Northern Catholicism

[Siddhartha]

Since there are Eastern Catholics, when Anglicans and Protestants return to the Church, would they be known as “Northern Catholics”?

 

[thunderballs75]

I believe they would just be part of the Latin Rite.

 

[Aramis]

I believe they would just be part of the Latin Rite.

Most likely will, but the negotiations with the TAC are ongoing, and they are seeking Sui Iuris status.

 

[Madaglan]

Since there are Eastern Catholics, when Anglicans and Protestants return to the Church, would they be known as “Northern Catholics”?

Actually, they’d be known as Southern Catholics.

Christianity is booming in the global South.

 

[Hesychios]

Most likely will, but the negotiations with the TAC are ongoing, and they are seeking Sui Iuris status.

The TAC is the thinnest of slivers of the “Protestant” world. One wonders what the holdup is to their acceptance, the Pope could give them the Anglican Use parishes in the USA.

They are supposedly 400,000, but there are clear signs that the group is not completely of one mind with their bishops. It could be a lot less when the bell rings.

Lutherans: 90,000,000 ?
Anglicans: 70,000,000 ?
Wesleyans/Methodists: ???

Still, the TAC could be a good model upon which to build reconciliation with others, if the subject is approached correctly. Perhaps the “Anglican” identity is too narrow, if there was some way to encourage Catholic-leaning Lutherans to participate the church could be somewhat larger and more viable.

The idea of a “Northern Catholic” tradition (as Siddhartha suggests) is not so far-fetched.

 

[rr1213]

While individual Protestants are converting to the Catholic Church, I seriously doubt that any Protestant bodies will rejoin the Church in a corporate manner. As mentioned above, one exception could be the Traditional Anglican Communion which has petitioned to rejoin the Church in a corporate manner which would preserve aspects of its distinct Anglican heritage. There were rumors at the beginning of the years that the Vatican was prepared to agree with TAC’s peitition and to set TAC up as a personal prelature of the Church (like Opus Dei). Supposedly, this was supposed to have happened around Easter of 2009. It doesn’t look like that date is going to be met and, as far as I know, the matter is still under discussion in the Vatican. Personally, I would like to see it happen because it could possibly establish a template which could be used for other Anglo-Catholic bodies to rejoin the Church while still maintaining those portions of their Anglican heritage and liturgy which is compatible with Church teaching.

 

[Cecilianus]

I would welcome something like a Nordic use or jurisdiction. When I came into the Church from Lutheranism I felt like I gave up my Swedish identity - but the liturgy used by my Lutheran congregation was very close to the Tridentine. Having a Nordic variant to the Latin rite would probably appease a lot of Latin Catholics who miss the Tridentine Mass.

 

[Siddhartha]

I would welcome something like a Nordic use or jurisdiction. When I came into the Church from Lutheranism I felt like I gave up my Swedish identity - but the liturgy used by my Lutheran congregation was very close to the Tridentine. Having a Nordic variant to the Latin rite would probably appease a lot of Latin Catholics who miss the Tridentine Mass.

There’s the Sarum Rite.

 

[Cecilianus]

There’s the Sarum Rite.

Yes, though that’s not quite the same as what I came from.

 

[malphono]

Two things:

(1) I have no idea what this thread is doing in this particular forum. It belongs elsewhere (perhaps Traditional Catholicism or perhaps Liturgy and Sacraments).

(2) This whole discussion sound like each and every group of converts should have its own usage. I can accept the “Anglican Use” (mainly because it derives from (but is not identical to) the long since-suppressed Sarum usage), but a group of “High Church Lutherans” e.g. seeking to convert, would probably find it rather alien. In any case, what’s next? A “Calvinist Use”? An “evangelical use”? Maybe even a “LDS use”?

 

[Aramis]

Two things:

(1) I have no idea what this thread is doing in this particular forum. It belongs elsewhere (perhaps Traditional Catholicism or perhaps Liturgy and Sacraments).

(2) This whole discussion sound like each and every group of converts should have its own usage. I can accept the “Anglican Use” (mainly because it derives from (but is not identical to) the long since-suppressed Sarum usage), but a group of “High Church Lutherans” e.g. seeking to convert, would probably find it rather alien. In any case, what’s next? A “Calvinist Use”? An “evangelical use”? Maybe even a “LDS use”?

An LDS use would look a lot like the OF…

 

[Siddhartha]

An LDS use would look a lot like the OF…

What’s OF?

 

[Aramis]

What’s OF?

Ordinary Form. The “Modern” Roman Missal.

 

[Cecilianus]

Two things:

(1) I have no idea what this thread is doing in this particular forum. It belongs elsewhere (perhaps Traditional Catholicism or perhaps Liturgy and Sacraments).

(2) This whole discussion sound like each and every group of converts should have its own usage. I can accept the “Anglican Use” (mainly because it derives from (but is not identical to) the long since-suppressed Sarum usage), but a group of “High Church Lutherans” e.g. seeking to convert, would probably find it rather alien. In any case, what’s next? A “Calvinist Use”? An “evangelical use”? Maybe even a “LDS use”?

I agree with you - and also for the reason that the unity of Faith is severely damaged if different Protestant sects remain separate when they are received back into the fold - but the Council of Trent did encourage local customs and usages such as the Sarum, Mozarabic, and Ambrosian rites (the Sarum “rite” being a variant of the Latin). In the East, we see totally separate Rites for the Ruthenians, Melkites, Romanians, Ukrainians, Russians, Bulgarians, etc., even though there are only the slightest variants between their use of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. So if Protestant countries have local variations in their worship and still use a variant of the Catholic Mass in their worship, it may be possible and even desirable to incorporate those variants that enrich the Faith and do not diminish the expression of it. The high-church Lutherans had a litany during the “Kyrie” - a little like the ektenia of askings, I think, though it’s been a very long time since I’ve been to a Lutheran service - which could enrich the Novus Ordo Mass in German or Scandinavian churches, and the prayers and readings (except for the Gospel and sermon) were done ad orientem, with the clergywoman’s (!!) back to the audience. When I became Catholic it seemed that the Lutherans were more Catholic than the Novus Ordo Mass, especially since my Lutheran congregation had Renaissance paintings of the Blessed Virgin Mary in the narthex and sometimes had the choir sing Renaissance motets (in Latin) to her. (We also had a “nun” working in the office, and a different church - the one I was baptized in as a baby - had kneelers. Lutheran pastors will hear confessions, though I have never seen a confessional in a church.) These latter practices should re-enrich the whole Church, since they are Latin Catholic practices and not Lutheran to begin with.

 

[Aramis]

That bodies ecclesiastical should be allowed to come into uinion as corporate bodies is well established by the events of the 18th through early 20th centuries… as Eastern Church after Eastern Church came into union.

The difference is that, for them, there was vague acknowledgement of the full sacramental tradition being valid, if occasionally irregular… (Can we say Malabar and Malankar?)

The only fundamental difference between an ecclesiastical union with the TAC and an ecclesiastical union with the Ruthenians is that the TAC’s ordinations are not valid. They thought they were, and acted accordingly; they also may have permitted post-ordination marriages (I’m not certain; I know mainstream Anglicans do).

So they would need reordination, new episcopal ordinations, and enthronements and possibly elections, and to shore up a few policies. Plus to make a couple small changes in their liturgy, and add the papal commemorations.

Probably, tho’, the real sticking point is the western patriarchal modality and tradition. Rome has never reunited with a western corporate body. Individual parishes, plenty. The occasional bishop without his synod. But never a corporate body with Bishops, priests, and faithful.

Hopefully HH will resolve it soon; delay in this case is not a well received sign of willingness to pursue unity.

 

[Cecilianus]

Probably, tho’, the real sticking point is the western patriarchal modality and tradition. Rome has never reunited with a western corporate body. Individual parishes, plenty. The occasional bishop without his synod. But never a corporate body with Bishops, priests, and faithful.

Most corporate western bodies outside the Church never had either bishops or priests, and if they did they usually had neither valid orders nor any solid authority over the faithful or a tradition of obedience to them, which is why we mostly flock in as individual converts.

 

[Aramis]

Most corporate western bodies outside the Church never had either bishops or priests, and if they did they usually had neither valid orders nor any solid authority over the faithful or a tradition of obedience to them, which is why we mostly flock in as individual converts.

Generally, the protestants who returned to valid orders did so by absorption into the EO communion.

One group, into the Antiochian Orthodox, as a vicariate…
Another group into the Russian Orthodox Church In America (using the RO WR DL)…