A good technical case could, it is true, be made for this on the grounds of the Bishop Graham Leonard precedent. But, in his case, the CDF considered the orthodoxy or otherwise of every ‘link’ in the ordinations which led from the Dutchmen to the Bishop who ordained him priest. It cannot be anything other than a profound mistake in practical terms to attempt to clutter up the beginning of an Ordinariate with the sort of paper chases and delays which would be involved. And it would create an invidious divide between most of us and a few worthy priests who, because of age or because they were ordained in other parts of the Anglican Communion, were priested by bishops who had not contracted the Dutch Touch. So, my strong conviction is: NO … just don’t go there….
[blockquote] A final dash of rhetoric. Forget for a moment the RC question; if I became an Orthodox, I would undoubtedly have to be ‘reordained’ in order to liturgise.[/blockquote]
True.
[blockquote] Can it really be God’s will that Catholic Anglican priests are boxed into a prison camp out which it is impossible for them in good conscience to move into the ministry of any of the Ancient Churches? Is the ‘Consensus of the First Millennium’, to which so many among us (especially the less ‘papalist’) have so often appealed, in fact permanently inaccessible to us?[/blockquote]
Of course not. Converts are ordained all the time. The Metropolitan of the Orthodox Church in America is an ex Episcopalian. What is not possible is to do it under your terms. The teaching of the Orthodox Church (and at one time the Roman Catholic Church) is that there are no mysteries outside the Church. That is a position which is hard for some people to swallow. I can understand that, and I respect the difference in opinion. But that is an article of faith for us. If your not there, then one probably should look to Rome or perhaps the so called Continuum.
In ICXC
John
For a century, Apostolicae curae focused the Anglican mind in a unique way. As recently as two years ago, then Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger was able to bring teapots to a boil just by reiterating its basic tenets.
This article has been posted here for ten hours now without a single comment.
What a telling end to the story.
Well, Formerly Marion R, for folks like me it never focused the Anglican mind . . . it’s not a concern of mine because I won’t be going to Rome any time soon. That’s because I do not accept some of Rome’s primary doctrines and dogmas . . .
But further, it does not bother me even if Rome were to require conditional ordination. I understand that they have a set of beliefs that could make that quite important — and it doesn’t bother me either.
I’ve never really understood all the squealing that occurs when this is brought up. It’s like “suddenly” discovering that Rome actually believes itself to be the one true church.
I think the ones for whom this focused the mind are either 1) leaving Anglitania anyway or 2) already gone to wherever they went — and they were AngloCatholics. So mostly there are Protestants like me responding to comments like yours — and Protestants like me were never mind-focused or offended either one anyway by it! ; > )
In watching the various bishops who have galloped off to Rome from Anglitania — and then returned — [watching being figurative since some of this is before my time] I have come to the depressing realization that they really don’t have any sort of grasp of theology at all, nor did they understand what the RC church believes, and theirs wasn’t actually a conversion but merely an escape. What they learned while getting their MDiv I cannot comprehend — but there it is.
One certainly hopes that those who are currently leaving for Rome from the COE actually, you know . . . know something of the beliefs that their new church actually holds. One would honestly think they would. But at this point, from the perspective of the past 7 years, I now have my doubts.
Benedict XVI has been Pope since April 19, 2005, ‘Formerly Marion R.’, more than five and a half, not two, years ago, making this reader uncertain whether to put further stock in your opinion about [i]Apostolicae curae[/i] having focused Anglican minds. It may be true that the Anglican perception of [i]Apostolicae curae[/i] guided the efforts of ARCIC, for example. But meanwhile for at least three decades numerous Anglicans have individually (Graham Leonard, Jeffrey Steenson, e.g.) and corporately (Anglican Use) embraced the RCC and simultaneously, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and others have been evaluating the RCC’s perceptions of Anglicanism, per Newman’s legacy e.g., as they planned how to respond to requests for inter-communion from some Anglican quarters. In 1993 Pope John Paul II told Cardinal Ratzinger, “Be generous” in responding to the early enquiries from groups including the TAC, a message which seems to be finally getting through to the English and Welsh bishops.
As Benedict XVI, former Cardinal Ratzinger in fact brought teapots to a boil as recently as September 2010 when in Westminster Abbey he wore the stole said to be representative of Pope Leo XIII proclaiming the papal bull [i]Apostolicae curae[/i] – a different way of recalling its basic tenets.
Some Anglicans have been reading the work of this one-time theology professor Ratzinger who has continued as Pope to assiduously teach the catholic Christian faith. Many have been drawn by this fullness of revealed truth that they [i]no longer can encounter in their own ecclesial community[/i], and they choose to explore further in the RCC. Once undertaking that step they don’t tend to report back – which is perhaps why this thread went so long without comment š
“In watching the various bishops who have galloped off to Rome from AnglitaniaĆ¢ā¬āand then returned …”
Are there more than two of them — Pope and Herzog? (“Various” implies more than two, but I know of no more.) Pope “poped” three times, and seems to have returned to the Episcopal Church two or three times (I have heard various reports concerning his current affiliation); and that is certainly an extraordinary and sad case. Herzog — recall, originally a Catholic and a Catholic seminarian — returned to the Catholic Church and, upon doing so, petitioned the CDF in Rome to approve his ordination as a married ex-Episcopalian clergyman. Instead, the CDF responded “no way,” since Rome never gives permission for the (re)ordination of men who, by a positive act, leave the Catholic Church and are ordained elsewhere — and upon receiving this response, Herzog “reverted” to the Episcopal Church.
I wrote “by a positive act,” because I know of two cases which might appear to be exceptions, but are not. First, I have known since 1978 an former Episcopalian clergyman who is on the road to ordination in an American Catholic archdiocese. His parents, Episcopalians, had him baptized by a Catholic priest when he was born weak and sickly, and in Europe (on the Riviera), away from the ministrations of any Anglican clergy. Second, the case of Bishop Broadhurst of Fulham, who will resign on 31 December, become a Catholic early in January and be priested before the end of that month: he is the son of completely lapsed Catholic parents who had him baptized as a child, but who never darkened the door of any Catholic church afterwards — until he had a Christian conversion as an undergraduate under Anglican auspices, and thereafter moved to the “Anglo-Catholic” end of the Anglican spectrum. There may be — probably are — other such former Catholics who did not leave the Catholic Church “by a positive act” as did, e.g., Herzog of Albany or Hepworth of the TAC, but I am not aware of their cases.