Unity with Liturgical Diversity

[Mithras]

It's far from implausible to suggest that a good number of them might wonder why they shouldn't. And it might be difficult to provide a good reason why they should not be allowed to.

Well for a start Paul, if they were to leave the Catholic Church, become Anglicans. get ordained, then re-enter the Catholic Church and get ordained again, it suggests that they had did not believe - at the time - their original Anglican ordination to be valid, so it would be somewhat dishonest, wouldn't it? Milking the system as it were.

M

[JW]

I have a concern that people reading this particular thread might question whether we would welcome the new Ordinariate to our Church. Not only that, but one could perceive a lack of unity among ourselves - but we are all Catholics and working together for the Kingdom at a time when, in England, hostility seems to be greater than for more than a century. We do need unity among ourselves, otherwise I suspect that unity with other traditions is a folorn hope.

Although we all have our points of view, we are commanded to be one and to love one another as a mark of our discipleship. Surely it is proper for us to publicly support Pope Benedict's initiative even if we do not privately agree with it? Personally, I am saddened by the amount of hostile letters (some from Anglo Catholics) in this week's Tablet; I am also saddened by the response from Archbishop Carey. In contrast, both the Archbishops' (Canterbury and Westminster) response has been admirable.

This new initiative to accommodate the history and culture of a group of Christians, together with the allowance of the Extra Ordinary Form, gives me hope that the Church may soon start to move back to greater accommodation of even more of the vastly differing histories and cultures within the Roman Rite. Perhaps we may look forward to even greater Liturgical Diversity? This is indeed an exciting time for the Church - but when isn't.

[Mithras]

I would hope that nobody here would not welcome anyone into the Church. I became a Catholic at 16, went to seminary, decided that the priesthood was not for me, and have happily and I hope reasonably successfully engaged in a music ministry for the last 30 or so years, 20 of them being in my current position. The concerns I pick up are the reasons for people entering the Church. The Tablet records a bishop saying to an Anglican priest who sought admission to the Church that if the only reason you are coming to us is women priests then I don't want you! Hard, possibly pastorally insensitive, but at the end of the day right.

Yet I find myself in two minds on the whole issue. There is an intellectual versus emotional tension at play here.

On the one hand I think that people should become incorporated into the Church for what it has to offer (or, bluntly, on its own terms) rather than what their church of origin does not have to offer.

But I became a Catholic because of music and the organ, not theology or religious conviction. I remember the circumstances well. I was about 13 or 14 at the time, and had just started organ lessons at school. I was on holiday with my parents and wanted to keep up my organ playing, The nearest church to where we were staying wes Catholic. I nervously knocked on the presbytery door and asked if I could play the organ. The priest was very welcoming to this little fellow with a spotty face and unkempt hair. It was during Lent, I realised later. I was playing one evening and the priest came up to the organ loft to tell me that a service was to begin an about 10 minutes and I was welcome to stay if I wished. I decided to stay. It was Stations of the Cross. There were many people there, young chaps in jeans, children, elderly folk, all behaving in what must have seemed to me then a most extraordinary manner. But I stayed. I wondered at it all. And some small ray of light was sent down to me that day I am sure. Over the next few months a read books - Don Camillo, for heaven's sake! and even a book I bought from a Scripture Union bookshop that told me all that was wrong with the Catholic Church.

But God seemed to open, if very slightly, a door that he would continue to hold open for the next couple of years until he welcomed me home.

The music started it all, the rest followed. May our Anglican (and indeed any other) friends find peace and joy should they choose to unite with us and, whatever their reasons, may we embrace them with love, as I was so embraced many years ago.


Mithras

[Southern Comfort]

I have a concern that people reading this particular thread might question whether we would welcome the new Ordinariate to our Church. Not only that, but one could perceive a lack of unity among ourselves - but we are all Catholics and working together for the Kingdom at a time when, in England, hostility seems to be greater than for more than a century. We do need unity among ourselves, otherwise I suspect that unity with other traditions is a folorn hope.

Although we all have our points of view, we are commanded to be one and to love one another as a mark of our discipleship. Surely it is proper for us to publicly support Pope Benedict's initiative even if we do not privately agree with it? Personally, I am saddened by the amount of hostile letters (some from Anglo Catholics) in this week's Tablet; I am also saddened by the response from Archbishop Carey. In contrast, both the Archbishops' (Canterbury and Westminster) response has been admirable.

This new initiative to accommodate the history and culture of a group of Christians, together with the allowance of the Extra Ordinary Form, gives me hope that the Church may soon start to move back to greater accommodation of even more of the vastly differing histories and cultures within the Roman Rite. Perhaps we may look forward to even greater Liturgical Diversity? This is indeed an exciting time for the Church - but when isn't.

I think there's a difference between diversity and divisiveness, and we need to acknowledge that. I don't think anyone here is in the business of being unwelcoming, but some of us would like to be realistic about the problems that BXVI's recent initiatives have thrown up and will continue to throw up. Pretending that these don't exist is no more than burying one's head in the sand. I'm reminded of Paul VI who, when told by the African bishops at Vatican II that clerical celibacy was a dead letter in their continent, simply refused to allow the topic even to be mentioned, let alone discussed. Sweeping things under the carpet these days just doesn't cut it.

Has it crossed anyone's mind that the pope might have been rather badly advised? Or that he had (it appears) refused to take the advice offered? In order to move ahead in unity, as JW urges, we need to know what we're dealing with and, more importantly, why.

If you want to see some really unwelcoming stuff, go to some of the blogs. The SSG forum, with one or two exceptions, is very civilised by comparison.

[contrabordun]

Well, yes, fair point. But the very milkability of the system makes the continuing insistence on a celibate clergy more difficult to sustain.

[johnquinn39]

If we are going to be allowed more liturgical diversity, would there be a case for making the 1998 missal available?

- Have there actually been any takers for the EF form?

[Southern Comfort]

The documents are up on the Vatican website this morning: http://212.77.1.245/news_services/bulletin/news/24626.php?index=24626&lang=en

They appear to be rather one-sided ─ i.e. from the Roman Church's point of view, with nothing about the Church of England. They also fail to take into account many of the questions and scenarios that have appeared on various blogs, and so resolve nothing much in the way of difficult questions, though some areas have received clarification.

For this thread's purposes, the following statement is of interest ─

III. Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.

─ and will no doubt be dissected in the days to come, both for what it says and for what it does not say. Let's just say that definitions are on the loose side.

[musicus]

From the Complementary Norms:

The Faithful of the Ordinariate

Article 5

§1. The lay faithful originally of the Anglican tradition who wish to belong to the Ordinariate, after having made their Profession of Faith and received the Sacraments of Initiation, with due regard for Canon 845, are to be entered in the apposite register of the Ordinariate. Those baptized previously as Catholics outside the Ordinariate are not ordinarily eligible for membership, unless they are members of a family belonging to the Ordinariate.

That final sentence addresses a point that some have raised, namely that existing Catholics might wish to join the Ordinariate.

[Southern Comfort]

One of the most extraordinary features is the apparent recognition of Anglican episcopal ordination, while Anglican priestly ordination presumably remains invalid. Hmmm.

[presbyter]

III. Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty..........

Am I reading this correctly? The ordinariate has bi-ritual faculties de jure ?

[Southern Comfort]

From the Complementary Norms:

The Faithful of the Ordinariate

Article 5

§1. The lay faithful originally of the Anglican tradition who wish to belong to the Ordinariate, after having made their Profession of Faith and received the Sacraments of Initiation, with due regard for Canon 845, are to be entered in the apposite register of the Ordinariate. Those baptized previously as Catholics outside the Ordinariate are not ordinarily eligible for membership, unless they are members of a family belonging to the Ordinariate.

That final sentence addresses a point that some have raised, namely that existing Catholics might wish to join the Ordinariate.

The issue would be that existing Catholics would not join the Ordinariate as such, but might well prefer to attend services there, since such services would presumably be valid expressions of Catholic liturgy, in the same way that Catholics who wish to can attend liturgies in the Extraordinary Form.

This is only one of the many implications of the new ecclesial stance that don't appear to have been thought through in any coherent way.

[Southern Comfort]

III. Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty..........

Am I reading this correctly? The ordinariate has bi-ritual faculties de jure ?

I don't think so. The whole sentence needs to be taken as a whole to understand what it is saying: that the significant number of Anglo-Catholics who already celebrate according to the Roman Rite will be able to continue to do so. At present, they use the current translation of the Roman Missal, and so will presumably be able to continue to do that too.

I read the entire sentence as saying, effectively, whatever you're currently using ─ Book of Common Prayer / Common Worship / even the Roman Missal, you can carry on using it. Hence my previous post about where some people might prefer to go when the revised texts come in. In practice, we will have a multiplicity of forms or uses within our communion, with much wider choice than now.

[presbyter]

I read the entire sentence as saying, effectively, whatever you're currently using ─ Book of Common Prayer / Common Worship / even the Roman Missal, you can carry on using it.

How far do we go with this? For example, the Use of Sarum (in Latin) has never been abrogated - I think.

[presbyter]

§4. Priests incardinated into an Ordinariate, who constitute the presbyterate of the Ordinariate, are also to cultivate bonds of unity with the presbyterate of the Diocese in which they exercise their ministry. They should promote common pastoral and charitable initiatives and activities, which can be the object of agreements between the Ordinary and the local Diocesan Bishop.

And what's this really saying? Are we looking at a status similar to Religious Orders presently working in a diocese, who have their own Ordinary?

[festivaltrumpet]

III. Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.

Contrary to other posters who appear to interpret this to mean that all current texts are valid. I interpret it to mean that communities within the Ordinariate will be restricted to those liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition which have been approved by the Holy See. I take this interpretation largely because it is exactly the text of the document. One presumes that Rome will be approving such texts in the near future, and ahead of the formation of the ordinariate in practical terms.

The issue would be that existing Catholics would not join the Ordinariate as such, but might well prefer to attend services there, since such services would presumably be valid expressions of Catholic liturgy, in the same way that Catholics who wish to can attend liturgies in the Extraordinary Form.

The Extraordinary Form is a very very poor analogy here as it is part of the Roman Rite. A better example would be an Eastern Church in communion with Rome. A Roman can attend such liturgies, but remains Roman.

At present, they use the current translation of the Roman Missal, and so will presumably be able to continue to do that too.

One would imagine that Anglicans using the current translation do so because it is the text used in the Roman Church currently. For that very reason, one would imagine those Anglicans would wish to use the new Roman texts in common with the Roman Church. We do not yet know which texts will "have been approved by the Holy See", the current ICEL texts may not be on the list.