Anglican Patrimony

[BernadetteM]

There has been much discussion within the Continuing Anglican groups and those Anglicans entering the Ordinariate in regards to Anglican Patrimony.

I have read many different opinions on this subject and would like an official definition of what Anglican Patrimony is within both the Anglican Communion and those who are part of the Continuum.

As a former Episcopalian, raised in a very low church setting, then attending an Anglo Catholic parish for many years, I cannot define what is recognized by all Anglicans as Anglican Patrimony.

There were extreme differences in liturgy, theology and traditions within the Anglican Communion then and there seems to be the same within the Continuum.

It appears to me that it is rather an individual’s opinion of what Anglican Patrimony is vs. what is officially taught within all who claim to be Anglican or claim to retain Anglican Patrimony as part of their faith.

What is the bottom line that one can find in official documents stating what it is? And if the definition given is not practiced by many within these these different groups, are they not truely “Anglican” or do they not retain Anglican Patrimony? What actually defines an Anglican if they are not in communion the the Anglican Communion? From the outside looking in, the individual groups just seem to be another denomination as there is no unity, nor leadership, outside of their own group.

Each country has there own traditions who are part of the Anglican Communion and those in the US who are part of the Continuum also practice distinct traditions within their individual groups. Many of these condemn those who claim to retain their Anglican Patrimony if it differs from their own.

It is rather confusing and it would be refreshing if there are official documents that state what Anglican Patrimony is and must be accepted by all who claim that Anglican Patrimony is an integrated part of their faith.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[Jim_Dandy]

I believe the Anglican Patrimony that is spoken of is contained in the Anglican Use Liturgy. You can read the entire liturgy at the website of Our Lady of the Atonement.

atonementonline.com/index.php

 

[jwinch2]

atonementonline.com/bodw.php

It is my understanding that any parishes who come into the Church through the ordinariate will have the option of using the Book of Divine Worship or the Roman Missal similar to how current Anglican Use parishes who came in through the Pastoral Provision do now.

What non-Catholic Anglican groups (Anglican Church in North America, Anglo-Catholics, Continuing Anglicans ,etc.) are using, I could not say. I believe the ANCA is using an older form of the Book of Common Prayer but I could be wrong.

 

[GKC]

There has been much discussion within the Continuing Anglican groups and those Anglicans entering the Ordinariate in regards to Anglican Patrimony.

I have read many different opinions on this subject and would like an official definition of what Anglican Patrimony is within both the Anglican Communion and those who are part of the Continuum.

As a former Episcopalian, raised in a very low church setting, then attending an Anglo Catholic parish for many years, I cannot define what is recognized by all Anglicans as Anglican Patrimony.

There were extreme differences in liturgy, theology and traditions within the Anglican Communion then and there seems to be the same within the Continuum.

It appears to me that it is rather an individual’s opinion of what Anglican Patrimony is vs. what is officially taught within all who claim to be Anglican or claim to retain Anglican Patrimony as part of their faith.

What is the bottom line that one can find in official documents stating what it is? And if the definition given is not practiced by many within these these different groups, are they not truely “Anglican” or do they not retain Anglican Patrimony? What actually defines an Anglican if they are not in communion the the Anglican Communion? From the outside looking in, the individual groups just seem to be another denomination as there is no unity, nor leadership, outside of their own group.

Each country has there own traditions who are part of the Anglican Communion and those in the US who are part of the Continuum also practice distinct traditions within their individual groups. Many of these condemn those who claim to retain their Anglican Patrimony if it differs from their own.

It is rather confusing and it would be refreshing if there are official documents that state what Anglican Patrimony is and must be accepted by all who claim that Anglican Patrimony is an integrated part of their faith.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

Good luck with that. The phrase “motley crew” comes to mind.

GKC

 

[MarkBrown]

Due to the splitting of Anglicanism, Anglican Patrimony can be a difficult thing to define.
Each group of Anglicans define what is important to them, what they believe and what they accept in theology, liturgy, church government, etc. A Church of England service will look very different from a Church of Rwanda service or TEC, REC, ACA, AMiA service. In each country or place Anglicanism entered it incorporated from the local culture. Similar to the Church. My wife was in Peru in 2010. While the Mass was similar, there were differences (besides language) in the conduct of the Mass, songs, musics, prayers etc. Cultural differences.

Until the Ordinary is announced, the Ordinariate is established and parishes, priests and laity are actually in the Ordianariate…Anglican Patrimony will only be opinion. I do think looking at Fr. Phillips parish can give a very good representation of the Anglican Patrimony I hope the Ordianariate adopts. The current AU parishes will be the core of the Ordinariate, they will influence the incoming parishes, missions and groups. For the better I believe.

As to the liturgy. The Book of Divine Worship is authorized for the AU. It will be the liturgy of the Ordinariate in the States. The UK I do not have much information on what exactly they use. Though there is a commision working on updating or adjusting the liturgy.
What they may or maynot change is open to guessing.

AU parishes will offer the Anglican Use liturgy as the main celebration. Like Our Lady of the Atonement they can offer the Ordinary form and the Latin Mass. I think Fr. Phillips parish has 4 Masses on Sunday. One in Latin, rest in AU.

If the Roman Missal is used, it will be for the celebration of the Ordinary Form. Which may or maynot be offered at an AU parish. AU parishes are being established for those who wish the AU liturgy. It is understood that AU priests will learn the various liturgies in time to cover non AU parishes when needed and able. As some non AU priests will learn the AU liturgy to cover the AU priest when he is away from his parish. Much like what is happening now.

 

[BernadetteM]

Thanks for the replies. One reason I posted this thread, is that some in the Continuum deny that those Anglicans going into the Ordinariate are no longer “Anglican” in any sense of the word.

I find that this is offensive to those who belong to the English Ordinriate and to those who will be coming into the US Ordinariate in January.

Although many in the Continuum claim to be catholic, as fully Catholic as the Catholic Church is, they deny that Catholics with an Anglican identity can no longer claim to possess the Anglican Patrimony. They will just be Latin Rite Catholics who will soon be absorbed into a Latin Rite parish. Some have also stated that the Ordinariate is DOA.

I just returned from an Evening Song and Benediction service with two separate groups, one a parish, who are entering the Ordinariate. A priest was sent by Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles to speak to the members regarding any questions they might have regarding the process etc. on entering the Ordinariate.

So far, the soon to be former Anglicans I know have been treated with much love by both Bishops and priests who seem excited at the prospect of the Church bringing the Anglican Patrimony in for those who want to be fully Catholic.

The visiting priest is hoping that by Pentecost that the priests will be ordained. As far as the liturgy, I believe that the revision for the Anglican Ordinariate, both for England and the US are being worked on and until a new one is published they will probably use the BDW, at least in the US. I have heard that one parish in England is using the BDW.

I do have to question why there is so much hostility coming from some of the Continuing groups towards the Ordinariate as I haven’t seen the same reaction from Anglicans crossing the Tiber towards either TEC or the Continuum. This might be that they are at peace and feel that the Holy Spirt is leading them into the Catholic Church and don’t need to resort to name calling etc.

As GCK said “they are a motley crew”, in some instances. My prayer is that the Ordinariate is highly successful and will be an option for those who linger on in TEC or some of the Continuing churches hoping that the problems will go away.

Personally I am looking forward to being in communion with many Anglicans and being one again with my former brothers and sisters.

God Bless

Bernadette

 

[jwinch2]

Thanks for the replies. One reason I posted this thread, is that some in the Continuum deny that those Anglicans going into the Ordinariate are no longer “Anglican” in any sense of the word.

I find that this is offensive to those who belong to the English Ordinriate and to those who will be coming into the US Ordinariate in January.

Although many in the Continuum claim to be catholic, as fully Catholic as the Catholic Church is, they deny that Catholics with an Anglican identity can no longer claim to possess the Anglican Patrimony. They will just be Latin Rite Catholics who will soon be absorbed into a Latin Rite parish. Some have also stated that the Ordinariate is DOA.

I just returned from an Evening Song and Benediction service with two separate groups, one a parish, who are entering the Ordinariate. A priest was sent by Archbishop Gomez of Los Angeles to speak to the members regarding any questions they might have regarding the process etc. on entering the Ordinariate.

So far, the soon to be former Anglicans I know have been treated with much love by both Bishops and priests who seem excited at the prospect of the Church bringing the Anglican Patrimony in for those who want to be fully Catholic.

The visiting priest is hoping that by Pentecost that the priests will be ordained. As far as the liturgy, I believe that the revision for the Anglican Ordinariate, both for England and the US are being worked on and until a new one is published they will probably use the BDW, at least in the US. I have heard that one parish in England is using the BDW.

I do have to question why there is so much hostility coming from some of the Continuing groups towards the Ordinariate as I haven’t seen the same reaction from Anglicans crossing the Tiber towards either TEC or the Continuum. This might be that they are at peace and feel that the Holy Spirt is leading them into the Catholic Church and don’t need to resort to name calling etc.

As GCK said “they are a motley crew”, in some instances. My prayer is that the Ordinariate is highly successful and will be an option for those who linger on in TEC or some of the Continuing churches hoping that the problems will go away.

Personally I am looking forward to being in communion with many Anglicans and being one again with my former brothers and sisters.

God Bless

Bernadette

I watched the discussion and presentation on this by Cardinal Wuerl and Bishop Vann at the USCCB conference last week on EWTN. According to what they presented there both the Pastoral Provision and the Ordinariate will operate, one being designed for individual priests and the other for entire parishes. In addition, from what was presented, parishes will have the the option of the BDW or the RM. At that time, Anglican use parishes will have the option of remaining a part of the local diocese or, being brought into the ordinariate. I sort of vagely remember discussion on a new liturgy that the ordinariate would use and the Anglican use would have the option of switching to, but I am a bit fuzzy on remembering the details of that one. I know England is working on one as you said as current parishes are using the RM.

My opinion is that the ordinariate will be highly successful. I get a strong sense that the USCCB is going to bend over backwards to make this work. They were already discussing ways to make sure that the ordinary, whomever is chosen, is integrated fully into their conference and given all the support needed by local bishops in which parishes may reside for things like coverage by priests, paying for insurance for a time, etc., until things get up and fully running. As for the name calling, stating that they will still be Anglican, and that the ordinariate will be DOA, that is hardly surprising considering the number of people running away from the Episcopal church in recent years. They have literally lost hundreds of thousands of people as Anglicans have left to form their own groups, to join the Catholic Church, or in many cases, to join the Orthodox Church western rite. At one time in my city there were two large Episcopal church parishes. Now there are two western rite Orthodox parishes and two small parishes in the Anglican Church in North America which came out of the original two and zero Episcopal parishes left. Things like that are happening all over the place as the Episcopal church strays farther and farther away from the faith they inherited.

I guess “denial” ain’t just a river in Egypt ya’ know!

Peace,

 

[BernadetteM]

I watched the discussion and presentation on this by Cardinal Wuerl and Bishop Vann at the USCCB conference last week on EWTN. According to what they presented there both the Pastoral Provision and the Ordinariate will operate, one being designed for individual priests and the other for entire parishes. In addition, from what was presented, parishes will have the the option of the BDW or the RM. At that time, Anglican use parishes will have the option of remaining a part of the local diocese or, being brought into the ordinariate. I sort of vagely remember discussion on a new liturgy that the ordinariate would use and the Anglican use would have the option of switching to, but I am a bit fuzzy on remembering the details of that one. I know England is working on one as you said as current parishes are using the RM.

My opinion is that the ordinariate will be highly successful. I get a strong sense that the USCCB is going to bend over backwards to make this work. They were already discussing ways to make sure that the ordinary, whomever is chosen, is integrated fully into their conference and given all the support needed by local bishops in which parishes may reside for things like coverage by priests, paying for insurance for a time, etc., until things get up and fully running. As for the name calling and stating that they will still be Anglican, well “denial” ain’t just a river in Egypt ya’ know!

Peace,

I am not sure about what you mean in your last comment. Of course the Anglicans coming into the Ordinariate will be fully Catholic, however, they will be bringing in as Pope Benedict stated, their “treasures” meaning their Anglican Patrimony. Those against the Ordinariate more or less state that they (Continuum) are the only ones who have Anglican Patrimony although they are no longer “Anglicans” in truest sense of the meaning as they are no longer part of the Anglican Communion. It is no different for Anglicans going into the Ordinariate, they will no longer be part of the Anglican Communion, nor the Continuum, but still hold on to many of the beautiful prayers, traditions etc. that are considered Anglican Patrimony.

I hope I didn’t misunderstand what you meant. Once there are more AU parishes, it would be good for Catholics of any of the 23 rites to attend one of their liturgies and see for themselves what the differences and non differences one will find in the liturgy. Anglican Patrimony goes beyond liturgy, it includes a very pastoral element that is typically Anglican. I think that it will be no different than Catholics who feel more comfortable either in an EF or OF Mass. It just adds one more form of celebrating liturgy within the Catholic faith. The teachings are the same, in fact, some might say the liturgy is more Catholic than the Pope, I have heard this expression before. Liturgy is only one area and Anglican Patrimony goes far beyond this. I have also noticed that these former Anglican priests abide by the Churches teaching on birth control, as many have 5 to 9 children. The ones I know seem very strict when it comes to Catholic doctrine.

God Bless

Bernadette

 

[jwinch2]

I am not sure about what you mean in your last comment.

I mean that that Anglicans hoping that the Ordinariate will not work, and those who don’t understand why people are leaving the Anglican church in droves are fooling themselves. I believe it is going to work wonderfully, and there are simple and obvious reasons why people are leaving.

As for the rest, I know, and I agree.

 

[GKC]

I am not sure about what you mean in your last comment. Of course the Anglicans coming into the Ordinariate will be fully Catholic, however, they will be bringing in as Pope Benedict stated, their “treasures” meaning their Anglican Patrimony. Those against the Ordinariate more or less state that they (Continuum) are the only ones who have Anglican Patrimony although they are no longer “Anglicans” in truest sense of the meaning as they are no longer part of the Anglican Communion. It is no different for Anglicans going into the Ordinariate, they will no longer be part of the Anglican Communion, nor the Continuum, but still hold on to many of the beautiful prayers, traditions etc. that are considered Anglican Patrimony.

I hope I didn’t misunderstand what you meant. Once there are more AU parishes, it would be good for Catholics of any of the 23 rites to attend one of their liturgies and see for themselves what the differences and non differences one will find in the liturgy. Anglican Patrimony goes beyond liturgy, it includes a very pastoral element that is typically Anglican. I think that it will be no different than Catholics who feel more comfortable either in an EF or OF Mass. It just adds one more form of celebrating liturgy within the Catholic faith. The teachings are the same, in fact, some might say the liturgy is more Catholic than the Pope, I have heard this expression before. Liturgy is only one area and Anglican Patrimony goes far beyond this. I have also noticed that these former Anglican priests abide by the Churches teaching on birth control, as many have 5 to 9 children. The ones I know seem very strict when it comes to Catholic doctrine.

God Bless

Bernadette

Not addressed to me, but here I am.

It seems to me that any who are saying that the Anglican patrimony is lost, by joining the Ordinariate, are defining Anglicanism as (at a minimum), not in communion with Rome. In communion with Rome= RC. Anglicanism (hence, Anglican patrimony, or heritage, which is how I think the term is being used ) = not in communion with Rome. In a similar manner, they might feel that any of the apostate Anglicans (TEC comes to mind) lose the doctrinal/creedal portion of the Anglican patrimony and are thus not the real deal, either.

I also think that the contention is that eventually the support of the Ordinariate will fade, and the distinctive Anglican aspects of liturgy, music, worship, etc. will be assimilated and lost. As I always say, we shall see.

Yep, converts are often plus Catholique que le Pape.. Even before they convert, sometimes.

GKC

 

[BernadetteM]

Not addressed to me, but here I am.

It seems to me that any who are saying that the Anglican patrimony is lost, by joining the Ordinariate, are defining Anglicanism as (at a minimum), not in communion with Rome. In communion with Rome= RC. Anglicanism (hence, Anglican patrimony, or heritage, which is how I think the term is being used ) = not in communion with Rome. In a similar manner, they might feel that any of the apostate Anglicans (TEC comes to mind) lose the doctrinal/creedal portion of the Anglican patrimony and are thus not the real deal, either.

I also think that the contention is that eventually the support of the Ordinariate will fade, and the distinctive Anglican aspects of liturgy, music, worship, etc. will be assimilated and lost. As I always say, we shall see.

Yep, converts are often plus Catholique que le Pape.. Even before they convert, sometimes.

Hi,

Well the Anglican Use has been around for over 28 years and still is distinctly Anglican in its liturgy, even with the 1979 BCP inserts. Evening Prayer etc. etc. are from the BCP. This inspite of some Bishops who were not friendly towards it. Now many groups are getting the support of Bishops and since the announcement of the erection of the Ordinariate I have a strong feeling that most if not all will have a change of heart. Whether some in the Church are open or not, we must remember that there are 23 different rites within the Church and somehow they are all under the Pope and are in communion as one Church.

I believe that God has ordained this, as historically this would not have seemed possible. If God is with the Ordinariate then it will survive and if you have noticed there have been two parishes received from TEC who are waiting to join the Ordinariate. The choice to become Catholic is one that must be given much prayer and investigation into what it reallly means, it is not an escape, as there are continuing parishes spread about and one could just as easily attend one of them.

From my understanding and this is speculation at this time, the new liturgy will be closer hopefully to what Anglo Catholics in the US have been accustomed to, or at least the ones I remember from years ago. I suppose some in the Continuum feel that they are the only true Anglicans left. Not all are of this mindset. The majority of those coming into the Ordinariate are from one of the continuing churches.

Since I am not part of these groups I don’t know the inner workings or problems that apparently some are going through, however, why else would so many be leaving to enter the Catholic Church if for some reason they have found the Church to be the one Christ established. It will not be an easy road for most of these parishes and although some have said these Anglicans don’t know what they are getting into, I believe they are well aware of the faults of some members within and the difficult days ahead when one leaves their “home” with nothing but faith that the Lord will provide.

God Bless

Bernadette

GKC

 

[GKC]

In general, I agree, though you and I have slightly different views on the Anglican Use/BDW and the Pastoral Provision, as you know. I would see the Ordinariate, as it has been outlined, as changing the ground rules, in providing a provision for a continuing supply of priests, even to the extent of providing a house or seminary to train them, and providing, in the Ordinariate, an authority to shelter such parishes, if the local Ordinary is not well disposed. In short, institutionalizing the Anglicans. In that, in which I see a marked difference to the AU, I see the expectation that the Ordinariate will not fade away, and will, if it prospers, remain, to show the Anglican patrimony, amongst the Latin Rite. Not all think that is going to be what happen, I assume.

As to how many Anglicans, from whatever source, actually do make the leap, I await the tally, in time. So far, I do know of those two TEC parishes, plus some other individuals and an Order. And a portion of the ACA is likely going to do so, but I have no idea how many.

It would not surprise me at all if the BDW is revamped, in a more traditional “Anglican” tone.

Time will tell.

GKC

 

[jwinch2]

Some of that was discussed last week in the USCCB conference. If you scroll down to the afternoon session on Tuesday, you can watch the video of the discussion…

usccb.org/about/leadership/usccb-general-assembly/video-on-demand.cfm

 

[GKC]

Some of that was discussed last week in the USCCB conference. If you scroll down to the afternoon session on Tuesday, you can watch the video of the discussion…

usccb.org/about/leadership/usccb-general-assembly/video-on-demand.cfm

Thank you. That was interesting and confirmed some things I had been hearing, as well as some things I had concluded myself, since the subject surfaced 2 years ago. The questions also lead me to conclude what I had concluded, in general. Some things will develop in time. One must wait and see.

The number of Anglican priests applying was roughly what I would expect. My main interest on the number so far, would be as to the source: how many from TEC, from the ACA, and from other sources, such as other Continuing Churches, or similar.

But time will tell.

GKC

 

[BernadetteM]

From my understanding from months ago, Wuerl said that they had gotten 100 requests from priests. Although this is just speculation I think that the 67 priests have not been denied, it is taking longer to process their requests. Also I imagine that many of them don’t have a parish. The priests I know that are going on to the next step, all have parishes.

I watched Cardinal Wuerl on EWTN during his speech regarding the Ordinariate. Although he and others are involved to a degree in the implementation, they are just the go between, between the CDF, Rome and the Anglicans.

Alll things revolve during time and the Ordinariate is a history making process, there will be many issues to work out in the coming months and years.

I still see that many members of TEC will decide in the future either for the Continuum or the Ordinariate as things get progressively worse in TEC.

I laugh when some are fearful of the authority of the Holy Father and compare his treatment of his flock to Ms. Schori’s dictatorship within TEC. It is very sad for so many clergy within the Episcopal church and their parishioners to see what damage she has done in such a short time.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette

 

[Contarini]

I laugh when some are fearful of the authority of the Holy Father and compare his treatment of his flock to Ms. Schori’s dictatorship within TEC.

Why do you laugh?

This isn’t a personal issue–I certainly prefer +Benedict to +Katherine as a chief pastor myself–but as a matter of power, the fact is that she’s grasping after a faint shadow of what he and his predecessors have had for a while.

Consider that he can appoint bishops: something she would never dream of doing, as far as I can see.

I don’t want the Presiding Bishop to turn into a Pope. I don’t even want the Archbishop of Canterbury to turn into the Pope. I want the Pope to be the Pope but in more of a first-millennium style, as this present Pope himself suggested (but like his colleague of Canterbury, the Bishop of Rome can’t always do the things as bishop that he suggested as theologian).

So I get what you’re saying, but simply as a matter of comparative ecclesiastical structure, what some of us Episcopalians think of as a power grab by the PB clearly still falls way short of the kind of power the Pope has.

Edwin

 

[BernadetteM]

Why do you laugh?

This isn’t a personal issue–I certainly prefer +Benedict to +Katherine as a chief pastor myself–but as a matter of power, the fact is that she’s grasping after a faint shadow of what he and his predecessors have had for a while.

Consider that he can appoint bishops: something she would never dream of doing, as far as I can see.

I don’t want the Presiding Bishop to turn into a Pope. I don’t even want the Archbishop of Canterbury to turn into the Pope. I want the Pope to be the Pope but in more of a first-millennium style, as this present Pope himself suggested (but like his colleague of Canterbury, the Bishop of Rome can’t always do the things as bishop that he suggested as theologian).

So I get what you’re saying, but simply as a matter of comparative ecclesiastical structure, what some of us Episcopalians think of as a power grab by the PB clearly still falls way short of the kind of power the Pope has.

Edwin

The Pope does not use his power to do damage to his flock. The PB is altogether a different story. If you go on some Anglican/TEC websites you will see how she has used whatever power she has in a destructive way towards her own flock.

My laughter was from the preconcieved idea that Catholics every move is directed by the Holy Father, which is not true. The real power of the Papacy to to maintain the true faith and doctrines and to guide Catholics in moral issues. Maybe someone within TEC can explain exactly what the PB’s powers are.

I know several TEC priests who are entering the Ordinariate and they have been treated very badly by their Bishops and as in any corporation the blame falls with the CEO for not taking action to stop unfair treatment. In fact, in one diocese the Bishop has gotten rid of around 10 priests who are orthodox. This is a sad day when those over you can dismiss one because they hold to the faith.

God Bless

Bernadette

 

[GKC]

“Maybe someone within TEC can explain exactly what the PB’s powers are.”

Growing.

GKC, not in TEC.

 

[Contarini]

The Pope does not use his power to do damage to his flock.

I don’t think either of them intend to do so. In each case, if you ask their ecclesiastical opponents you will be told that they do. You are simply listening to one side of the story.

The PB is altogether a different story. If you go on some Anglican/TEC websites you will see how she has used whatever power she has in a destructive way towards her own flock.

I know what people say on conservative Anglican websites.

What objective comparison can you give me supporting this claim vis-a-vis Rome?

Compare how “815” has treated dissident bishops like +Schofield with how Rome has treated dissident bishops like +Morris. +Schofield’s diocese, with his approval, voted to leave the Episcopal Church. Following this, the Episcopal Church initiated procedures to remove him from office.

+Morris’ crime appears to be having said that women’s ordination was possible and generally annoying some of the conservative folks in his diocese.

There’s simply no comparison. If a Catholic bishop was clearly trying to lead his diocese into schism, Rome would be down on him in a second.

Take, again, the question of church buildings. The PB has been criticized (I think justly) for not only refusing to let congregations “take their buildings with them,” but also refusing to let them buy the property. When she was challenged on this at a question-and-answer session I attended recently (she visited our diocesan convention this year), she gave what I found highly unsatisfactory and evasive answers, including the statement that the Episcopal Church doesn’t let property go without deconsecrating it. I think there’s more to her policy–her concern seems to be to avoid the use of former Episcopal Church property to support a group claiming to be the real Anglicans.

Now compare Rome on this. Catholic bishops routinely close parishes and in some cases sell the property out from under congregations–faithful congregations that are not in any way making moves to leave the Roman Communion. In at least one case, the bishop evicted the congregation from the building as they were holding a prayer vigil to keep the building open.

Can you seriously doubt that if a parish wanted to leave the Catholic Church and still call itself Catholic, the Catholic Church would take legal steps to prevent confusion both about who owned the property and who got to call themselves a Catholic parish?

Now the problem with the PB’s position, as I pointed out in a blog post, is that she has no ecclesiological basis for her actions. The Episcopal Church isn’t the Catholic Church. It isn’t, in any legitimate sense that I can see, a Church at all. She’s acting as if she is speaking for the Church when she’s just the leader of one splinter group within the Church, by her own ecclesiology as well as that of her opponents.

But if you simply compare how she behaves and how Rome behaves, I don’t see how you can come to the conclusion that Rome’s actions are obviously more motivated by a concern for the welfare of the flock, except insofar as Rome is concerned to preserve orthodoxy and obviously that’s a concern for the welfare of the flock. Rome behaves in a much more authoritarian way than she does–it also has a lot more justification for such behavior.

My laughter was from the preconcieved idea that Catholics every move is directed by the Holy Father, which is not true. The real power of the Papacy to to maintain the true faith and doctrines and to guide Catholics in moral issues. Maybe someone within TEC can explain exactly what the PB’s powers are.

Well, I am within TEC. I’m on the diocesan council and I have been a delegate to diocesan convention for the past three years. We pretty much do our own thing. She came to diocesan convention, we were polite, she gave a very interesting sermon about St. Teresa of Avila and presided at the Eucharist, she answered questions (confirming many of my concerns about her, though I was impressed with her personally on the whole), and she left.

Our diocese generally doesn’t use the latest revision of “Lesser Feasts and Fasts,” which is now called “Holy Women, Holy Men.” We will probably have these kinds of liturgical conflicts increasingly in the years to come. It remains to be seen whether at some point there’s an effort to force bishops to allow same-sex unions to be blessed in their dioceses, etc. I expect that there will be.

What are her powers? Well, that’s under dispute. My bishop and a number of others are making the argument that she’s exceeding her powers. Meanwhile, we have the question of the “Covenant” hanging over us.

 

[Contarini]

I know several TEC priests who are entering the Ordinariate and they have been treated very badly by their Bishops and as in any corporation

The Church isn’t a corporation (in any sense that matters from a religious perspective). A presiding bishop is not a CEO. I do not accept any argument that has such a faulty premise.

the blame falls with the CEO for not taking action to stop unfair treatment. In fact, in one diocese the Bishop has gotten rid of around 10 priests who are orthodox. This is a sad day when those over you can dismiss one because they hold to the faith.

Yes, but you would have no problem dismissing priests because they didn’t, right?

It seems to me that you are objecting because you agree with the principles of the priests in question. You aren’t objecting based on some kind of neutral concept of how priests should be treated, unless you are also going to criticize Rome for disciplining its dissident priests.

If you are going to argue that liberals have a much greater responsibility to treat conservatives gently when the liberals have the power than conservatives do when the position is reversed, then I will actually agree with you. Just don’t create the false impression that the liberals are actually treating the conservatives worse than the conservatives would do if the position were reversed, or than they do in your Communion where the position is reversed (at least on the worldwide level, which is ultimately what matters in your Communion–among us that is, unfortunately, a matter under dispute).

Edwin