Unity with Liturgical Diversity

[NorthernTenor]

A married Anglo-Catholic convert, who was not in formation for Anglican orders, has already been ordained Catholic priest just a few years ago. JP II granted a dispensation from the discipline of celibacy. So there is a precedent for the extraordinary to take place, should circumstances merit such an action.

Interesting, not least in the possibility of an implicit recognition of the similarities between the Anglican Use community and the Eastern Rite churches.

[presbyter]

.........and the Eastern Rite churches.

Where, I think - and correct me if I'm wrong, the married state is acceptable before ordination to the diaconate but marriage for a single man post-ordination is not possible. Bishops are always celibate. Is that correct?

[NorthernTenor]

.........and the Eastern Rite churches.

Where, I think - and correct me if I'm wrong, the married state is acceptable before ordination to the diaconate but marriage for a single man post-ordination is not possible. Bishops are always celibate. Is that correct?

That's how I understand it.

[Southern Comfort]

.........and the Eastern Rite churches.

Where, I think - and correct me if I'm wrong, the married state is acceptable before ordination to the diaconate but marriage for a single man post-ordination is not possible. Bishops are always celibate. Is that correct?

I am aware of at least one Ukrainian Rite priest in this country (he trained at one of our seminaries, interestingly) who, though single when ordained, was granted a dispensation to marry subsequently.

I'm also aware of a permanent deacon whose wife died and for whom the Bishop obtained a dispensation to marry again.

It seems fairly clear that the law is not totally rigid in this kind of area and that exceptions can be made.

[Southern Comfort]

The Book of Divine worship is far closer to the liturgy we know than the Eastern Rites.

http://www.atonementonline.com/orderofmass/Rite1.html I leave it to readers' judgements as to the origins of the elements of this amalgam.

For info, this isn't one of the parishes still using elements of 1662. Our Lady of Walsingham in Houston and St Athanasius in Boston, however, still do, to name but two.

[presbyter]

Just listened to some of the podcasts here http://www.forwardinfaith.com/news/audio.html - they are enlightening for a cradle Catholic such as me.
I think we should all keep this topic firmly in our prayers.

[Southern Comfort]

I think the big question for us is this: When they join in us, in whatever way this eventually happens, will we really feel they are part of us?

Will they still be Anglican in ethos even though Catholic in name? Will this be the same as or very different from those former Anglicans who are now ministering as Catholic priests? (My answer to that is: it depends. I know some "convert" Anglican clergymen, now Catholic priests, both single and married, of whom it can certainly be said that you would never know that they had once been Anglicans. These are our success stories. I also know a number who are still basically Anglican. Not only do they sound like Anglicans, they think like Anglicans. Their theology sounds Anglican. I do not feel that they are yet part of who we are. I suspect the same will be true of those who are to join us in the future. I speak as one who has many friends who are Anglicans, many who have been converted to Catholicism, many who have not, and many who have not only converted but been ordained ─ or are preparing for ordination ─ as Catholic priests. There will be people with whom we feel thoroughly at home, but there will also be others who will feel like cuckoos in the nest. How will we handle this? And indeed, some would say, why should we have to?)

My gut reaction is that those who join us because they do not want women priests, let alone women bishops, are deluding themselves. There are many Roman Catholics who want both of those things, even though JPII told us we may not even think about them. They will find themselves in a Church which is not what they thought it was.

But gut reactions are dangerous. My preference is to look instead at what on earth has happened to the ecclesiology of communion. This is a big question, and Ratzinger himself has been very eloquent about it in the past. Now it seems that he has forgotten all that. In the next few days I hope to re-read Jean-Marie Tillard's rather dense book about this, entitled "Church of Churches", and try to figure out how on earth the latest development fits into things theologically, if indeed it does.

I also want to think through what kind of provision we ought be making for them. For example, many of those who have been baptised in other Churches go through RCIA with us, not because we are going to re-baptise them but because it is good for them to take time to acquire our Catholic ethos, and because we may need to "top up" their experience and doctrinal knowledge (or even begin with them from scratch). Will the same be true? Or will the Apostolic Constitution provide a fast track? How is all this going to work? There has been mention of seminarians training alongside each other, but what about those who have been to an Anglican theological college, a very different beast from a Catholic seminary? Will they need a form of recyclage? If not, why not? What about parishes that migrate en masse? And who cannot afford to maintain their church buildings?

My fear is that the pope, as with Summorum Pontificum, has not consulted enough, or widely enough, or indeed even at all, or that he has been extremely badly advised, or that he has ignored the advice he has been given (as he did with SP), and that this initiative is a most charitable gesture that will end up creating more and greater problems than those it was intended to solve.

It seems fairly obvious that we will become a Church with not just two forms, Ordinary and Extra-ordinary, but three, the third being the "Anglican use" or whatever it is called in the end. This appears to be something of a departure from tradition, in the sense that a branch that split off is returning, rather than a branch growing out of the root; and I'm mildly surprised that the traditionalists are not up in arms, saying that this sort of thing has never been part of the organic Roman Rite! Perhaps some of them are ─ I do not frequent their blogs a great deal.

There is of course a huge number of other practical problems, and those blogs and bloggers that I have visited are almost wetting themselves getting into all the scenarios that it seems clear Rome could never have envisaged.

I think that large dollops of prayer, patience and forebearance are going to be needed in the future.

[NorthernTenor]

The Book of Divine worship is far closer to the liturgy we know than the Eastern Rites.

http://www.atonementonline.com/orderofmass/Rite1.html I leave it to readers' judgements as to the origins of the elements of this amalgam.

For info, this isn't one of the parishes still using elements of 1662. Our Lady of Walsingham in Houston and St Athanasius in Boston, however, still do, to name but two.

You may wish to begin with some understanding of the facts of the matter, SC. None of the Pastoral Provision parishes in the USA derive any of their liturgy from the English Book of Common Prayer of 1662 (please see my previous post on this matter). All three of the parishes you refer to celebrate the liturgies approved for the Pastoral Provision congregations by Rome and the US Bishops: those given in the Book of Divine Worship.

[Southern Comfort]

I fear that those who claim to know what parishes are celebrating have not, as I have, not only consulted their websites but, rather more pertinently, consulted members of their church staff, especially if some of those members of staff happen to be acquaintances. The two parishes I mentioned both state that they celebrate Evensong according to the 1662 Prayer Book. They are not alone. We are wasting valuable bandwidth debating such minutiae.

[NorthernTenor]

All in all, this initiative has the potential for being win-win for all parties. The Church of England will no longer have a significant minority of Anglo-Catholics getting in the way of its more liberal schemes. The Anglo-Catholics who take up the Church's offer will no longer feel a beleaguered minority. The Church will have an influx of well-educated, devout and orthodox Catholics. And English-speaking liberal Catholics will have the option of joining an Ecclesial Community that looks set to become something more to their theological taste than the Church. What's to dislike?

I guess the main exception to this argument will be the Anglican Evangelicals, who will no longer be able to rely to the same degree on support from the Anglo-Catholics in their battles with the dominant Liberal party. I guess that's why Archbishop Carey has been more vocally critical than his successor. The Evangelicals may well develop their own solution, but that's a matter for a Church of England discussion board.

[NorthernTenor]

I fear that those who claim to know what parishes are celebrating have not, as I have, not only consulted their websites but, rather more pertinently, consulted members of their church staff, especially if some of those members of staff happen to be acquaintances. The two parishes I mentioned both state that they celebrate Evensong according to the 1662 Prayer Book. They are not alone. We are wasting valuable bandwidth debating such minutiae.

SC, as a convert, I can assure you that my knowledge of such matters is not confined to the internet. Moreover, the basic facts of the matter are never something to be lightly brushed aside. That way lies the kind of confusion seen in the response to your initial erroneous assertion. Finally, your attempts to ddamnn* the initiative of the Holy Father (and of his predecessor) without a basic knowledge of the history and culture of the matter don't lend weight to your arguments.


* Mis-spelling required to get around the Board's automated correctness guardian.

[presbyter]

I think we've got to keep a global perspective on this and not get bogged down in speculation about, for example, the possibility of sharing churches with homeless Catholic Anglicans who find they have no property. Those podcasts mention visits that have taken place to Rome over many years from various groups of Anglo-Catholics from around the world - and are there not groups of Anglo Catholics who have already declared themselves out of communion with Anglicanism and are ecclesiologically homeless? Rome's initiative must surely seem a way for homecoming for them.

Furthermore - though there may be the possibility of more convert clergy through this initiative, that is no guarantee they will bring their faithful with them... listen especially to the Episcopalian Bishop of Fort Worth podcast .....

[presbyter]

My gut reaction is that those who join us because they do not want women priests, let alone women bishops, are deluding themselves.

Perhaps a bit harsh, I think, for the argument put forward concerns authority and it is presented without any hint of misogyny. I'm not hearing from the Anglo-Catholics that women, of their nature, are incapable of receiving the sacrament of Holy Orders - only that the C of E on its own (as a provincial synod of the universal church) does not possess the divine faculty to say that they are.

[Southern Comfort]

My gut reaction is that those who join us because they do not want women priests, let alone women bishops, are deluding themselves.

Perhaps a bit harsh, I think, for the argument put forward concerns authority and it is presented without any hint of misogyny. I'm not hearing from the Anglo-Catholics that women, of their nature, are incapable of receiving the sacrament of Holy Orders - only that the C of E on its own (as a provincial synod of the universal church) does not possess the divine faculty to say that they are.

Indeed, this is what they say, and it's what they said last time too, in the previous wave of defections. But the argument from authority is merely a theological smokescreen for the underlying reality. I've talked to a substantial number of Anglo-Catholics over the years, and if you dig hard enough this is what it often comes down to at base.

I'm not saying that this is the only motivation. For example, in the last wave, there were those who came across, were ordained, and then eventually returned to the Anglican fold, saying that this was, after all, where they felt at home. In one celebrated case in a neighbouring diocese, the man said, rather rapidly after ordination, that, now that he had received the true fullness of the priesthood [sic], he was off. Then there were those who, for their first solo Masses, searched out fiddleback vestments, birettas with pom-poms, and heaven-knows-what-else....

I think my point is that it is always possible to find a theological justification, but that it may not be what is really going on.

I do know of at least one bishop who asks prospective converts who have been Anglican clergy and who wish to become Catholic priests: "The next Pope may well approve the ordination of women as priests. Knowing this, are you sure you still want to join us?"

By the way, has anyone else here read Gary Macy's The Hidden History of Women's Ordination (Oxford University Press) ? It's a meticulously-researched book by a respected scholar, and it's quite clear that women were in fact ordained up to the Middle Ages. The question, of course, is how you define ordination; but his evidence is quite compelling, and he does deal with that question in a balanced and intelligent way.

[presbyter]

In one celebrated case in a neighbouring diocese, the man said, rather rapidly after ordination, that, now that he had received the true fullness of the priesthood [sic], he was off.

Thus losing the faculty to exercise it - oh my!