At first glance, the new ordinariates appear non-geographical, limited only in scope to the wider range of a bishops’ “conference,” i.e., [blockquote] Within the territory of a particular Conference of Bishops, one or more Ordinariates may be erected as needed. [/blockquote] But later language implies that each Ordinariate may be confined to the territory of a particular diocese: [blockquote] This power is to be exercised jointly with that of the local Diocesan Bishop, in those cases provided for in the Complementary Norms. [/blockquote] I didn’t find a definition of what “jointly” means. It surely does not mean “independently.” Additional language referring to existing dioceses implies that much of what happens will be at the whim of the preferences of the local diocesan bishop, not unlike the Anglican Use parishes that already exist.
I’m afraid I find the document as unintelligible as a complex legal document, and I await a lawyer with the necessary communication skills to let us all know what this really means.
At first glance, the RCC seems incapable of thinking outside the diocesan box.
[blockquote]Personal Ordinariates for those Anglican faithful who desire to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church in a corporate manner.[/blockquote]
Corporate manner sticks out in my mind. It is not clearly defined what exactly that entails, but it seems to be that this is not for individuals who have had it and want to convert as individuals. It seems to suggest whole communities who have discerned a call to come into full communion with Rome.
The second thing that catches my attention is what No. 1 above quoted, particularly the following:
[blockquote]The Ordinary, according to the norm of law, after having heard the opinion of the Diocesan Bishop of the place, may erect, with the consent of the Holy See, personal parishes for the faithful who belong to the Ordinariate.[/blockquote]
and particularly this little gem (emphasis theirs):
[blockquote]This power is [i]to be exercised jointly[/i] with that of the local Diocesan Bishop, in those cases provided for in the Complementary Norms[/blockquote]
I think that’s the devil in the details right there. If a local bishop ordinary is more ecumenically minded and not on board with this scheme, there would appear to be a huge loophole to cause trouble.
I don’t think there is any implication that the ordinariates will be territorially limited to diocesan boundaries. Rather, there are specific cases dealt with in the Complementary Norms where cooperation with the diocesan bishop is required. These seem to be:
a) pastoral activity in coordination with a diocesan pastoral programme (Art. 3);
b) collaboration in diocesan or parish pastoral or charitable activities (Art. 5(2));
c) Anglican ordinariate clergy helping out in their home diocese (Art. 9(1)); and
d) Latin-rite clergy helping out in the ordinariate (Art. 9(2)).
I surmise that the intention here is that an ordinariate should not be seen to cut across or undermine diocesan initiatives, but that there should be an ethos of cooperation between the ordinariate communities and the territorial diocese.
True. I think the very fact that an Ordinariate is being used here makes it non-geographical (strangely enough) because Ordinariates are what Rome uses primarily for military chaplaincies, etc.
There was a good article [url=http://videturquod.blogspot.com/2009/10/personal-ordinariates-and-codes-of.html]here[/url] that tried to define what exactly an Ordinariate is.
#4, yes, what the Holy See is emphasizing here I think is unity in communion (“close ties of communion” (Art. 3 of the Complementary Norms)) between the Anglican Ordinary and the diocesans, who are to be brother members of the Bishops’ Conference. Communion is the central concept here and at a pastoral level ordinaries and bishops are expected to unite the faithful. But at the jurisdictional level, they are to operate (as I read it) in parallel, to the extent that a diocesan priest helping out in an Anglican ordinariate is, for that purpose, under the jurisdiction of the Anglican ordinary and not his diocesan bishop, and vice versa.
So rather than failing to think outside the diocesan box, it’s more a case of trying to lay a legal foundation for cooperation and communion between territorial and non-territorial jurisdictions to operate together in harmony.
“At first glance, the new ordinariates appear non-geographical”
That’s the canonical definition of the word “personal” in “personal ordinariate”–an ordinariate constituted by people, not geography.
As such, personal jurisdictions (whether ordinariates or prelatures) overlap with many, many dioceses. Personal jurisdictions naturally have some sort of relationship with the dioceses in which their apostolates operate.
The word “ordinariate” just indicates that this “personal” jurisdiction does not need to be overseen by a real prelate (ordained bishop), but instead someone with the legal status of overseeing other clerics (ordinary). This is the difference between a “personal prelature” like Opus Dei and the new “personal ordinariates.”
As a Catholic religious, I have two ordinaries always. My provincial superior in my religious community is my ordinary. He assigns me to my ministry. It is from him that I receive my faculties to celebrate the sacraments. My provincial superior exercises his role as my ordinary in conjunction with the local ordinary, the bishop. The local ordinary in order to protect the local church in one way or another my choose to prevent my ministry in his diocese. This almost never happens. It is however, a kind of secondary guarantee against heresy or other kinds of abuse of the people of God.
It may also be helpful to summarize what an ordinary is. The ordinary is the one who oversees, the responsible, the one who confers faculties and the one who disciplines. Not all bishops are ordinaries. Auxilary bishops and retired bishops are not ordinaries. Neither are bishops who serve in non territorial offices such as in the Vatican. Likewise, not all ordinaries are bishops. Abbots, provincial superiors, and even the heads of certain territorial prelatures are not bishops but are ordinaries. Non territorial ordinaries always exercise their role in conjunction with territorials ordinaries.
In other words, within the norms of canon law, there is nothing unusual about provisions for a role for local ordinaries. Rather, having one own ordinary is an immeasurable advantage in working in a local church. As a priest, any kinks in relation to the local ordinary, which would be very rare, are worked out not bishop to priest, but bishop to ordinary. This makes all the difference!
At first glance, the new ordinariates appear non-geographical, limited only in scope to the wider range of a bishops’ “conference,” i.e., [blockquote] Within the territory of a particular Conference of Bishops, one or more Ordinariates may be erected as needed. [/blockquote] But later language implies that each Ordinariate may be confined to the territory of a particular diocese: [blockquote] This power is to be exercised jointly with that of the local Diocesan Bishop, in those cases provided for in the Complementary Norms. [/blockquote] I didn’t find a definition of what “jointly” means. It surely does not mean “independently.” Additional language referring to existing dioceses implies that much of what happens will be at the whim of the preferences of the local diocesan bishop, not unlike the Anglican Use parishes that already exist.
I’m afraid I find the document as unintelligible as a complex legal document, and I await a lawyer with the necessary communication skills to let us all know what this really means.
At first glance, the RCC seems incapable of thinking outside the diocesan box.
Two things catch my attention upon first reading.
[blockquote]Personal Ordinariates for those Anglican faithful who desire to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church in a corporate manner.[/blockquote]
Corporate manner sticks out in my mind. It is not clearly defined what exactly that entails, but it seems to be that this is not for individuals who have had it and want to convert as individuals. It seems to suggest whole communities who have discerned a call to come into full communion with Rome.
The second thing that catches my attention is what No. 1 above quoted, particularly the following:
[blockquote]The Ordinary, according to the norm of law, after having heard the opinion of the Diocesan Bishop of the place, may erect, with the consent of the Holy See, personal parishes for the faithful who belong to the Ordinariate.[/blockquote]
and particularly this little gem (emphasis theirs):
[blockquote]This power is [i]to be exercised jointly[/i] with that of the local Diocesan Bishop, in those cases provided for in the Complementary Norms[/blockquote]
I think that’s the devil in the details right there. If a local bishop ordinary is more ecumenically minded and not on board with this scheme, there would appear to be a huge loophole to cause trouble.
I don’t think there is any implication that the ordinariates will be territorially limited to diocesan boundaries. Rather, there are specific cases dealt with in the Complementary Norms where cooperation with the diocesan bishop is required. These seem to be:
a) pastoral activity in coordination with a diocesan pastoral programme (Art. 3);
b) collaboration in diocesan or parish pastoral or charitable activities (Art. 5(2));
c) Anglican ordinariate clergy helping out in their home diocese (Art. 9(1)); and
d) Latin-rite clergy helping out in the ordinariate (Art. 9(2)).
I surmise that the intention here is that an ordinariate should not be seen to cut across or undermine diocesan initiatives, but that there should be an ethos of cooperation between the ordinariate communities and the territorial diocese.
No. 3,
True. I think the very fact that an Ordinariate is being used here makes it non-geographical (strangely enough) because Ordinariates are what Rome uses primarily for military chaplaincies, etc.
There was a good article [url=http://videturquod.blogspot.com/2009/10/personal-ordinariates-and-codes-of.html]here[/url] that tried to define what exactly an Ordinariate is.
#4, yes, what the Holy See is emphasizing here I think is unity in communion (“close ties of communion” (Art. 3 of the Complementary Norms)) between the Anglican Ordinary and the diocesans, who are to be brother members of the Bishops’ Conference. Communion is the central concept here and at a pastoral level ordinaries and bishops are expected to unite the faithful. But at the jurisdictional level, they are to operate (as I read it) in parallel, to the extent that a diocesan priest helping out in an Anglican ordinariate is, for that purpose, under the jurisdiction of the Anglican ordinary and not his diocesan bishop, and vice versa.
So rather than failing to think outside the diocesan box, it’s more a case of trying to lay a legal foundation for cooperation and communion between territorial and non-territorial jurisdictions to operate together in harmony.
“At first glance, the new ordinariates appear non-geographical”
That’s the canonical definition of the word “personal” in “personal ordinariate”–an ordinariate constituted by people, not geography.
As such, personal jurisdictions (whether ordinariates or prelatures) overlap with many, many dioceses. Personal jurisdictions naturally have some sort of relationship with the dioceses in which their apostolates operate.
The word “ordinariate” just indicates that this “personal” jurisdiction does not need to be overseen by a real prelate (ordained bishop), but instead someone with the legal status of overseeing other clerics (ordinary). This is the difference between a “personal prelature” like Opus Dei and the new “personal ordinariates.”
1. and 2.
As a Catholic religious, I have two ordinaries always. My provincial superior in my religious community is my ordinary. He assigns me to my ministry. It is from him that I receive my faculties to celebrate the sacraments. My provincial superior exercises his role as my ordinary in conjunction with the local ordinary, the bishop. The local ordinary in order to protect the local church in one way or another my choose to prevent my ministry in his diocese. This almost never happens. It is however, a kind of secondary guarantee against heresy or other kinds of abuse of the people of God.
It may also be helpful to summarize what an ordinary is. The ordinary is the one who oversees, the responsible, the one who confers faculties and the one who disciplines. Not all bishops are ordinaries. Auxilary bishops and retired bishops are not ordinaries. Neither are bishops who serve in non territorial offices such as in the Vatican. Likewise, not all ordinaries are bishops. Abbots, provincial superiors, and even the heads of certain territorial prelatures are not bishops but are ordinaries. Non territorial ordinaries always exercise their role in conjunction with territorials ordinaries.
In other words, within the norms of canon law, there is nothing unusual about provisions for a role for local ordinaries. Rather, having one own ordinary is an immeasurable advantage in working in a local church. As a priest, any kinks in relation to the local ordinary, which would be very rare, are worked out not bishop to priest, but bishop to ordinary. This makes all the difference!
Hope this helps.
Thanks, Fr. J. That puts some context with it.
Sort of like a visit to Lilliput.