Confusion reigned at the end of the briefing. No one was quite sure what had been announced. And the news reports that have followed reflect this confusion.
Without the actual legislative text ”” the Apostolic Constitution ”” it is hard to know just what exactly is at stake.
Among the many question, add these:
1. What specifically Anglican patrimony will be allowed to remain after the “corporate reunion” of these Anglican groups with Rome? Will it include merely the “spiritual and liturgical” patrimony? Are these the only differences between Anglicans and Catholics? And are they even the most essential? There is also a distinctively Anglican ecclesiology and church order (or new elements of such) that have development over the centuries. One thinks immediately of synodality, the selection of bishops and other pastors, the role of vestries, the role of the non-ordained faithful in governance and oversight, etc”¦ Will any of the ecclesiological part of the “heritage” be preserved? If the heritage is limited to “spiritual and liturgical”, then are we not talking about Anglicans being “absorbed” into Rome. And would this not be the establishment of a Western model of “uniatism” (to use the pejorative term).
2. The issue of married priests has left many commentators confused. Some seem to think that the new provisions would create a section within Catholicism where a married priesthood would be perpetuated. But it seems that this will depend on a steady and lasting flow of “coversions” (to use an incorrect term) of married Anglican priests to Catholicism. What type of norms will be needed to regulate this traffic? What of priests who are divorced and remarried? What of Catholics who become Anglicans, get ordained, and then come back to Rome? There will many more issues, as well”¦
“coversions” [sic]. Covert conversions?
[blockquote] Are these the only differences between Anglicans and Catholics? And are they even the most essential? [/blockquote]
From the responses I’ve read here and other places, one would think the answers to both questions are “yes.”
The Anglican habit of general conventions and open democratic election of bishops is exactly how they got themselves in the mess they are in. By preserving these structures in say the ACNA they leave open the possibility that future generations will be ordaining gay bishops in that structure, too.
I am not the pope, and I am glad I don’t bear his burden of responsibility and hope he would not pass his burden to anyone else not fit to bear it. Were I he, I would not permit open democratic order as it is the very Achilles heel of the Church that has brought so many denominations to doctrinal ruin.
Commonweal is a terribly hip, slick, and cool libcat publication, and you would think they are aware there is already a “section within Catholicism” where a married priesthood is already being perpetuated, that being the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. Ok, this is apparently a comment pulled up from their blog, so I shouldn’t be too picky. And the problem with “coversions†is I don’t know if it’s a typo or a cute, but obscure, editorial comment.
Beyond all that, I have to note the legitimacy of some of the questions raised, even though they were raised under the liberal rubric of political power. There really is a difference in parish and diocesan life between Catholics and Anglicans. Partly it due to the relative sizes, and partly due to the fact that Catholic parishes really are cultural diverse. A fair number of folks in my parish speak little to no English, which sort of limits conversation over coffee and donuts (we actually have breakfast available most Sundays for a small price, and that’s pretty wonderful).
I would note the Anglican blogs are much more intense on this subject than the Catholic blogs. I warrant the vast majority of Catholics aren’t even aware this has happened.