious opinion (the Marian apparitions, for example).
I have to ask, though, in what way the Assumption is contrary to scripture, granted that it’s not actually in the scriptures.
#18, fwiw, it seems to me that one who accepts the historic teachings of the undivided Church but not universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, and the Roman dogmas pronounced in the past several centuries would find it easier to join the Orthodox Church in good conscience. Although to do so, you likely won’t get the benefit of keeping your familiar liturgy.
On the other hand, if you do accept universal papal jurisdiction, it’s hard to understand how you would refuse papal teachings.
Maggie, I do see your point. And it is an excellent one. I think this is a virtual parallel to sui juris status. But, it is not the same as sui juris in that it does not have its own canon law. I believe it was the creation of the Canon Law of the Eastern churches which gave us the term sui juris. There already are several western rites in use including the Ambrosian rite of Milan and the Dominican rite. The first has roots in the first millenium, the latter does not. Either way, they are still rites within the Latin Rite. They remain juridically dependent. I dont see juridical autonomy for the new ordinariate. But who knows what things will look like in a decade or a century? and as you say, in so many words, it is all speculation at this point “IMHO.”
Was anyone else reminded of John Henry Newman’s sermon “The Second Spring” (1852), preached on the occasion of the restoration (in 1852) of the Roman Catholic hierarchy in England, after centuries of absence? I don’t say I agree fully with this point of view, but how it captures the history of Catholicism in England:
“Three centuries ago, and the Catholic Church . . . stood in this land in pride of place. It had the honours of near a thousand years upon it; it was enthroned in some twenty sees up and down the broad country; . . . and it was ennobled by a host of Saints and Martyrs. . . . Canterbury alone numbered perhaps some sixteen, from St. Augustine to St. Dunstan and St. Elphege, from St. Anselm and St. Thomas down to St. Edmund. York had its St. Paulinus, St. John, St. Wilfrid, and St. William; London, its St. Erconwald; Durham, its St. Cuthbert; Winton, its St. Swithun. Then there were St. Aidan of Lindisfarne, and St. Hugh of Lincoln, and St. Chad of Lichfield, and St. Thomas of Hereford, and St. Oswald and St. Wulstan of Worcester, and St. Osmund of Salisbury, and St. Birinus of Dorchester, and St. Richard of Chichester. . . .
“But it was the high decree of heaven, that the majesty of that presence should be blotted out. . . . The presence of Catholicism was at length simply removed,–its grace disowned,–its power despised,–its name, except as a matter of history, at length almost unknown. . . .
……………….
“O my Fathers, my Brothers . . . . Shall the past be rolled back? Shall the grave open? Shall the Saxons live again to God? . . . Yes; for grace can, where nature cannot. The world grows old, but the Church is ever young. . . . “Arise, my love, my beautiful one, and come. . . . Arise, Mary, and go forth in thy strength into that north country, which once was thine own, and take possession of a land which knows thee not. A second temple rises on the ruins of the old. Canterbury has gone its way, and York is gone, and Durham is gone, and Winchester is gone. It was sore to part with them. We clung to the vision of past greatness, and would not believe it could come to nought; but the Church in England has died, and the Church lives again. Westminster and Nottingham, Beverley and Hexham, Northampton and Shrewsbury, if the world lasts, shall be names as musical to the ear, as stirring to the heart, as the glories we have lost . . . .”
As a member of FIF who could benefit, it feels like rescue not poaching! Its not as if the Synof has been showing much desire to keep us or grant us an honoured place is it?