Archbishop Announces High-Level Meeting for Possible Restructuring of Anglican Communion

[Peter_J]

Are you speaking of the North American, UK, or Australian Ordinariates? Or do you feel that large numbers are leaving all three? The Ordinariate parish I know in North America is very much thriving from what I can see. A quick look at the North America Ordinariate site shows a steady stream of new clergy ordinations.
How do they feel they were misled by Rome? Married priests are ordained, liturgical traditions preserved, autonomy under their own Ordinaries granted… Was there an expectation in some circles that Catholic dogma would be negotiable?

Speaking as someone who didn’t initially understand the idea behind the ordinariates, I can tell you that the following from chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1341020?eng=y&refresh_ce is what helped me (after I chewed on it for a while) …

In this regard, [Cardinal] Kasper says in the interview:

“In Cyprus, in order to avoid misunderstandings, I immediately told our Orthodox counterparts that this is not a matter of proselytism or a new Uniatism. …] Uniatism is an historical phenomenon involving the Eastern Churches, while the Anglicans are from the Latin tradition. The Balamand document of 1993 is still valid, according to which this is a phenomenon of the past that took place in unrepeatable circumstances. It is not a method for the present or the future. The Orthodox were mainly interested in understanding the nature of the personal ordinariates for the Anglicans, and I clarified that this is not a matter of a Church ‘sui iuris’, and therefore there will not be the head of a Church, but an ordinary with delegated powers.”

In simpler terms: while a “Uniate” Church has its own structured hierarchy, with a patriarch and territorial dioceses, none of this will apply to the former Anglican “personal ordinariates,” which will provide pastoral care for the faithful but without their own ecclesiastical territory, a little bit like the military ordinariates.

The new ordinariates will be characterized by the preservation of the Anglican rite for the Mass and the other sacraments – with liturgical books that were approved for the United States in the 1980’s by the Vatican congregation for divine worship – and by the possibility of having married priests.

But only former Anglican priests and bishops who are already married will be able to be ordained to the priesthood in the Catholic Church. For the young men aspiring to be priests, the rule of celibacy will apply as it does in the rest of the Latin Church, except for the ability, under extraordinary circumstances, to “present to the Holy Father a request for the admission of married men to the presbyterate in the Ordinariate,” according to “objective criteria” that in any case “must be approved by the Holy See.” This exception is admitted “in consideration of Anglican ecclesial tradition and practice,” as it says in article 6 of the complementary norms for “Anglicanorum Coetibus.” And although it is “merely hypothetical” (according to Cardinal Levada, in a statement on October 31), it creates a loophole in the discipline of priestly celibacy in the Latin Church, which the former Anglicans are entering.

 

[7_Sorrows]

The stories I have heard say that this turned out to not be universal.

I don’t understand how any of them could have been misled. I am sure
everyone would have investigated the process and what it meant before committing to the conversion. I have not read of anyone saying they felt misled. Do you have a link to back up that claim?

 

[GKC]

The stories I have heard say that this turned out to not be universal.

More details always welcome.

The one point that is worth watching was the commitment to providing a stream of Anglican-trained clergy, through the use of a dedicated seminary. This overcomes the limitation of the Pastoral Provision, as to the necessity for a continuing stream of clerical converts. Assuming it transpires.

 

[theropod]

I wish I had a link I could point to, but some of it was that if the converting parish wasn’t big enough, they ended up making them go to the closest regular parish which had no Anglican tradition.

And now that I think about it, I may be conflating some of the stories with Anglican parishes who went into the Orthodox Chruch’s plan. Some of them were forced to change to the Orthodox liturgy after the fact.

 

[GKC]

I wish I had a link I could point to, but some of it was that if the converting parish wasn’t big enough, they ended up making them go to the closest regular parish which had no Anglican tradition.

And now that I think about it, I may be conflating some of the stories with Anglican parishes who went into the Orthodox Chruch’s plan. Some of them were forced to change to the Orthodox liturgy after the fact.

Could be. I’m not familiar with either story.

 

[twf]

The stories I have heard say that this turned out to not be universal.

According to the law governing the Ordinariates these provisions are available and in place. I’d be curious to know where issues were encountered.

 

[twf]

Speaking as someone who didn’t initially understand the idea behind the ordinariates, I can tell you that the following from chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1341020?eng=y&refresh_ce is what helped me (after I chewed on it for a while) …

Are you suggesting that some of the Anglicans were perhaps hoping for a Church sui iuris and thus felt misled when they were simply granted semi-autonomous structures within the Latin Church?

 

[7_Sorrows]

Are you suggesting that some of the Anglicans were perhaps hoping for a Church sui iuris and thus felt misled when they were simply granted semi-autonomous structures within the Latin Church?

what is church sui iuris?

 

[GKC]

Are you suggesting that some of the Anglicans were perhaps hoping for a Church sui iuris and thus felt misled when they were simply granted semi-autonomous structures within the Latin Church?

Yes, some of them likely were, during the long process of discussions between the RCC and the Traditional Anglican Communion. This is not to say that any such thing was held out to them, but that much of the laity of the TAC were not well informed of how the (sporadic and desultory) talks were going. This is reflected in the small number of TAC members who actually took advantage of Anglicanorum Coetibus, when it was promulgated, following the quite separate meetings/discussions between Rome and several Church of England bishops, in Feb/March 2009, which was the precipitating event leading to AC. I don’t think the CoE participants were in any doubt as to what was being proposed.

 

[Peter_J]

Are you suggesting that some of the Anglicans were perhaps hoping for a Church sui iuris and thus felt misled when they were simply granted semi-autonomous structures within the Latin Church?

Well, if I might paraphrase George Washington: I cannot tell a lie, that explanation was given by a Roman Catholic cardinal, not by me. (Sorry, I’m not a great paraphraser. )

But anyhow, that isn’t what I got out of what I linked (but I have, in fact, read that from plenty of other sources, so I think what you said is on solid ground). The main, I think, to take away from the Cardinal’s word is that Rome was *not *incentivizing conversions to Catholicism; rather, Rome was offering reasonable accommodation for those who want to become Catholic (in view of changes in certain branches of the Anglican Communion).

 

[twf]

what is church sui iuris?

A Church of it’s own law. Go to the Eastern Catholicism board on these forums and read the stickys. You and I are members of the Latin Church Sui Iuris, as are the members of the Anglican Ordinariates…but there are over 20 Churches Sui iuris which collectively comprise the Catholic Church.

 

[7_Sorrows]

A Church of it’s own law. Go to the Eastern Catholicism board on these forums and read the stickys. You and I are members of the Latin Church Sui Iuris, as are the members of the Anglican Ordinariates…but there are over 20 Churches Sui iuris which collectively comprise the Catholic Church.

how can it be a church of its own law, but still be a part of the Catholic Church? I believe that Eastern Catholic priests can marry correct?

 

[twf]

how can it be a church of its own law, but still be a part of the Catholic Church? I believe that Eastern Catholic priests can marry correct?

Best to go to the eastern Catholicism board so we don’t derail this thread. But yes, many of the Eastern Catholic Churches ordain married men to the priesthood. The Latin Church and the various Eastern Catholic Churches are equal in dignity. The Latin way is not more Catholic. The Latin Church has its laws and each of the Eastern Churches has their own laws. We are united by faith not by laws. There has always been both unity and diversity in the Catholic Church. Long before the Great Schism, when we were still one Church, we Latins and Easterners had different liturgies and disciplines, but we were United by faith.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Best to go to the eastern Catholicism board so we don’t derail this thread. But yes, many of the Eastern Catholic Churches ordain married men to the priesthood. The Latin Church and the various Eastern Catholic Churches are equal in dignity. The Latin way is not more Catholic. The Latin Church has its laws and each of the Eastern Churches has their own laws. We are united by faith not by laws. There has always been both unity and diversity in the Catholic Church. Long before the Great Schism, when we were still one Church, we Latins and Easterners had different liturgies and disciplines, but we were United by faith.

We are still united by faith, but are not united with all doctrines and dogmas.

 

[Peter_J]

We are still united by faith, but are not united with all doctrines and dogmas.

Could you clarify please who “we” is in this sentence? Catholics ICWR? Other Christians (I’m assuming here that Christianity is a religion)? Some Catholics ICWR but not others?

 

[7_Sorrows]

Could you clarify please who “we” is in this sentence? Catholics ICWR? Other Christians (I’m assuming here that Christianity is a religion)? Some Catholics ICWR but not others?

Catholics and Orthodox.

 

[twf]

Catholics and Orthodox.

I was talking about Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with Rome- not the Orthodox. Latins and Eastern Catholics share a common faith but have distinct disciplines, liturgies, theologies, and spiritualities.

 

[7_Sorrows]

I was talking about Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with Rome- not the Orthodox. Latins and Eastern Catholics share a common faith but have distinct disciplines, liturgies, theologies, and spiritualities.

I misread your text. I thought you said we were not united by faith.

 

[Faithdancer]

Another dying mainstream, liberal Protestant sect. What else is new?

Anglicans, even the liberal variety, are not Protestant.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Anglicans, even the liberal variety, are not Protestant.

How so? They aren’t Catholic either because they reject the authority of the Pope.