Leader of Anglican ordinariate admits interest has waned [CC]
- Status
G
GKC
Guest
I appreciate your words; things are tough. But just as I am not in the ACNA, I’m not in the Communion.It has to be hard to watch your communion go through all these issues. I know it grieves me when mine deals with them.
I’m in the Continuum.
Motley group, we’uns.
GKC
B
BernadetteM
Guest
England is a very secular country and unless one is deeply spiritual, they usually just stay in the church they were raised in.
Whether the Ordinariate grows much in England is not the standard we should be judging success on. I think it has been obvious that many Anglicans, especially Anglo Catholics still do not want to feel that there is any authority over them. As a former Anglo Catholic I saw this attitude.
I have no idea about England, however, in the US, very few Episcopalians or “Anglican groups”, are aware of the Ordinariate. This is also true of Catholics.
If one wants to keep their Anglican identity and still say they are Anglican, they just leave TEC and join one of many Continuing Anglican churches, (which can’t even unite with one another).
As the English Ordinary stated, he didn’t want to offend the CoE. This is a real problem, the Ordinariates are not going after Anglicans, but have an obligation to make their belief that the Catholic Church is the True Church. There is too much political correctness today.
CAF is full of people who are deeply devoted to their faith, however, in general you don’t find that, no matter which denomination one is from.
CAF does not represent the world at large in faith issues. It is for those of us who really want the truth and have questions and it is a great forum for answers, but again from at least my experience in life most people are not interested in the spiritual and are content to go no further than what they have found in whatever denomination or church they attend.
As far as growth, former Pope Benedict said that he would rather have a smaller and purer church than a large one. God reaches each of us as individuals and we either are open and respond or are closed, I also believe that He reaches people where they are able and all may not be capable of growing beyond a certain point in their faith. This includes Catholics.
Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary
Bernadette
Whether the Ordinariate grows much in England is not the standard we should be judging success on. I think it has been obvious that many Anglicans, especially Anglo Catholics still do not want to feel that there is any authority over them. As a former Anglo Catholic I saw this attitude.
I have no idea about England, however, in the US, very few Episcopalians or “Anglican groups”, are aware of the Ordinariate. This is also true of Catholics.
If one wants to keep their Anglican identity and still say they are Anglican, they just leave TEC and join one of many Continuing Anglican churches, (which can’t even unite with one another).
As the English Ordinary stated, he didn’t want to offend the CoE. This is a real problem, the Ordinariates are not going after Anglicans, but have an obligation to make their belief that the Catholic Church is the True Church. There is too much political correctness today.
CAF is full of people who are deeply devoted to their faith, however, in general you don’t find that, no matter which denomination one is from.
CAF does not represent the world at large in faith issues. It is for those of us who really want the truth and have questions and it is a great forum for answers, but again from at least my experience in life most people are not interested in the spiritual and are content to go no further than what they have found in whatever denomination or church they attend.
As far as growth, former Pope Benedict said that he would rather have a smaller and purer church than a large one. God reaches each of us as individuals and we either are open and respond or are closed, I also believe that He reaches people where they are able and all may not be capable of growing beyond a certain point in their faith. This includes Catholics.
Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary
Bernadette
S
seanman611
Guest
I’m not so sure, although the witnesses have remained anonymous, both liberals and conservatives have been said to testify to this fact. I can’t speak to +Lawrence or +Iker, but I personally believe that this is exactly what +Duncan wanted and it has been alleged that he did vote for ++Schori. A lot of these so-called “traditionalists” were foaming at the mouth for a chance to have their own province, one they had hoped would be recognized by Canterbury.
Back to issue of the Ordinariate, I’d be most interested in seeing the number of priests who converted. Many have speculated that the Ordinariate was set-up to help with the shortfall of RCC priests.
G
GKC
Guest
I remain unconvinced as to your theory of anyone voting for Her Graciousness, as a proximate means of hastening the implosion of TEC. (Quot Homines, Tot Sententiae: Terence was likely an Anglican). But certainly, when a break came, the hope was to replace TEC in the Communion, based on the fading concept of the Communion as something that could moderate the decay of American Anglicanism. This was also precisely the hope of the first ACNA (different group), which arose from the St. Louis Convention, in roughly 1979, and was the beginning (instead) of the Continuum.
What role the Global South will eventually play in whatever transpires with the Communion, is an interesting point. As always, I do not predict. I wait and watch, as an interested observer.
As to the number of priests who left for the Ordinariate, I have no idea, and would always love to learn more. But the idea that the Apostolic Constitution was issued, in any sense, to bring in more RCC priests is nonsense.
GKC
S
Scythian
Guest
i think it was too late really, i mean how many conservative American and Canadian parishes were even left when the ordinariets were established? If it was done sooner, specifically around the time of Gene Robinson’s “ministry” and the beginings of ACNA there probably would of been larger response (same can be said even earlier, 1992 in England the response I think would of been pretty considerable relative to now)
G
GKC
Guest
I doubt an early response to the process begun by the Traditional Anglican Communion would have brought a significantly larger influx of disaffected Anglicans in. The conservative Anglicans who had been departing TEC since roughly 1978 did not respond when the offer was made, even the bulk of those comprising the TAC. TEC was not the main target group for Anglicanorum Coetibus.
GKC
S
seanman611
Guest
Well, you are entitled to your opinion on the matter as I am mine. However, this isn’t just me speculating and trying form a conspiracy theory, this has been widely reported in all streams of Anglican media, liberal and conservative. This theory may not be totally correct, but something fishy definitely went on and we may never know the truth.
I agree with that approach. If one listens only to the conservative Anglican media, then it would be a shock to them that the Communion didn’t implode 11 years ago. I, for one, remain hopeful in regards to the future of the Communion. Anglicans are the most self-bashing group of Christians I have ever seen and we seem to only focus on negative news. I look forward to a time when we can move on and learn to accept that we don’t all have to think the exact same on everything.
Why do you say that the idea of the Ordinariate bringing in more priests to be nonsense? Many of those inside and outside the Catholic Church have speculated that this may be one of this goals of the Ordinariate.
G
GKC
Guest
Because the Apostolic Constitution was born from an exceedingly slow multi-year dialogue with a specific group in the Continuum, and ignited by the request of a small number of CoE bishops (Forward in Faith types) who were faced with the inevitable miters on female heads in the CoE and asked for a refuge, in desperation. No one expected a flood, and none occurred. The catalyst was a chance to open the doors to English Anglicans in distress. That’s all they got. Some accuse the RCC of sheep stealing. It wasn’t, nor was it pastor stealing. Indeed, the protocols of the Constitution bind the RCC to setting up the necessary dedicated education and ordination process to ensure the necessary continuing supply of Anglican-trained clergy to ensure the survival of the Anglican patrimony within the Ordinariates. Whether the final numbers will be a plus or a minus to the RCC, as to priests, is an open question.
I agree one may never know the whole truth. I think I’m closer to it. Schori was not elected as a time bomb to blow up TEC. Not that that wasn’t the outcome.
Anglicans have never had to think the same on things. It’s why “motley” was always le mot juste. But now one cannot believe that the sacrament of Orders is only valid if the subject is is male, and remain in TEC.
What will happen to the Communion, I don’t know. Time will tell. I’ll not be affected, whatever is the outcome.
GKC
F
FrDavid96
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
Anglicanism is just chockful o’ interesting developments.
Like a brand of coffee.
GKC
F
FrDavid96
Guest
From what I see, the Ordinariate in the US in a catch-22 situation.
There are plenty of laity who would want to join, but no priests or church-buildings to serve them. So, when the invitation is extended, the response is “join what?” Join a community that exists on a national scale, but for the vast majority of people, it means having no place to actually worship in the Anglican form come next Sunday; that’s hardly an incentive.
I think many of the U.S. Anglican clergy would very much want to join (not a huge percentage, but still a significant number) but they can’t because there are not enough persons to support the parishes. And quite frankly, that means dollars. Most of them have families to support and financial obligations. That’s inevitable. It’s hardly a recruiting theme to say to them “join the Ordinariate and join the ranks of the unemployed.”
So, the laity don’t join because there are no priests. The priests don’t join because there are no ministerial positions for them.
There are plenty of laity who would want to join, but no priests or church-buildings to serve them. So, when the invitation is extended, the response is “join what?” Join a community that exists on a national scale, but for the vast majority of people, it means having no place to actually worship in the Anglican form come next Sunday; that’s hardly an incentive.
I think many of the U.S. Anglican clergy would very much want to join (not a huge percentage, but still a significant number) but they can’t because there are not enough persons to support the parishes. And quite frankly, that means dollars. Most of them have families to support and financial obligations. That’s inevitable. It’s hardly a recruiting theme to say to them “join the Ordinariate and join the ranks of the unemployed.”
So, the laity don’t join because there are no priests. The priests don’t join because there are no ministerial positions for them.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
This is a very logical analysis. As I was reading though your post, I thought about this parish, which as I understand it, is sort of an Anglican Use mission parish in Orange County, CA: jhnewman.org/ While I guess it seems appropriate for the diocese to support such a parish if they wish to, I’m not exactly sure who this parish is supposed to serve or attract. (Maybe that doesn’t really matter in the long run.) I think by now everyone who wanted to leave the Episcopal Church for one reason or another probably already did so a number of years ago–including clergy. I don’t see support for gay clergy or bishops waning within the Episcopal Church–in fact, probably just the opposite. And I really can’t see ACNA parishes converting wholesale to the Catholic Church. So who is left really? Plus, my understanding is that “regular” Catholics aren’t allow to “switch,” correct? And if Catholics want more traditional liturgy, why not attend the Latin Extraordinary Rite?From what I see, the Ordinariate in the US in a catch-22 situation.
There are plenty of laity who would want to join, but no priests or church-buildings to serve them. So, when the invitation is extended, the response is “join what?” Join a community that exists on a national scale, but for the vast majority of people, it means having no place to actually worship in the Anglican form come next Sunday; that’s hardly an incentive.
I think many of the U.S. Anglican clergy would very much want to join (not a huge percentage, but still a significant number) but they can’t because there are not enough persons to support the parishes. And quite frankly, that means dollars. Most of them have families to support and financial obligations. That’s inevitable. It’s hardly a recruiting theme to say to them “join the Ordinariate and join the ranks of the unemployed.”
So, the laity don’t join because there are no priests. The priests don’t join because there are no ministerial positions for them.
My point is that even where there IS an Anglican Use parish nearby, I’m not sure who it’s for in real terms–particularly where you don’t have a parish that has decided to come into the Catholic Church wholesale. In the long run the move just doesn’t seem viable/sustainable. And if people sense that it’s not, most people probably aren’t going to want to participate.
D
Dave_Noonan
Guest
My thoughts exactly.
G
GKC
Guest
You have a different impression of the bulk of the TEC clergy than I do. I doubt if there is any structural impediment to priests or laity joining the Ordinariate. There is simply little interest. The intended audience, those members of the Anglican Church in America, who were the intended targets (and had been in lengthy negotiations to make the change) came on board, in far fewer numbers than was expected. A few others from a variety of places did too. But, as we in the Continuum say, the concept of disaffected Anglicans is sort of like unicorns. Mythical beasts.From what I see, the Ordinariate in the US in a catch-22 situation.
There are plenty of laity who would want to join, but no priests or church-buildings to serve them. So, when the invitation is extended, the response is “join what?” Join a community that exists on a national scale, but for the vast majority of people, it means having no place to actually worship in the Anglican form come next Sunday; that’s hardly an incentive.
I think many of the U.S. Anglican clergy would very much want to join (not a huge percentage, but still a significant number) but they can’t because there are not enough persons to support the parishes. And quite frankly, that means dollars. Most of them have families to support and financial obligations. That’s inevitable. It’s hardly a recruiting theme to say to them “join the Ordinariate and join the ranks of the unemployed.”
So, the laity don’t join because there are no priests. The priests don’t join because there are no ministerial positions for them.
I think 3 TEC parishes made the leap. Maybe more.
GKC
A
andrewstx
Guest
Is it even possible for a PB to be elected to more than one term? I have not heard of that ever happening?
G
GKC
Guest
We live in strange times.
It has been so rumored that the gracious Katherine might, just might be persuaded to extend her beneficence again, upon the sheep.
Little surprises me. We shall see.
GKC
C
ChurchSoldier
Guest
There are 37 Churches or Comunities listed on the North American Oridinariate site. The picture of the clergy retreat has 32 members present by my count.
Might be an indicator of the number moving over there.
Might be an indicator of the number moving over there.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I don’t mean “the bulk” of TEC clergy—not a significant percentage by far. But I think if we look at all the versions of Anglicanism (I’ll limit this to the U.S.) put together I think there could be easily 200 of them who would want to join. That’s an average of 4 per state. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. In terms of numbers alone (not geography) 200 priests would be a small diocese.
But we’re not talking about 200 priests living within driving distance of each other (as we usually would for a small diocese).
I think we could look at the numbers for the laity in the same way. There are probably enough persons throughout the US and Canada to comprise that hypothetical diocese of 200 priests/parishes.
Again, they’re not living near each other. It’s a situation of people scattered over 2 rather large countries.
If everyone who just might want to join the Ordinariate happened to live close to each other, they’d probably easily have a fully functioning diocese. But that’s not the reality. They’re scattered.
That’s what I meant by the earlier comment.
Thoughts?
G
GKC
Guest
Critical mass. Yes, I see.
Nothing in my experience suggests that. But it is (theoretically possible). Beyond that, I have no particular thoughts. Save that if there are currently disaffected Episcopalians around, they are not interested in the Continuum. Whether, hypothetically, that would mean that they (notional disaffected Episcopalians) are holding out for the RCC and the Ordinariate, but can’t get there …I doubt it. Until I see someone polling them, or asking for a show of hands, I’ll continue to doubt it. I can’t see speculating on the numbers of a theoretical population as profitable.
But heck, Anglicans are hard to generalize about, as I preach here regularly. Perhaps there are some such in hiding. Doesn’t hurt to think so. I’ll wait for more evidence.
GKC
- Status