Catholic Cleric Assumes New Role Serving Anglican Converts

[jenkiedad]

“Father Jeffrey Steenson became the head of a new structure for Catholic converts from Anglican churches during a special Mass on Sunday. The new structure, Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, is the first of its kind in the country and based in Houston.”

“The Vatican established the new position last month to serve Anglicans converting to Catholicism. Steenson is a former Episcopal bishop and joined the Catholic Church in 2007 prior to becoming a Catholic priest in 2009. The Pope, Steenson added, had made it clear that creation of the Ordinariate is not “an initiative to reach out to people, but it’s a response to people knocking on the door.””

mysanantonio.com/news/religion/article/Catholic-cleric-assumes-new-role-serving-Anglican-3307775.php

Also, here’s a link to a profile of Fr. Steenson that appeared in the Saturday newspaper in San Antonio:

mysanantonio.com/default/article/Ex-Anglican-Catholics-to-welcome-new-leader-3255871.php

 

[jenkiedad]

One other curious quote from the original article:

“During the ceremony, [Cardinal] Wuerl read the Vatican’s official letter of appointment and presented to Steenson a crozier, a pastoral staff representing his role as a spiritual shepherd and a miter, a tall hat worn during liturgies to represent his authority. He also received the title of monsignor.”

I understand that Fr. Steenson was formerly a bishop in the Episcopal Church and is married. As a result, he cannot be made a “bishop”. At the ceremony in Houston he was made a Monsignor; however, with the staff and miter, it sure sounds like he is taking on the appearance of a “bishop”. Can anybody explain?

 

[FrDavid96]

One other curious quote from the original article:

“During the ceremony, [Cardinal] Wuerl read the Vatican’s official letter of appointment and presented to Steenson a crozier, a pastoral staff representing his role as a spiritual shepherd and a miter, a tall hat worn during liturgies to represent his authority. He also received the title of monsignor.”

I understand that Fr. Steenson was formerly a bishop in the Episcopal Church and is married. As a result, he cannot be made a “bishop”. At the ceremony in Houston he was made a Monsignor; however, with the staff and miter, it sure sounds like he is taking on the appearance of a “bishop”. Can anybody explain?

Actually, yes. Believe it or not, that’s just what’s happened–he is “taking on the appearance of a bishop.”

However, let’s take a look at that…

In the Apostolic Constitution that established the Anglican Ordinariates, the Holy Father made provision for former Anglican “bishops” to wear the episcopal insignia (mitre, crosier, cross, ring).

Over the centuries, it has become a tradition of the Church that the symbols of office (or symbols of jurisdiction, if you will) can be worn by priests who have not been ordained to the Episcopate, but who exercise some (or all) of the functions of the Episcopate.

The best way to explain this is by example.

A Protonotary Apostolica (a level of Monsignor) has long since been entitled to the mitre and crosier (I’m not sure about the ring or pectoral cross). In the US, in recent times, the practice of wearing these has all but disappeared, so we don’t often see it anymore. This honor was usually bestowed on someone like a Vicar General of a diocese to symbolize the fact that he speaks with the authority of the bishop (not direct, but vicarious authority and jurisdiction).

Some abbots are also entitled to Episcopal insignia even if they’re not bishops.

We see this a lot more in the Eastern Churches where we are more likely to see archpriests, mitered archpriests, chor-bishops, etc. who are entitled to certain symbols of office. One might wear the mitre, another use the pastoral staff, another both—these vary by office and by ritual Church.

It seems (and it’s pretty safe to make this assumption given the circumstances) that the Holy Father wants Monsignor S----n to be able to wear the insignia of a bishop because he does have a jurisdiction roughly equivalent to that of a diocesan bishop. He is indeed an Ordinary, after all.

He’s not eligible to actually be ordained a bishop, but he does function as one; therefore it makes sense that he be able to “look” like a bishop.

We need to keep in mind a few points here:

1. This is nothing new. The Church has been doing this for centuries: giving certain insignia of office to non-bishops who either represent the bishop in a special way, or who have functions similar to a bishop.
2. The point here is that the insignia that he is now entitled to wear is specifically because of his office. The Church does not do this to make anyone think he’s a bishop, nor to give this insignia for its own sake (“gee, Father so-and-so would look nice in a mitre…”).

It is possible (since it’s in the Constitution) that other future former-Anglican “bishops” might be given the honor of wearing the episcopal regalia even if they don’t hold specific offices in the Church. We will have to wait and see what will happen in the future.

 

[jenkiedad]

Thank you FrDavid96, Great Explanation!