Personal Ordinates

[mro]

This is a question about how the Pope let’s Anglicans, Episcopalians, and certain high church lutherans join the Catholic Church while keeping their liturgical traditions in tact…

Why are we doing this Personal ordinate thing… Why should they be able to keep their own liturgies… Why can’t we force them to adopt the customs of the latin church as a precondition for rejoining the church?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_ordinariate

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Lutheran_Catholic_Church

 

[Contarini]

This is a question about how the Pope let’s Anglicans, Episcopalians, and certain high church lutherans join the Catholic Church while keeping their liturgical traditions in tact…

Why are we doing this Personal ordinate thing… Why should they be able to keep their own liturgies… Why can’t we force them to adopt the customs of the latin church as a precondition for rejoining the church?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_ordinariate

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Lutheran_Catholic_Church

To me a better question is,

Why would you want to?

Why do you confuse unity with uniformity? I thank God that Pope Benedict doesn’t.

What does puzzle me about your Communion’s policy is the insistence on identifying liturgy with polity. The early Church was very clear that there should be one bishop for one place. I don’t like Rome’s habit of creating multiple jurisdictions to preserve diversity–but I think the diversity is a very good thing.

Edwin

 

[mro]

All Churches that wish to be reunited with Rome must recognize the Vatican and the authority of the Pope… This should include liturgy…

The only people who have the right to their own separate lutergies are Eastern Catholics and other Eastern Churches…

 

[DavidFilmer]

The only people who have the right to their own separate lutergies are Eastern Catholics and other Eastern Churches…

That seems mighty arbitrary. Why should the Church permit Eastern liturgical forms while prohibiting Anglican ones?

FWIW, the new translation of the Roman Missal is VERY Anglican. If this had been the original English translation then I believe there would be no such thing as an Anglican rite.

 

[martininthefiel]

Anglicanorum Coetibus is at the initiative of Pope Benedict. It is not some attempt to ‘skirt the rules’, but a sincere attempt to encourage Christian unity. It permits whole parishes to reestablish communion with the See of Rome, as well as individuals. It in no way lessens the requirements of Catholic Doctrine. It does not allow women priests, or same-sex accommodation. Episcopal priests wishing to become Catholic priests, still must be ‘re-ordained’ in accordance with Apostolic Succession. Among those who have answered this call are a community of nuns in Maryland, and a parish, also in Maryland, that I used to attend.

Anglo-Catholic practices are extremely close to those of the Roman Church, but some of the liturgical translations are in a form that is quite poetic. This isn’t a ‘dumbing-down’ of the liturgy. It is based on the Latin Rite, and retains pre-Vatican II practices, such as the recitation of the ‘Last Gospel’ at the end of the Mass, and kneeling at the altar rail to receive communion. Most Anglo-Catholic parishes have added wording to the rite in the *Book of Common Prayer *that make clear the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist (e.g. May the Lord Receive this sacrifice at thy hands, to the praise and glory of His Name, for our benefit and that of all His Holy Church.) Often the only difference is the retention of Elizabethan English–Thee, Thy, etc. In any case, the BCP is replaced by The Book of Divine Worship, which is approved by the Catholic Church.

The major ‘concession’ is allowing married priest (but not bishops). There is no doctrinal reason for priestly celibacy–other churches in communion with Rome (mostly Eastern Rite) allow priest to be married.

I used to be an Anglo-Catholic. I can tell you that there was very little difference between what I believed then, and what I believe now. However, I believe I have grown in my faith since becoming a Catholic (by the more normal route of RCIA). But there are elements of Anglican practice I sorely miss. I would welcome being able to join an Anglican Use parish if there were one in the Detroit area.

Veni, veni Emmanuel;
Captivum solve Israel,
Qui gemit in exilio,
Privatus Dei Filio.

Refrain
Gaude! Gaude! Emmanuel,
Nascetur pro te, Israel!

 

[martininthefiel]

To me a better question is,

Why would you want to?

Why do you confuse unity with uniformity? I thank God that Pope Benedict doesn’t.

What does puzzle me about your Communion’s policy is the insistence on identifying liturgy with polity. The early Church was very clear that there should be one bishop for one place. I don’t like Rome’s habit of creating multiple jurisdictions to preserve diversity–but I think the diversity is a very good thing.

Edwin

Unlike the ‘flying bishops’ in the Church of England?

You know, my current parish is far more diverse racially and ethically than any I belonged to as an Episcopalian.

 

[Contarini]

Unlike the ‘flying bishops’ in the Church of England?

That is indeed an ecclesiologically incoherent practice!

My own bishop acts as a “flying bishop” for some conservative Episcopalians in California (we don’t use that term on this side of the pond, but it’s the same thing–in fact given the distances involved it really does involve “flying”!). I respect his reasons and theirs, but it’s not something I would want to participate in myself.

You know, my current parish is far more diverse racially and ethically than any I belonged to as an Episcopalian.

I agree that this is usually the case, and this is one of the things that draws me to Catholicism.

I just noticed that you accidentally typed “ethically” instead of “ethnically.” I’m not sure that we Episcopalians should yield the palm when it comes to “ethical diversity”

Edwin

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

All Churches that wish to be reunited with Rome must recognize the Vatican and the authority of the Pope… This should include liturgy…

But that doesn’t make any sense, since the Pope is the one setting up this situation of which you disapprove.

The only people who have the right to their own separate lutergies are Eastern Catholics and other Eastern Churches…

I get your reasoning–the Eastern Catholics do have a distinct liturgical tradition going back to the early Church, while we are certainly a branch of the Latin Rite and most of our liturgical distinctives stem from the Reformation (a few minor ones may stem from the Sarum Use).

But while your position is coherent, it does not appear to be that of Pope Benedict, and I am glad of that!

Edwin

 

[agnes_therese]

All Churches that wish to be reunited with Rome must recognize the Vatican and the authority of the Pope… This should include liturgy…

They are recognizing the Vatican and the authority of the Pope. That’s who set up the Ordinariate. By saying it shouldn’t exist, you’re the one not recognizing the Pope’s authority.

 

[martininthefiel]

That is indeed an ecclesiologically incoherent practice!

My own bishop acts as a “flying bishop” for some conservative Episcopalians in California (we don’t use that term on this side of the pond, but it’s the same thing–in fact given the distances involved it really does involve “flying”!). I respect his reasons and theirs, but it’s not something I would want to participate in myself.

I agree that this is usually the case, and this is one of the things that draws me to Catholicism.

I just noticed that you accidentally typed “ethically” instead of “ethnically.” I’m not sure that we Episcopalians should yield the palm when it comes to “ethical diversity”

Edwin

Edwin

Interesting typo–perhaps Freudian.

I went through a “Cardinal Newman” moment in regard to the untenability of Via Media. But I still have immense admiration for Anglicanism. IMHO–and I hope I’m wrong-- ECUSA is likely going to either leave the Anglican Communion or be expelled. It is already marginalized.The majority of Anglicans in the world are in Africa, and are deeply disturbed by the liberalism of the American Church. Come to think of it, judging by the declining membership in the USA and Canada, the majority of North American Anglicans are alienated as well.

It’s not gays and women priests–I don’t have especially strong feelings on either issue. It is a generally intolerant stance toward anyone who doesn’t buy into their agenda, They treat all conservatives, and even moderates, as if they are pitiable dolts. I used to be a very active member of an Anglo-Catholic parish in Maryland. Because Anglo-Catholicism is perceived as a ‘non-growth’ segment of the church, the parish has thrown-out a lot of long-established tradition, in the hope of attracting more evangelicals. We had a pro-life rector who was literally run out of the parish, by parishioners who disagreed with him.The message on the wall became very clear.

When I read Episcopal Church news online, there seems to be outright contempt for the the current Archbishop of Canterbury, and his leadership. I really don’t think things can long remain as they are.

Again, this was not the primary reason I became a Catholic. I sincerely felt called to reunite with Rome, and had a long-standing unease over the low and broad church’s ambivalent view of the Eucharist. For a long time, I was a member of a parish here in Michigan that regarded my high church views as ‘dangerous’, and let me know that every chance they had.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

To me a better question is,

Why would you want to?

Why do you confuse unity with uniformity? I thank God that Pope Benedict doesn’t.

What does puzzle me about your Communion’s policy is the insistence on identifying liturgy with polity. The early Church was very clear that there should be one bishop for one place. I don’t like Rome’s habit of creating multiple jurisdictions to preserve diversity–but I think the diversity is a very good thing.

Edwin

The reason for multiple jurisdictions is because of history. There was a time when bishops did not wish to take care of other traditions/rites within their diocese and viewed unity in the same manner as the OP seems to do.

If this had been the original English translation then I believe there would be no such thing as an Anglican rite.

There is no such thing as an Anglican rite. There is an Anglican usage but it is not a rite.

 

[Contarini]

Interesting typo–perhaps Freudian.

I went through a “Cardinal Newman” moment in regard to the untenability of Via Media. But I still have immense admiration for Anglicanism. IMHO–and I hope I’m wrong-- ECUSA is likely going to either leave the Anglican Communion or be expelled. It is already marginalized.The majority of Anglicans in the world are in Africa, and are deeply disturbed by the liberalism of the American Church. Come to think of it, judging by the declining membership in the USA and Canada, the majority of North American Anglicans are alienated as well.

It’s not gays and women priests–I don’t have especially strong feelings on either issue. It is a generally intolerant stance toward anyone who doesn’t buy into their agenda, They treat all conservatives, and even moderates, as if they are pitiable dolts. I used to be a very active member of an Anglo-Catholic parish in Maryland. Because Anglo-Catholicism is perceived as a ‘non-growth’ segment of the church, the parish has thrown-out a lot of long-established tradition, in the hope of attracting more evangelicals. We had a pro-life rector who was literally run out of the parish, by parishioners who disagreed with him.The message on the wall became very clear.

When I read Episcopal Church news online, there seems to be outright contempt for the the current Archbishop of Canterbury, and his leadership. I really don’t think things can long remain as they are.

Again, this was not the primary reason I became a Catholic. I sincerely felt called to reunite with Rome, and had a long-standing unease over the low and broad church’s ambivalent view of the Eucharist. For a long time, I was a member of a parish here in Michigan that regarded my high church views as ‘dangerous’, and let me know that every chance they had.

 

[Contarini]

Interesting typo–perhaps Freudian.

I went through a “Cardinal Newman” moment in regard to the untenability of Via Media.

Well, so did I. What is damning in my case (in my more neurotically pious moments I fear that it may be literally so if I don’t repent) was that it (or at least its beginning) occurred before I became Episcopalian. Certainly I have not believed in the Via Media for many years now.

As far as the controversy goes, I think the question now, unfortunately, is whether there’s going to be a two-way or a three-way split. I support the Covenant, but I can’t get too excited about it, because it’s really just an attempt to imitate the Catholic Church (more the way I wish the Catholic Church would function than the way it actually does, mind you–or more precisely I would like to see the Church function somewhere between the present centralization of the Roman Communion and the rather clunky and bureacratic accountability mechanisms of the Covenant), and because practically speaking the “Global South” primates no longer trust Canterbury and are pretty determined to go their own way anyway, so the Covenant could cause a three-way split.

When I read Episcopal Church news online, there seems to be outright contempt for the the current Archbishop of Canterbury, and his leadership.

His admirers do seem to be relatively few, though I am certainly one of them!

Anglo-Catholicism does seem to be on the decline even among conservatives, in many ways.

Edwin

 

[ProdigalAnglicn]

I agree, Anglo-Catholicism is more than the outward forms of being high church. As strange as it may sound to Roman Catholics (but probably not to Contarini), I’ve been in very theologically heterodox/“inclusive” Episcopal churches that features chanting, incense, and kneeling. I think that combination annoys me the most actually–like they’re trying to distract people from the theological rot by covering it up with pretty outward forms. And they certainly aren’t Anglo-Catholic.

As for me, I’m high mid-church. . Stained glass windows? Real pews? Vestments? Kneeling? Crossing yourself? Candles? All great! However I draw the line at incense, statues, and chanting. That said I find uber-high church worship much less distracting and annoying than services that try way, way, way too hard to be “contemporary” or “relevant”. And I say this as a 27 year old.

 

[martininthefiel]

I love incense, chanting, and statuary. I know they aren’t everybody’s cuppa, but for me they represent the celestial wonderment of the mystery of the Mass–the intersection of Heavenly and Earthly realms.

We are God’s guest in His temple. He offers Himself to us as Heavenly sustenance, despite our unworthiness for Him to enter under our roof.

This is a preview of Heaven. Our proper response to all this should be our unmitigated joy. We should bring-out all our finery, for Him, our best friend.

“Name Him, Christians, name Him, with love strong as death. Name with awe and wonder, and batted breath. He God the Savior; He is Christ, the Lord; ever to be trusted, worshiped and adored.”

But I digress

 

[Contarini]

The reason for multiple jurisdictions is because of history. There was a time when bishops did not wish to take care of other traditions/rites within their diocese and viewed unity in the same manner as the OP seems to do.

I get that. But I wish the Vatican would try to help people move beyond that. I suppose I’m just impatient. Perhaps we need to have this kind of “segregation” in the short term, but it sticks in my craw.

If, as Catholics say and as the New Perspective on Paul confirms from the point of view of historical scholarship, bringing people into one community on the basis of faith in Christ is the core of the Gospel, then anything that contradicts that is anti-Gospel, however historically explicable it may be.

Edwin

 

[martininthefiel]

I think you are missing the point.

I go to a Latin Rite Church. There are numerous Chaldeans and other Eastern Catholics who attend. The separate ordinariates are not an attempt to ghettoize their Churches, it is done with the intention of accommodating their unique traditions and languages. They are always free to receive in Latin Churches.

There are some requirements regarding marriage, and some other Sacraments. One may only change rites once in one’s lifetime, as I understand the rules.

Maybe someone can help out here.