Dr. William Tighe (known to me as Bill, as I am known to him as Bob) is Associate Professor of History at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, Pennsylvania, and a faculty advisor to the Catholic Campus Ministry. He is a Member of St. Josaphat Ukrainian Catholic Church in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. Like me, he is a contributing editor for Touchstone. His articles are well-known, above all his Calculating Christmas, which boldly puts forth the thesis that the dating of the Feast of the Nativity is not of Pagan origin, and that in fact the Christian feast on that date appears to have come first. For over ten years he has been, also, my friend. Indeed, a generous friend, often buying me books and having them delivered to me, good books worth reading. Part of that generosity includes one element in which he is, and always has been, quite sincere; he sees it as a sacred duty to help Anglicans swim the Tiber, to come "home to Rome" and the Communion of "the Successor of St. Peter."
No doubt, he has sent me excellent reading material because he expects me to find in it reasons for taking the plunge. In fact, my reading of books that have come my way, due to his generosity, probably has popped up to haunt him, because the evidence I see in them only strengthens my commitment to classic Anglicanism, and strengthens my apologetic for the same. His idea has been that Anglicans like me have many true and good beliefs (most obviously rejection of women's ordination), and that we need only to add to our convictions the true understanding of the papacy to be complete-sort of like the old expression that Jews need to become completed. His effort to help me become a Roman Catholic, or a Byzantine Catholic like himself, have been one of the features of our friendship. For a man who possesses such convictions, it is only reasonable and honest. But, how honest is it for self-proclaimed Anglicans to adopt his arguments as their own?
What does it mean, then, when he becomes a contributor to the Orlando Florida based blog that calls itself The Anglo-Catholic? Aside from the obvious damage its low standards of erudition and public expression could inflict on his reputation (and that I say quite seriously) it says nothing about Dr. Tighe. He is not an Anglican. He was raised Roman Catholic, and despite a brief flirtation with Anglicanism in the early 1970s, he has been only a Roman Catholic and Byzantine Catholic. As I have said, I am not at all critical of a man with his convictions making some effort to convert Anglicans to (and this is not a pejorative) Papist beliefs. Certainly, Dr. William Tighe is no Anglo-Catholic, yet he is one of The Anglo-Catholic bloggers now. What, then, does it tell us about the real intention of that blog? How do we diagnose them if they choose to call Dr. Tighe one of their own?
First of all, it confirms the criticism I have made concerning their choice of a name. They are not Anglo-Catholics, and their writing proves it. Anglo-Catholics, seeing that camp as taking its strongest shape with the Oxford Movement, were willing to express hope in some possible future reunion with Rome, yes. But, the greatest thinkers of the Anglo-Catholic movement never meant for that possible reunion to take place strictly on the conditions that the See of Rome would impose; rather they saw the possibility as the end of a process that had not yet begun, but that would include theological discussion in which Rome would undergo at least some amount of reformation and recovery of the Consensus of Antiquity. In this way, they merely picked up an idea so old that it was Richard Hooker himself who first proposed it. And, despite the attempts of the "Anglican (?)" Use Society to paint some of the later Anglo-Catholics giants as "wannabe" Roman Catholics, which we have addressed, Anglo-Catholics never accepted the current Vatican I position on the papacy. (Though Dr. Tighe himself has mentioned certain remarks made about the See of Rome by E.L. Mascall and Dom Gregory Dix that were positive, neither man accepted the Roman belief about the papacy; both wrote critical rejections of it, and neither man swam the Tiber.)
But, the bloggers down there in Orlando openly advocate full acceptance of all the Papal claims, and total submission. We suggest that The Anglo-Catholic blog reconsider the deceptive nature of their misnomer. We suggest they use an appropriate name that reflects the position they advocate openly, such as that suggested by Fr. Laurence Wells: The Former Anglican. In time, they might consider, The Roman Catholic, which even now would be a more honest and accurate name than what they choose to go by. These suggestions are quite reasonable, and should not be dismissed as insults; nor are they intended as such. Rather, we ask them to stop creating confusion by using a false label, a brand to which they have no true claim.
Second, it shows incoherence. Dr. William Tighe knows better than to agree with their view of Anglicanorum Coetibus. No doubt, he champions it; but, he is unable to say the same things about its meaning that they say in Orlando, and he knows perfectly well that the promises made by Archbishop Hepworth are, at best, overly optimistic. For example, Dr. Tighe has said many times over the years, that whatever it is that the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) hopes for, they will never be allowed to have married bishops if they come under the See of Rome. Also, he has made arguments (at least in email forums) for why it is that Rome has never permitted an Anglican "uniate" church to be formed, and why the idea is impossible. On these scores he has been right all along. His accurate diagnosis of that, however, contradicts the propaganda that his new blogging colleagues have been putting forth. They have been laboring to convince everybody that the new constitution will give them full "uniate" status with married clergy from among their own ranks, henceforth even forever, and preserve certain unique "treasures of Anglicanism" that neither they nor the writers of Anglicanorum Coetibus (with all its Norms) have, as yet, been able to identify. And, their assertions, if one knows Roman Canon Law, or bothers to take the writers of the new "Apostolic Constitution" at their word, are not based on any Roman offer and contradict the offer that has been made.
Related to this, Andrew Brown uncovered recently some correspondence between Bishop Andrew Burnham (Diocese of Ebbsfleet, Church of England) and Australian Roman Catholic Bishop Peter Elliot, mentioning "Archbishop Hepworth ('clearly a charming man … but not everything he says … synchronises fully with what we know from other sources')." The revelations we gather from these messages, that have fallen into Brown's hands, are useful. But, Brown himself needs to pay more attention to Bishop Burnham's caveat about Archbishop Hepworth. For, swallowing whole the propaganda that the TAC leader has been spouting, Brown writes: "Anglicanorum Coetibus is the pope's plan to allow disaffected Anglicans to convert as a group, and to keep their own bishops." Finding that hard to stomach, I posted the following comment:
"Interesting that Andrew Brown wrote: 'Anglicanorum Coetibus is the pope's plan to allow disaffected Anglicans to convert as a group, and to keep their own bishops.' Nothing in the constitution offers any such thing, and in fact makes their bishops into laymen who may or may not be accepted as postulants to the diaconate. 'Disaffected Anglicans' is also a most curious phrase for TAC people-isn't that who the Affirmation of St. Louis was written for? Disaffected, among Continuing Anglicans, by what?"
Erastian religion?
My own disagreements with Dr. Tighe always have been part of our friendship, even when over a Beer and lunch on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, or dinner at his home in Pennsylvania years ago. His view of Anglicanism is that it is entirely, first to last, a Protestant church. In a sense, we agree on that; Anglicanism is Protestant. What we do not agree on is what that means about Anglicanism being, at the same time, fully Catholic in every genuine and charismatic (χάρισμα) way. He believes that the English crown subjugated the Church of England so completely that it became simply an arm of the State, an Erastian religion. I believe that the King of Spain subjugated the Church of Rome to the same extent that Henry VIII managed in England; Spain maintained dominance over the papacy into Elizabeth's time, if only by threat of assassination, having demonstrated earlier its power by jailing a pope to show who was boss (a machismo "show-off" flexing of the muscles). The Church of England was certainly tied to the State in the 16th century, no less when Mary Tudor was Queen than when Elizabeth Tudor was Queen. In the struggle between Elizabeth I of England and Phillip of Spain, we see the one "act of God" most undeniably visible when the armada sunk, bringing to mind the words, "even the winds and sea obey Him." (Matt. 8:27)
Frankly, all the churches in Europe were State churches, and the mixture of politics and religion had been a source of corruption since after the reign of Constantine, certainly since the reign of Theodosius I (11 January 347 – 17 January 395), his grandson. The political realities of the time in which the Tudor monarchs reigned, as with any time, presented challenges particular to that era for the bishops whose responsibility it was to teach and care for the souls of the people. That they found a way to make the best use of the circumstances is to their credit, no matter how much the glory may rub off on the State to whatever degree it is or is not deserved, or no matter how much politics cannot help but stain the Church if only by reputation. What I have been writing here, for four years now, defends and even praises the English Reformers and Anglican Divines for their accomplishment as theologians, teachers and pastors. The legacy they left us is an authentic expression of the true catholic religion of the ancient bishops and doctors.
Whatever the motives of a tyrant named Henry, the English Reformation that flourished under Elizabeth, and that continued to develop in the generations that followed, restored true Catholic Faith to England, and eventually allowed it to prosper in other lands. The fruit of those English teachers lives even now among us. And, if the relations of Church and State are to be considered, it was no Erastian religion that gave the Church of England its power over the throne in 1936. For not the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, but the King of England, had to abdicate when the constitutional crisis of marriage to a divorced woman, with no grounds for annulment, placed him outside of the Church's communion.
No, the Professor and I will never agree about Anglicanism.
And his presence among the Orlando bloggers only adds to the transparency of their purpose. Their purpose is to convert Anglicans into Roman Catholics. For Dr. Tighe, that purpose is honest and honorable; for the rest of the crew, it is neither honest nor honorable, at least until they stop calling their blog and themselves by a misnomer.
No doubt, he has sent me excellent reading material because he expects me to find in it reasons for taking the plunge. In fact, my reading of books that have come my way, due to his generosity, probably has popped up to haunt him, because the evidence I see in them only strengthens my commitment to classic Anglicanism, and strengthens my apologetic for the same. His idea has been that Anglicans like me have many true and good beliefs (most obviously rejection of women's ordination), and that we need only to add to our convictions the true understanding of the papacy to be complete-sort of like the old expression that Jews need to become completed. His effort to help me become a Roman Catholic, or a Byzantine Catholic like himself, have been one of the features of our friendship. For a man who possesses such convictions, it is only reasonable and honest. But, how honest is it for self-proclaimed Anglicans to adopt his arguments as their own?
What does it mean, then, when he becomes a contributor to the Orlando Florida based blog that calls itself The Anglo-Catholic? Aside from the obvious damage its low standards of erudition and public expression could inflict on his reputation (and that I say quite seriously) it says nothing about Dr. Tighe. He is not an Anglican. He was raised Roman Catholic, and despite a brief flirtation with Anglicanism in the early 1970s, he has been only a Roman Catholic and Byzantine Catholic. As I have said, I am not at all critical of a man with his convictions making some effort to convert Anglicans to (and this is not a pejorative) Papist beliefs. Certainly, Dr. William Tighe is no Anglo-Catholic, yet he is one of The Anglo-Catholic bloggers now. What, then, does it tell us about the real intention of that blog? How do we diagnose them if they choose to call Dr. Tighe one of their own?
First of all, it confirms the criticism I have made concerning their choice of a name. They are not Anglo-Catholics, and their writing proves it. Anglo-Catholics, seeing that camp as taking its strongest shape with the Oxford Movement, were willing to express hope in some possible future reunion with Rome, yes. But, the greatest thinkers of the Anglo-Catholic movement never meant for that possible reunion to take place strictly on the conditions that the See of Rome would impose; rather they saw the possibility as the end of a process that had not yet begun, but that would include theological discussion in which Rome would undergo at least some amount of reformation and recovery of the Consensus of Antiquity. In this way, they merely picked up an idea so old that it was Richard Hooker himself who first proposed it. And, despite the attempts of the "Anglican (?)" Use Society to paint some of the later Anglo-Catholics giants as "wannabe" Roman Catholics, which we have addressed, Anglo-Catholics never accepted the current Vatican I position on the papacy. (Though Dr. Tighe himself has mentioned certain remarks made about the See of Rome by E.L. Mascall and Dom Gregory Dix that were positive, neither man accepted the Roman belief about the papacy; both wrote critical rejections of it, and neither man swam the Tiber.)
But, the bloggers down there in Orlando openly advocate full acceptance of all the Papal claims, and total submission. We suggest that The Anglo-Catholic blog reconsider the deceptive nature of their misnomer. We suggest they use an appropriate name that reflects the position they advocate openly, such as that suggested by Fr. Laurence Wells: The Former Anglican. In time, they might consider, The Roman Catholic, which even now would be a more honest and accurate name than what they choose to go by. These suggestions are quite reasonable, and should not be dismissed as insults; nor are they intended as such. Rather, we ask them to stop creating confusion by using a false label, a brand to which they have no true claim.
Second, it shows incoherence. Dr. William Tighe knows better than to agree with their view of Anglicanorum Coetibus. No doubt, he champions it; but, he is unable to say the same things about its meaning that they say in Orlando, and he knows perfectly well that the promises made by Archbishop Hepworth are, at best, overly optimistic. For example, Dr. Tighe has said many times over the years, that whatever it is that the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) hopes for, they will never be allowed to have married bishops if they come under the See of Rome. Also, he has made arguments (at least in email forums) for why it is that Rome has never permitted an Anglican "uniate" church to be formed, and why the idea is impossible. On these scores he has been right all along. His accurate diagnosis of that, however, contradicts the propaganda that his new blogging colleagues have been putting forth. They have been laboring to convince everybody that the new constitution will give them full "uniate" status with married clergy from among their own ranks, henceforth even forever, and preserve certain unique "treasures of Anglicanism" that neither they nor the writers of Anglicanorum Coetibus (with all its Norms) have, as yet, been able to identify. And, their assertions, if one knows Roman Canon Law, or bothers to take the writers of the new "Apostolic Constitution" at their word, are not based on any Roman offer and contradict the offer that has been made.
Related to this, Andrew Brown uncovered recently some correspondence between Bishop Andrew Burnham (Diocese of Ebbsfleet, Church of England) and Australian Roman Catholic Bishop Peter Elliot, mentioning "Archbishop Hepworth ('clearly a charming man … but not everything he says … synchronises fully with what we know from other sources')." The revelations we gather from these messages, that have fallen into Brown's hands, are useful. But, Brown himself needs to pay more attention to Bishop Burnham's caveat about Archbishop Hepworth. For, swallowing whole the propaganda that the TAC leader has been spouting, Brown writes: "Anglicanorum Coetibus is the pope's plan to allow disaffected Anglicans to convert as a group, and to keep their own bishops." Finding that hard to stomach, I posted the following comment:
"Interesting that Andrew Brown wrote: 'Anglicanorum Coetibus is the pope's plan to allow disaffected Anglicans to convert as a group, and to keep their own bishops.' Nothing in the constitution offers any such thing, and in fact makes their bishops into laymen who may or may not be accepted as postulants to the diaconate. 'Disaffected Anglicans' is also a most curious phrase for TAC people-isn't that who the Affirmation of St. Louis was written for? Disaffected, among Continuing Anglicans, by what?"
Erastian religion?
My own disagreements with Dr. Tighe always have been part of our friendship, even when over a Beer and lunch on the Eastern Shore of Maryland, or dinner at his home in Pennsylvania years ago. His view of Anglicanism is that it is entirely, first to last, a Protestant church. In a sense, we agree on that; Anglicanism is Protestant. What we do not agree on is what that means about Anglicanism being, at the same time, fully Catholic in every genuine and charismatic (χάρισμα) way. He believes that the English crown subjugated the Church of England so completely that it became simply an arm of the State, an Erastian religion. I believe that the King of Spain subjugated the Church of Rome to the same extent that Henry VIII managed in England; Spain maintained dominance over the papacy into Elizabeth's time, if only by threat of assassination, having demonstrated earlier its power by jailing a pope to show who was boss (a machismo "show-off" flexing of the muscles). The Church of England was certainly tied to the State in the 16th century, no less when Mary Tudor was Queen than when Elizabeth Tudor was Queen. In the struggle between Elizabeth I of England and Phillip of Spain, we see the one "act of God" most undeniably visible when the armada sunk, bringing to mind the words, "even the winds and sea obey Him." (Matt. 8:27)
Frankly, all the churches in Europe were State churches, and the mixture of politics and religion had been a source of corruption since after the reign of Constantine, certainly since the reign of Theodosius I (11 January 347 – 17 January 395), his grandson. The political realities of the time in which the Tudor monarchs reigned, as with any time, presented challenges particular to that era for the bishops whose responsibility it was to teach and care for the souls of the people. That they found a way to make the best use of the circumstances is to their credit, no matter how much the glory may rub off on the State to whatever degree it is or is not deserved, or no matter how much politics cannot help but stain the Church if only by reputation. What I have been writing here, for four years now, defends and even praises the English Reformers and Anglican Divines for their accomplishment as theologians, teachers and pastors. The legacy they left us is an authentic expression of the true catholic religion of the ancient bishops and doctors.
Whatever the motives of a tyrant named Henry, the English Reformation that flourished under Elizabeth, and that continued to develop in the generations that followed, restored true Catholic Faith to England, and eventually allowed it to prosper in other lands. The fruit of those English teachers lives even now among us. And, if the relations of Church and State are to be considered, it was no Erastian religion that gave the Church of England its power over the throne in 1936. For not the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, but the King of England, had to abdicate when the constitutional crisis of marriage to a divorced woman, with no grounds for annulment, placed him outside of the Church's communion.
No, the Professor and I will never agree about Anglicanism.
And his presence among the Orlando bloggers only adds to the transparency of their purpose. Their purpose is to convert Anglicans into Roman Catholics. For Dr. Tighe, that purpose is honest and honorable; for the rest of the crew, it is neither honest nor honorable, at least until they stop calling their blog and themselves by a misnomer.
62 comments:
Dr Tighe might (and here I surprise myself with a fit of optimism) even raise the level of scholarship and intelligence on the Former Anglican.
I would be an interesting exercise to trace the evolution of that blog. It began by predicting a grand march of many thousands of Anglicans--the entire TAC en masse, at least 400,000 strong, filling up Vatican Square with banners waving and music resounding (Ralph Vaughan Williams, perhaps).
In recent days, it has been confessed that the Ordinariates (only one for the entire USA) will be small, like J.H.Newman's Oratory. Reality continues to set in, as we read,
"How do we migrate our existing legal structures, property, trusts, &c. into the new personal ordinariates? How will we maintain the bonds of communion with — and honor our commitments to — those who remain behind or have yet to make the transition?"
Yes, how do we persuade those crusty Vestrymen in tiny parishes to sign over their real estate to the Roman Catholic Church? And how do we persuade the parishes which say "No way" to continue sending their tithes to Orlando?
The whole affair might turn out to be quite embarrassing, even to that good bishop Benedict XVI.
LKW
Anonymous said...
Dr Tighe might (and here I surprise myself with a fit of optimism) even raise the level of scholarship and intelligence on the Former Anglican.
This is the sort of comment that brings disrepute to 'The Continuum Blog'. It is shocking to think that Christian folk behave in this manner. I thought that this blog was respected, but when you attack other good Christian folk in this manner there is no hope.
By the way, property is not being surrendered to Rome, it will be as it has been, and yes we are Anglo Catholics, and will remain so, though unified with the Holy See, whilst still being able to care for those who remain in the TAC, until their time comes. My heart is Anglican, my mind is Anglican, combined I am Catholic ready to return to Rome as an Anglican Catholic having been assured of this by the Holy Father.
May this blog get back on track and continue to reach out in Christian Love and Prayer.
Arthur
Arthur:
The Anglo-Catholic, so-called, does not generally present a good example of erudition. We may as well say so.
By the way, property is not being surrendered to Rome, it will be as it has been...
Not only will the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church require all real property to revert to the control of the Diocese, but, as we said before, they will have the power to sell it off, and in some cases may have to because of law suits concerning the sexual abuse of children. You can argue that with the highly reputable Canon Lawyer, Fr. Charles Nalls, until you are blue in the face. But, if you must place your bet, I suggest you have better odds with a professional, Fr. Nalls, and his advice, than with the assurances of Mr. Campbell. By all means, place your money on whichever chip you think best. The same to all reading this who have put money into parish property in the TAC/ACA.
...and yes we are Anglo Catholics, and will remain so, though unified with the Holy See...
So, you can throw off objective definitions. By your method, I have decided to define myself as young, handsome, athletic-not the fat old man I see in the mirror with the bald spot. We may simply imagine the reality we like, without letting objective facts get in the way. Enjoy your fantasy while it lasts.
I am Catholic ready to return to Rome as an Anglican Catholic having been assured of this by the Holy Father.
Having been assured of what? It seems you have not read Anglicanorum Coetibus after all. It says nothing of the sort.
Have a fun vacation from reality.
Arthur wrote:
"I am Catholic ready to return to Rome..."
Arthur, why did you leave to start with?
Friend, read that AC carefully. Go on You Tube and see the videos about the National Conference of Catholic Bishops being up to their eyebrows in Democratic party politics. See the photos of Georgia Roman Catholic Bishop Boland marching proudly with gay and lesbian Episcopal "priests", priestesses, and "bishops" just a few weeks back at the "consecration" of "Bishop" Benhase, the new Episcopal bishop of Georgia. If you join up, you'll be marching with him soon. Is that what you really want?
From the Roman perspective:
Father Hart wrote:
“Have a fun vacation from reality”
My life experience tells me that the papacy is a shield and a lifeline, when God allows certain types of severe trial to enter our lives.
I know what atheistic regimes can do to Christians and their loved ones. I assure you, Father Hart, that those Christians who were not united with the papacy, were the first ones to be savaged and neutralized by this evil. They were easily “delaminated” and scattered.
Only a united Christian front, with the strong leadership of the Vicar of Christ, could offer the antidote of hope against these assaults. It is against this front that this evil broke some of its teeth.
Please do not begrudge those Christians who sense the lion prowling about the desire to be united with the pope. Their need for this unity is certainly validated by the reality experienced by those who saw the lion face to face.
Here's a question for those think of accepting the terms of the AC.
How is it possible for a man to be both a candidate for holy orders in the Roman Catholic Church and an Anglican priest at the same time?
Once your parish is brought into the Roman Church under this agreement your priests will immediately cease to function as priests. You will be served by Roman Catholic priests who have been specially trained in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, and the Anglican Use. If your priest can satisfy all the requirements to be accepted as a candidate for holy orders, then you might see him again in a year or so if everything goes smoothly.
Ask about this to your own sources, they will confirm it, or lie to you.
Here's a reality test. Ask Mr. Campbell about this and see what he says. Let us know, then I will direct you to the Roman Catholic Website that explains this in great detail. I believe this is a little know site, but I will wait to print its URL until we hear back from you.
Arthur, you can't "return" to Rome. You have not even been there yet.
Arthur wrote: “By the way, property is not being surrendered to Rome, it will be as it has been...”
To all you ecclesial Ostrages out there in fantasy land; here is an excellent example, do some research and find out what happen to the “Anglican Use” Parish in Las Vegas. Well, I’ll spare you the research; it was closed by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Las Vegas, then The Most Rev. Daniel Walsh.
Nailed (honestly, a letter laminated and nailed to the Church door on “Official Stationary with Bishop Seal) was, as I recall, a one paragraph letter stating that the Diocese had closed the Parish and that all those who had previously attended were to get their spiritual needs at the local Roman Rite Parishes. A year or so later the property which had oiginally been bought and paid for by devout hardworking Traditional Anglican who “crossed the Tiber,” was sold by the owner, The Roman Catholic Bishop - Diocese of Las Vegas., END OF STORY!
Arthur: You should be grateful that Anglican Continuum allows comments like yours and opinions like that of "Former Anglican" to appear here. The blog for which you are speaking tolerates no dissent whatever from its party line.
Funny that you take umbrage at my suggestion that Dr Tighe will raise the level of intelligence of the Orlando Voice. Do the managers of that blog fancy themselves to be Dr Tighe's mental equals?
Dr Tighe always raises the level of intelligence to any discussion he joins, even the AC. I regret the necessity of pointing this out to you.
LKW
It is truly sad that Arthur is shocked by Fr.Wells' comments. This blog must continue to try to help those misguided people who do not understand the implications of accepting Rome's offer of the A.C. If Fr.Wells' comments shock Arthur I shudder to think of what will happen to the poor fellow once he's submitted to Rome.
Not only will the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church require all real property to revert to the control of the Diocese
This is absolutely untrue.
As I have noted before, the Ordinariates will not simply be governed by existing Canon Law. Logically, since the Ordinariate is a new canonical entity (as the Personal Prelature and Apostolic Administration were before it), unaccounted for under the 1983 Code, it must be governed according to what are called particular norms established by the Holy See in consultation with the CDF and those "groups of Anglicans" affected.
Art. III of Anglicanorum Coetibus clearly indicates that the Ordinariates are governed by (1) universal (canon) law, (2) Anglicanorum Coetibus itself, (3) the Complementary Norms, and (4) "other specific Norms given for each Ordinariate." Number (4) comes under the head of particular law; and note that particular law may differ from one Ordinariate to another in the same way that it differs from one "society of apostolic life" to another. For example, the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter and the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest, while similar in terms of mission, are governed (in part) according to norms specific to each.
Secondly, please note that Art I §3 states: "Each Ordinariate possesses public juridic personality by the law itself (ipso iure); it is juridically comparable to a diocese." In canonical terms, a public juridic person is subject to the Ordinary (i.e., the "competent authority"); and, under the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution -- i.e., particular law -- the Ordinariates themselves are further subject directly to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Art. II). They are not subject to either the local bishop or an episcopal conference.
(Cont'd)
According to Can. 1276 §1 of the '83 Code, "It is for the ordinary to exercise careful vigilance over the administration of all the goods which belong to public juridic persons subject to him, without prejudice to legitimate titles which attribute more significant rights to him. §2. With due regard for rights, legitimate customs, and circumstances, ordinaries are to take care of the ordering of the entire matter of the administration of ecclesiastical goods by issuing special instructions within the limits of universal and particular law." (My emphases.) Thus, even under existing canon law, you will find no support whatsoever for this oft-repeated threat that the Ordinariates will have to surrender their property to the local Roman Catholic diocese.
It only stands to reason that Pope Benedict envisions the Ordinariates working closely with local dioceses in terms of preaching the Gospel, administering the Sacraments, reaching out to the poor, training clergy, and so forth. (Cf. Art. 3 of the Complementary Norms; also Art. 9 §2.) It is for this reason that each Ordinary is to belong to the episcopal conference which governs the territory in which his Ordinariate resides, and for this reason he should consult with the local bishop when establishing personal parishes, etc. The Ordinariates are not supposed to be Potemkin Villages cut off from the pastoral life of the rest of the Roman Catholic Church. However, there is nothing in either Anglicanorum Coetibus or in the Complementary Norms to suggest that the Ordinariates will be subject to the whim of this or that bishop or episcopal conference, over the juridic authority proper to the Ordinary; and I would ask that this allegation be either proven or otherwise cease to be made with such indifference to the facts.
Joe
Mark VA
My life experience tells me that the papacy is a shield and a lifeline, when God allows certain types of severe trial to enter our lives.
I find God to be a shield. You seem to think RCs have a monopoly on Divine protection.
I know what atheistic regimes can do to Christians and their loved ones. I assure you, Father Hart, that those Christians who were not united with the papacy, were the first ones to be savaged and neutralized by this evil. They were easily “delaminated” and scattered.
What you said is simply not true. The RCs in lands of persecution are not the only ones to pull through. In severe persecution they have suffered and do suffer with their fellow Christians, and when smoke has cleared, many various Christian churches have emerged victorious. Your analysis has no basis in fact.
The 1983 Code means, by Ordinary, the diocesan bishop.
The term ordinary is not limited to a diocesan bishop, my friend. It includes abbots, vicars general, and so forth.
The definition has not changed. No adjustment is necessary.
You have it backwards.
"Without prejudice" does not mean "never in favor of," but rather, "objectively." You would like to empty the first half of that canon of all meaning, but I don't think you succeed.
And yes, I also would like to hear Fr. Nalls' take on this: i.e., whether property once belonging to the members of an Ordinariate defaults to the local RC diocese. Someone kindly ring his house. It's only 12:48 AM in DC.
Joe
Joe Oliveri wrote:
Art. III of Anglicanorum Coetibus clearly indicates that the Ordinariates are governed by (1) universal (canon) law, (2) Anglicanorum Coetibus itself, (3) the Complementary Norms, and (4) "other specific Norms given for each Ordinariate." Number (4) comes under the head of particular law; and note that particular law may differ from one Ordinariate to another in the same way that it differs from one "society of apostolic life" to another.
1&2. Universal Canon Law puts the diocese in control of property. Anglicanorum Coetibus places the new converts in each local diocese, not in a separate "rite."
3&4. The Norms for each ordinariate are likely to be one for each diocese, not for groups of former Anglicans formerly united among themselves.
Secondly, please note that Art I §3 states: "Each Ordinariate possesses public juridic personality by the law itself (ipso iure); it is juridically comparable to a diocese." In canonical terms, a public juridic person is subject to the Ordinary (i.e., the "competent authority"); and, under the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution -- i.e., particular law -- the Ordinariates themselves are further subject directly to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Art. II). They are not subject to either the local bishop or an episcopal conference.
When the Canon was written the Ordinary, of whom it spoke, was for diocesan matters the local bishop. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of an ordinariate ordinary is spelled out, having to do with matters that extend to Pastoral Provisions, and not to matters not specifically enumerated and described. They do not and cannot, under the constitution, replace the bishop in normal affairs, and that includes property.
According to Can. 1276 §1 of the '83 Code, "It is for the ordinary to exercise careful vigilance over the administration of all the goods which belong to public juridic persons subject to him, without prejudice to legitimate titles which attribute more significant rights to him.
The 1983 Code means, by Ordinary, the diocesan bishop for such affairs as we are discussing. You may note the year, 1983, with no Anglicanorum Coetibus in sight.
And, if it were adjusted to apply to the new Ordinaries of the ordinariates, then "without prejudice to legitimate titles which attribute more significant rights to him" means the opposite of what you say. Without prejudice means without prejudice in favor of the former Anglicans in disposition of titles and goods.
You have it backwards.
I would like to hear what Fr. Nalls has to say about it.
Joe Oliveri wrote:
The term ordinary is not limited to a diocesan bishop, my friend. It includes abbots, vicars general, and so forth.
It includes the diocesan bishop too,and in diocesan matters, such as property, especially.
"Without prejudice" does not mean "never in favor of," but rather, "objectively." You would like to empty the first half of that canon of all meaning, but I don't think you succeed.
"Objectively" then, no protection is guaranteed.
And yes, I also would like to hear Fr. Nalls' take on this: i.e., whether property once belonging to the members of an Ordinariate defaults to the local RC diocese. Someone kindly ring his house. It's only 12:48 AM in DC.
Does this qualify as an emergency, or may we wait till he comments?
From the Roman perspective:
Father Hart wrote:
“I find God to be a shield. You seem to think RCs have a monopoly on Divine protection.”, and
“Your analysis has no basis in fact”.
Christ set up the papacy for several reasons, among others as a shield intended for all Christians. It’s not a monopoly He granted to a few, but a valuable tool for all of His followers. However, some choose, or have inherited a choice, not to be under this protection.
Regarding the experience of those Christians who suffered under atheistic regimes of the twentieth century:
It is not only a question of having “pulled thru” with one's faith intact. It’s also a question of being able to stand up to the lion on his own ground, and win. Only a united, “un-delaminated” Christian front, with the leadership of a vigorous papacy, has shown the ability to do this.
I admire those Christians who were outside this shield, but did pull thru this nightmare. Yet, the reality of their situation was, that the regimes persecuting them knew the preexisting structural weaknesses of their Churches from the beginning.
Joe Oleveri wrote:
"Thus, even under existing canon law, you will find no support whatsoever for this oft-repeated threat that the Ordinariates will have to surrender their property to the local Roman Catholic diocese."
So whoever the ordinary is will control the property. The above means the property will be owned by the Ordinariate, not the parish. And there will be only one Ordinariate in the U.S., true, or no? Who will be that ordinary?
But you will be served by "specially trained" Roman priests, while your own former Anglican priest gets reeducated and gets his mind right. If he makes it through the screening process you might see him again in a year or so.
Where will he be reeducated? By whom? I have been a student in A Roman Catholic School of theology. You have no idea what you are getting yourself into. But I have given it a name, "THE BELLY OF THE BEAST."
You're going for a ride my friend.
This from the web page of "Our Lady of Atonement Catholic Church" (Anglican Use) in Texas:
"A NEW DEACON"
"Deacon Jeff Moore, ordained on Saturday, October 17th, is pictured here with his wife Ellie, and children Emily, Lilly and Jack. Deacon Moore entered the Pastoral Provision process when he resigned as an Episcopal priest nearly four years ago, and his ordination as a Catholic priest should take place sometime after the new year." (poster's note: that 2010) so maybe you will see your priest again in about five years.
Former Anglican: How long will our old priest be gone from us?
Ordinary: (And remember, at this stage the ordinary could not possibly be a former TAC/ACA priest or bishop)
Oh,... about....four....ever!
Joe Oliveri (who, like the inimitable Arthur, should be grateful for the hospitality of this blog toward those of his mindset) is quite positive that Fr Hart is entirely wrong about what the RC bishops will require in the way of real property ownership.
Perhaps Mr Oliveri can show us some legal evidence that "formerly Anglican" parishes will be guaranteed ownership and control of their buildings. While Anglicanorum Coetibus and its attrached documents make vague promises of some kind of continuing "Anglican Patrimony," these documents are utterly silent on the matter of real property.
So I can only wonder what Mr Oliveri is basing his statements on.
The potential Tiber-swimmers (who are still in the process of selecting their bathing trunks and still not yet damp) are in the habit of making loud and definite claims about how things will be in their new home. Yet the authorities on the other side are silent as the Sphinx. If I heard the President of the US Catholic Bishops Conference pontificating in the manner of Mr Oliveri, I might be more impressed.
LKW
Mark VA wrote:
Only a united, “un-delaminated” Christian front, with the leadership of a vigorous papacy, has shown the ability to do this.
In Touchstone we have had the Suffering Church page for many years. Your analysis is not based on fact, and really makes no sense whatsoever. It is one of those legends, like the dogmatic assertion that Joan of Arc could not possibly have been raped by her torturers.
Christ set up the papacy for several reasons, among others as a shield intended for all Christians. It’s not a monopoly He granted to a few, but a valuable tool for all of His followers. However, some choose, or have inherited a choice, not to be under this protection.
Really? Tell that to the many people who suffered sexual abuse from the RC clergy who already were known to be predators, but had been shielded and reassigned. When I was made aware of an Episcopal priest who was as bad as any, his liberal, heretic bishop made no such effort, but cooperated fully with the authorities. Where is this papal protection of which you speak, in terms of practical real life?
Fr. John makes a valid point that the first Ordinariates will not have (former) TAC bishops or priests as Ordinaries. This is, I believe, perfectly true; but it has little or nothing to do with the point in hand. My objection was to Fr. Hart's allegation that the Ordinariates will have to surrender their property to the local RC diocese. Perhaps Fr. John means to suggest that, because the first Ordinariates will be governed by RC clerics, those clerics will -- not may, but will -- simply turn over Ordinariate property to the diocese? I suppose that is a possibility if we are to always assume the worst of those wicked Romans. Who here is prepared to admit that he is that much of a bigot? Is Ian Paisley lurking in these comment boxes?
Joe Oliveri (who, like the inimitable Arthur, should be grateful for the hospitality of this blog toward those of his mindset)
I am grateful, and Fr. Hart knows I am from private correspondence. But if all statements in defense of Rome were suddenly banned from this blog, I'd get over it.
So I can only wonder what Mr Oliveri is basing his statements on.
I've provided clear evidence of what I am basing my statements on: namely, existing canon law, Anglicanorum Coetibus itself and the Complementary Norms. I've documented my claims. When those critiquing the Apostolic Constitution must resort to reading tea leaves in the "real" purport of its Latin title, and prophesying the worst in every ambiguous article, I admit it is strange to find them challenging my own position as lacking substance.
Joe
The property question ought to be a non-issue. If a man is willing to accept the claims of Rome then he ought to be able to freely accept any arrangement relative to the property of his parish. While there may be some room for interpretation of the AC and canon law where property is concerned it is clear that the property will belong to either the ordinariate or the diocese and not finally to the local congregation. If a man cannot accept such an arrangement he ought not to consider the AC. To hold out property as the deciding factor in whether one accepts the AC or not is the very height of nihilism. If you are an Anglican and have come to believe the claims of Rome then by all means embrace the AC and gladly accept whatever arrangements might be made for your property.
Mark Newsome
The Russian Orthodox Church's New Martyrs are the surest testament that the faithful do not need the papacy to survive the onslaught of the Dragon.
But I am happy to have the pope's help.
Joe Oliveri wrote:
I've documented my claims. When those critiquing the Apostolic Constitution must resort to reading tea leaves in the "real" purport of its Latin title, and prophesying the worst in every ambiguous article, I admit it is strange to find them challenging my own position as lacking substance.
Your documentation is capable of more than one interpretation, which means there is no guarantee of anything you hope for. The normal state, regarding application of Universal Canon Law in the RCC, weighs heavily in favor of the worst possibility regarding real property.
While there may be some room for interpretation of the AC and canon law where property is concerned it is clear that the property will belong to either the ordinariate or the diocese and not finally to the local congregation...If you are an Anglican and have come to believe the claims of Rome then by all means embrace the AC and gladly accept whatever arrangements might be made for your property.
That is true. Whereas some are promising that they will have their cake and eat it too, a person with real conviction about the claims of Rome will accept anything they say, needing no special promises. This gets us back to Fr. Nall's objection that the TAC sales approach is designed to create "cafeteria Catholics" at best.
Mark VA, et al,
Psalm 146:2
Nathan
'sunsta'
Joe O.,
My point is also that under your interpretation of the A.C., and its norms (still waiting for an opinion from Canon Nalls)the parish property will pass to the control of the ordinariate, and thus to whomever the ordinary might be.
This is a big change for Continuum parishes. Each parish owns and controls its own property.
You should be aware that what holds jurisdictions like the Anglican Catholic Church together are the oaths sworn by the clergy, the shared theological and historical perspectives, and a connection to the past, a continuity of people, places, ideas and shared experience, the common struggle of the early years to establish, maintain, and grow parishes from scratch.
When people had to leave property and building behind to escape the heretical Episcopal Church, they vowed, never again.
Now we can say, we will stay with you as long as you espouse and maintain orthodoxy, but if you turn heretic we are splitting and taking our assets with us.
I see way too many heretical bishops and priests in the American version of the Roman Catholic Church. I am not betting that the American RC Church will be able to remain orthodox.
Are you willing to bet your parish church building and property that 30 or less years from now the same crowd that has taken over the Episcopal Church won't have also gained control of the American RC Church? With the help and connivance of left wing state and federal courts they will take your buildings and property away from you, just as is happening now with dioceses and parishes trying to leave the Episcopal Church.
To those soon to be former Anglicans in Georgia, good luck working with the likes of Georgia Roman Bishop Boland.
And 146:3
As well as the concern over creating a new population of cafeteria Roman Catholics, were I a Roman Catholic I would want to hear some discussion of the general catholicity of the AC. As I read the documents, the AC seems to create an international quasi-diocese with the bishop of Rome as the bishop ordinary and the ordinaries as bishops suffragan. Here in North Carolina how is the Roman Catholic Bishop of Raleigh or of Charlotte - both known to be decent, relatively conservative, men - supposed to take to having someone come in and set up parishes outside of his control within the territorial bounds of his diocese. Is such an arrangement catholic? Maybe, if the people of the quasi-diocese play well with others. If instead they come in with a mantra of "we answer directly to the pope and will do as we please" problems of catholicity seem evident.
-Mark Newsome
From the Roman perspective:
Father Hart:
To reiterate, the issue is not the ability of individual Christians to survive the attacks of atheistic regimes. Many of those who were united, and not united, with the pope, finished that race with distinction.
The issue is one of ecclesiastical organization and solidarity, and the resulting ability to collectively confront and defeat such evils. Not every ecclesiastical structure proved itself capable of providing a refuge from these assaults. Plus, any such structural deficiencies were known and ruthlessly exploited to their logical conclusions.
I assume you know the kind of trials Christians experienced under those regimes. Do you really believe that a divided, faction ridden Christianity, can be an effective shield in those circumstances?
Father John and Nathan:
Thank you for reminding me not to put my trust in princes. Unlike you, I do not view any pope as a prince. Unlike you, I view the papacy as one of the tools our Lord chose to make. I thank my Lord for providing the papacy for those Christians who can accept it.
We disagree on this issue – let’s leave it at that.
Mark Newsome is absolutely right in his observation that the property question should be a non-issue. I have pursued it only to point out the snake-oil which Joe O. is dispensing. I will accept his "documentation" when the Pope and all American RCC bishops sign the Affirmation of St Louis, initialing the pararaphs relevant to church real estate.
But it is a non-issue. The real issue is not real estate law but the doctrine of salvation. Hooker's grand question hangeth yet between us. That is far more urgent than the matter of property.
LKW
To be clear, I believe that Joe Oliveri is telling us what he believes in all honesty. I think, however, he is mistaken. The snake oil is snake oil, but he has not been the one brewing it.
Mark Newsome wrote:
...the AC seems to create an international quasi-diocese with the bishop of Rome as the bishop ordinary and the ordinaries as bishops suffragan.
It certainly highlights this feature of Roman Catholicism. But, it is not new. In fact, to an extent, that is what Roman Catholicism, with any emphasis on the "Roman" part, is all about.
Mark VA wrote:
I assume you know the kind of trials Christians experienced under those regimes. Do you really believe that a divided, faction ridden Christianity, can be an effective shield in those circumstances?
What regimes are you talking about? Communism? Nazism? Islamist? Anyway, I don't know what you mean by "effective shield." Every Christian must be prepared for martyrdom, and that preparation is the work of the Holy Spirit. So is the survival and growth of the Church. And, frankly, when some regimes have vanished away, it is has been apparent that various churches, indeed various kinds of churches, have remained intact.
We have ACC churches in the Sudan and the Congo.
And, not to drive this too hard, my question about how practical your theory of papal protection has proved to be in real life, in face of the scandals I have mentioned, remains unanswered.
Mark Va wrote:
"I assume you know the kind of trials Christians experienced under those regimes. Do you really believe that a divided, faction ridden Christianity, can be an effective shield in those circumstances?"
Yes, about as much of a shield as the papacy was to Muslim occupied Spain.
From the Roman perspective:
Father Hart wrote:
"What regimes are you talking about?"
and
"Anyway, I don't know what you mean by "effective shield.""
I'm speaking of the various types of communism.
As for the second question, it has to do with the types of assaults on the human spirit.
Lastly, since you insist that the sexual abuse scandal be brought into this discussion. Do you think that enough charity for the papacy has been shown on this blog, to discuss this issue safely?
Tell that to the many people who suffered sexual abuse from the RC clergy who already were known to be predators, but had been shielded and reassigned. When I was made aware of an Episcopal priest who was as bad as any, his liberal, heretic bishop made no such effort, but cooperated fully with the authorities. Where is this papal protection of which you speak, in terms of practical real life?
In one of my few defenses of the Pope, such information reached him via the AP and Reuters rather than the proper channels. The sex abuse scandal sits squarely in the laps of the local bishops, who used "collegiality" as an excuse for not responding in truth to papal inquiries.
Even in the 2006 seminary visits, the "papal" visitors were selected from a list compiled by locals; lists stacked with priests who were 'known quantities'--that is, who would report that it wasn't so bad or wide spread as the news made it seem.
For those of us in seminary at the time, we were herded in to be interviewed, and we were afraid of being kicked out of the seminary for telling the truth (i.e. pointing out the deviants) because we believed the interviewer was in on it. Many were kicked out for being honest/dumb enough to say, "I think Fr. X and Student-Z have an odd relationship that should be looked into."
My particular rector had a 'protege' at another seminary, and this priest --surprise surprise!-- happened to be one of the visitors. What are the chances that he helped to weed out the raging homosexuals who prey on teenagers? He was one!
I don't blame the Pope for this, I blame the ones who had the task delegated to them. In our case, the US bishops.
Afterward, I started attending an Episcopalian parish and was shocked to see that they had higher standards of sexual moral that the RCC. I guess their homosexual clergy have standards--like sodomizing someone their own age. Sheesh!
Maybe I've just put my finger on why I cannot seem to shake the lingering despair I've felt since 2005-2006.
I see no evidence that the papacy gave protection to people under Communism. The underground Church in Russia was Orthodox. In the 80s Pope John-Paul II helped Poland by speaking to a large existing movement with the backing, at the same time, of President Ronald Reagan. I belive both men were a gift from God to the whole eastern block-equally, in terms of the political realities.
Lastly, since you insist that the sexual abuse scandal be brought into this discussion. Do you think that enough charity for the papacy has been shown on this blog, to discuss this issue safely?
The papacy is an idea, and I have no charity for ideas good or bad. Out of charity, I would like to see real protection for the innocent and helpless. The thick layers of bureacracy in the RC system protected only the wolves. We wait to see improvement in the form of prevention.
My question remains, and I am going to put it in stronger terms: How can you speak of the papacy as God's gift of protection with a straight face? Right now there are many former Christians, some atheists and agnostics, and other bruised people, who know all too well just how effective that protection wasn't. All of this is more relevant with the choice of Cardinal Levada as the appointed spokesman in this current matter.
If you think I enjoy bringing this up, you are very, very mistaken.
RC Cola:
I wouldn't blame the pope then, or the pope now (except for choosing Cardinal Levavda for his present duty). The idea of the papacy as God's protection for everybody, however, needs to be weighed honestly agains this tragic reality (and others). The best possible pope in the best possible world affords no such protection. Clericalism needs to be cleansed out of the RC system.
Clericalism needs to be cleansed out of the RC system.
Ain't that the truth!
But this is the door to an entirely different topic worth discussing on the Continuum.
From the Roman perspective:
Father Hart wrote:
"I see no evidence that the papacy gave protection to people under Communism."
The question then becomes, what is known to you regarding the realities of daily life Christians experienced under communism? How well do you understand the various methods their oppressors used against them? Do you know the kind of defenses, spiritual, emotional, or intellectual, believers in God had to rely on not only to survive these assaults, but to help exhaust and defeat this evil?
Such understanding is a prerequisite to any discussion that is not circular, but actually leads somewhere.
RC Cola:
Thank you.
Mark VA:
The papacy had no influence in Russia, and was never a threat to any cynical military dictatorship. The pope does not have any nuclear missiles nor solders nor battle ships.
Just for what it is worth, the Pastoral Provision parishes and their respective Ordinaries, are at this time working on the plan to move property from local dioceses to the Ordinariates as soon as they are errected. There is no speculation about this necessary, it is underway. My own Bishop - a notable canonist - is involved as are the two Archbishops of Texas.
The idea that the property of the parishes, including that which is presently held by dioceses for the pastoral provision parishes, must be vested in the goegraphic Ordinary is nonsense and to insist so is ignorant of any of the facts.
This thread was originally concerned with our friend (I sincerely mean that) Dr Bill Tighe. He has now contributed an essay to the blog which I like to call "Voice of Disney-world." Since my comments there are automatically rejected, I will comment here.
Dr Tighe gives us much information concerning the separation of England and England's Church from the Bishop of Rome.
Here is his conclusion:
"To effect the kind of “reformation” that a few desired for religious reasons and that many more desired for political reasons, the Church had to be bludgeoned into submission by forcible methods wielded by secular authorities, extending so far as making opponents (even those who spoke against Henry VIII’s “Supreme Headship”) guilty of treason."
We are told that Henry VIII and other founders of what we call Anglicanism were villains of the darkest hue, there was absolutely nothing good or praiseworthy in the whole affair, that the Church of England was possessed by a thing more wicked than all the devils of hell, a thing known as
P R O T E S T A N T I S M.
I am sure Dr Tighe has his facts marshalled and far be it from me to challenge a single one of them. He maintains a discreet silence, on the other hand, about the goings on in Rome and Spain during the same period. Presumably the Holy Catholic Church in those places continued in pristine purity. If it was otherwise, Dr Tighe has failed to inform us of any "flecks of sandstone in the marble of the Parthenon" in places where the Pope was duly honored.
But I am left wondering. If Anglicanism has such despicable origins from such reprehensible men as Henry VIII and Thomas Cranmer, it must be polluted to an irreedemable degree. We have the Highest Possible Authority for saying that a rotten tree cannot bring forth good fruit.
So what is this precious Anglican patrimony which the generous Pope Bendict XVI is so eager to welcome into the One True Church? Why not require that all Anglican converts be exorcised?
If Dr Tighe is even partly correct, then there is no "Patrimony" worth preserving, but rather a horrible spiritual virus (the P word again) to be rooted out, suppressed, utterly destroyed.
If I accepted Dr Tighe's analysis of Anglicanism for one instant, I would not be waiting around for some "Ordinariate" to surface at some unspecified time. I would run breathlessly to the Roman Rectory door up the street, beat on the door loudly until Fr O'Flaherty received me on the spot into the One True Church, burn every Anglican book in my library, and never admit to a living soul that I had ever been guilty of the detestable heresy deriving from Henry VIII and Thomas Cranmer. Patrimony, my foot!
LKW
Truly anonymous Anonymous opineth:
"The idea that the property of the parishes, including that which is presently held by dioceses for the pastoral provision parishes, must be vested in the goegraphic Ordinary is nonsense and to insist so is ignorant of any of the facts."
I do not recall anyone suggesting any such thing. What several people, myself included, have apointed out is that there appears to be little or no prospect of a "personal parish" in an Ordinariate or whatever continuing to hold title to its property, as guaranteed by the Affirmation of St Louis and all Continuing Church canons that I know of. The official Roman documents are silent on the matter, but we can safely point out that parishes as independent legal corporations, owning property out of reach from higher authorities, are not within Rome's conceptual framework. If you want your real estate to become subject to either diocese of Ordinariate, go for it!
LKW
Anonymous wrote:
"The idea that the property of the parishes, including that which is presently held by dioceses for the pastoral provision parishes, must be vested in the goegraphic Ordinary is nonsense and to insist so is ignorant of any of the facts."
Unknown friend,
The jury is remains out on this, but even if what you write is true, it still means that the parish property is being transferred to the Ordinariate. Are you even in the Continuum? This is a sea change from direct ownership of the parish property by the parish corporation.
Remember, only one Ordinariate for the entire U.S., we don't have any idea who that ordinary will be. Go ahead, transfer the ownership of your property to this yet to be named ordinary. Ten, twenty, or even fewer years from now when the American RC left has the whip hand, it will be too late to get away clean.
I am not betting my church building on the American RC Church being able to wrest control away from the left wingers who currently control the USCCB.
None of you wannabe, or current Roman Catholics have said a word about what Roman Catholic Bishop Boland did a few weeks back when he stood, and marched, in solidarity with Katherine Jefferts-Schori and the new gay marriage blessing Episcopal Bishop of Gerogia Benhase. And what is your reaction to the gay dominated RC seminaries?
The American RC Church is hungering and thirsting to go down the same road as the Episcopal Church. You know its true, that's why none of you dare to try and defend Bishop Boland's actions.
Don't be foolish.
Yeah, Henry VIII was a wicked man, but he treated the Pope with much more reverence and respect than the Holy Roman Emperor Karl V did.
While Henry was trying to obtain a canonically legal annulment from the Pope, Katherine of Aragon's nephew, Karl V was holding the Pope as a prisoner of war!
How about a denunciation of that good Catholic (not Roman yet, got to wait until Trent to get that name) Karl V?
Henry petitions for a legal annulment, Karl arrests the Pope and menaces him into inactivity on Henry's behalf. It should be clear where the greater evil is.
From the Roman perspective:
Father Hart wrote that the papacy "... was never a threat to any cynical military dictatorship."
Father Hart, I'm still trying to understand your statement, thinking that somehow I've misread it. The papacy was never a threat to the communists??
I wonder if any of your fellow Continuing Anglicans that blog here are willing to agree with you on this.
Mark VA
Threat in what way? Pope John-Paul II was effective in Poland by backing Solidarity. Nonetheless, he had no influence inside of Russia, or China, and really not even inside of Cuba. The North Koreans also have never trembled in their boots because of the papacy.
You are making an extraordinary claim with no reality to it outside of the historical events in Poland.
Fr. Wells wrote:
I do not recall anyone suggesting any such thing [i.e., "that the property of the parishes, including that which is presently held by dioceses for the pastoral provision parishes, must be vested in the geographic Ordinary"].
But in fact, this claim would seem to be implicit in Fr. Hart's statement, above: "[RC canon law] require[s] all real property to revert to the control of the Diocese." It is also implicit in your description of the supposed dilemma faced by the U.S. Ordinariate(s): "[H]ow do we persuade those crusty Vestrymen in tiny parishes to sign over their real estate to the Roman Catholic Church? And how do we persuade the parishes which say 'No way' to continue sending their tithes to Orlando?"
Fr. John remarks that legal title of property formerly belonging to TAC parishes will be transferred to the Ordinariate[s]. I am inclined to think he is correct (although we may both be wrong). "This is," he cautions, "a sea change from direct ownership of the parish property by the parish corporation."
It is indeed. But I would argue that administration of Church goods by an Ordinary is more proper than administration by parish (civil) corporation. Was the latter arrangement known in the Undivided Church? Was it endorsed by the lights of the English Reformation?
Hooker himself addressed the very problem of prelates -- sometimes unworthy of their office -- owning and administering goods donated to, or set aside for the Church. His first point was that the Church's wealth belongs properly to God. "Possessions, lands and livings spiritual, the wealth of the clergy, the goods of the Church, are in such sort the Lord's own, that man can challenge no propriety in them" (Book VII, Ch. xxii, 1). Further on, he observes: "Persons ecclesiastical are God's stewards, not only for that he hath set them over his family, as the ministers of ghostly food, but even for this very cause also, that they are to receive and dispose his temporal revenues, the gifts and oblations which men bring him" (Book VII, Ch. xxiii, 1).
No one denies that a Roman Catholic Bishop (or Ordinary) may suppress a parish and sell off the property. This is only supposed to happen with "just cause" -- e.g., a large church used by a small and dwindling community. It is true, and tragic, that in some cases over the past few years -- particularly in Boston -- the "just cause" rule appeared to have gone by the wayside. However, in many other cases, also in recent years, bishops have taken closed parishes and given ownership and administration over to religious institutes. This was the case, for example, with Saint-Zephirin de Stadacona in Quebec, now a parish of the Fraternity of St. Peter; and St. Francis de Sales, the sometime "Cathedral of South St. Louis,” which in 2005 became an Oratory of the Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest. It is not unreasonable, then, to hope that the Ordinariates may be the recipients of similar donations one day.
At all events, a Roman Catholic bishop cannot "grab" property from an Ordinariate. As I've already remarked, each Ordinariate is a juridic person (cf. AC I, §3) under canon law, answerable directly to the Holy See; it is "juridically comparable to a diocese" (ibid.). As such, its property is administered by its proper Ordinary -- not by the local RC Bishop, nor by the episcopal conference. (Cf. Can. 1276 §1.)
Joe
Joe:
Fr. Wells has pointed out that the Ordinary of the Ordinariate, having whatever powers he will, provides no safer guarantee than a diocesan bishop. It is still out of the hands of those who use and pay for the property.
Fr. Nalls is about to address this with a clear answer to all the relevant questions. Compared to his expertise, our opinions in this matter of Canon Law are not worth much.
From the Roman perspective:
Father Hart:
It would be interesting to know what you think were the motives behind the attempt on Pope John Paul II life?
Or why the dictatorship in China maintains a "patriotic catholic church", while the real Catholic Church is persecuted?
Joe O. wrote:
"Hooker himself addressed the very problem of prelates -- sometimes unworthy of their office -- owning and administering goods donated to, or set aside for the Church. His first point was that the Church's wealth belongs properly to God. "Possessions, lands and livings spiritual, the wealth of the clergy, the goods of the Church, are in such sort the Lord's own, that man can challenge no propriety in them"
Joe, how right you (and Hooker) are, but Hooker was referring to an existing ecclesiastical polity and people already subject to it. Hooker would have an entirely different take about taking property under one polity and removing it to one that is manifestly corrupt.
The lights of how you use Hooker, we should have stayed in the Episcopal Church.
Joe Oliveri opines:
"But I would argue that administration of Church goods by an Ordinary is more proper than administration by parish (civil) corporation."
I am quite sure you would indeed argue that, along with Katherine Jefforts-Schori, David Booth Beers, the writers of the Dennis Canon, and dozens of other heresiarchs who shamelessly devour buildings and property given by faithful Christians to advance the traditional Faith. Your line of argument takes church buildings and turns them into restaurants and antique stores.
You seem to feel that this view of Church real estate has some kind of patristic basis. You have now unwittingly conceded our argument--implicitly acknowledging that "personal parishes" will lose control of their earthly property. Watch it, Joe, you are tipping your hand.
LKW
Mark VA
We already know that the KGB was behind the assassination attempt. That's old news. Solidarity in Poland was the big threat, and he was one of the leaders. But, that was because Poland was traditionally a Roman Catholic country. No such influence existed in Russia.
In China, why did the government imprison and kill the Protestant missionary Nee To-Sheng (Watchman Nee)? He was not a papal emissary. Could it be that what they fear is Christianity, not simply Roman Catholicism? The Protestants have their martyrs too, in case you hadn't heard. In Russia, the Orthodox had their martyrs under Communism. In Romania, Richard Wurmbrandt was a Lutheran.
From the Roman perspective:
Father Hart, I find your arguments unresolved.
First you claim that the papacy was "... never a threat to any cynical military dictatorship", then you admit that "We already know that the KGB was behind the assassination attempt." on Pope John Paul II;
My point that this is also about ecclesiastical organization, solidarity, and the collective ability to conquer this evil, and not only about the ability of some individual Christians to survive the attacks of atheistic regimes, was not addressed.
Perhaps we'll have the opportunity to resolve some of these issues at some future time, as your blog allows.
Mark VA
Perhaps you can document the destruction of these non-papal churches, beginning with the Russian Orthodox Church. Is it still there?
Father Hart:
The Russian Orthodox Church took the brunt of this evil. It's truly a testament to the tenacity of faith of many Russians that the Russian Orthodox Church survived at all. I'll cite a few of the facts and statistics from just the early years of this plague:
In 1921 Lenin issued an order that all those who oppose the confiscation of Church property be show tried and executed, in "very large numbers". In just the first year under this "law", 16 Orthodox bishops and about 3000 Orthodox priests and religious were executed.
In the next few years of this "law", 130 Orthodox bishops, and over 45,000 Orthodox priests, religious, and laity were executed, using various, sometimes extremely cruel, methods.
On the RC side, from 1200 churches and 400 priests in 1919, only 2 churches and 2 priests remained in that entire country in 1942. The RC bishops and priests were show tried, executed (120 RC priests were executed), or deported.
This evil was to continue for over seventy years - its methods varied, but the goal always was to uproot God and religion from human, especially childrens', consciousness.
Father Hart, I don't harp on Church cohesiveness for any RC triumphalist reasons, or to score points for my side, but because I know that cohesiveness (solidarity) offers protection against such evils.
Perhaps we could all offer private prayers for the often unknown victims of communism, during this lenten season.
Mark VA:
Frankly, yes, it seems like empty triumphalist boasting. And, when I say Solidarity, I mean with a big "S"-the movement that became the dominant political party.
Of course, I am all for praying as you suggest.
And lest we forget, the Romanian Orthodox Church suffered right up to the end of the Warsaw Pact with Chacescu ordering ancient monasteries and churches demolished well into the 1980's.
Remember Cardinal Mindzentsy, and the Soviet repression in Hungary?
It was a scary and frightening time to live through.
Double Eagle to Red Flag, and back again.
It was during this period that Stalin, when told the Pope would be displeased at a particular Soviet action was reputed to have said, "The Pope, how many divisions does he have?"
Father John:
Yes, Cardinal Mindszenty, the events of 1956 - a heroic and tragic figure, in an evil time.
Caucescu, a study in tyranny and megalomania.
Stalin, and his red legions.
The mendacity of that evil system - it denied the existence of that, which it desired to posses.
The suggestion was made that Dr Tighe's presence on the 'former anglican' blog might raise the intellectual level. No way! When one multiplies and number by zero, one gets zero. 'Gegen der Dunnheit streifen die Goetter selbst vergebens!'
In all this, I have yet to see a coherent reason for the TAC/ACA to swim the Tiber---just downstream from the Cloaca Maxima. Do these people really know what they are getting into---and dragging their layfolk into?
Any casual review of the history and practice of the Roman Church, past and present should cause people to run screaming into the hills. History tells it like it is. The Magisterium is most unstable, really. Tolle lege.
For the past month, I have been carefully re-reading a set of Arthur Lowndes' magistral work, 'Vindication of Anglican Orders', on the Bull 'Apostolicae Curae', which was re-itereated just a couple of decades ago. If one reads carefully what Leo XIII had to say in this bull, one must, using leo's criteria, entertain the thought that Rome has not had valid orders and sacraments for ceturies, if such ever did
exist---by Leo's criteria, I say.
So, do these people even grasp what they're dealing with? They are throwing away a reasonable certainty of valid orders and sacraments for something that may be quite dubious---if one accepts Leo XIII's thesis of what constitutes valid orders. Now, some will say that the Bull of Leo XIII no longer represents the position of the Roman Church. This bull, I repeat, was re-iterated on a near infallible basis by the former prefect of the Holy Office, one Josef Alois Ratzinger during the reign of Papa Wojtyla himself. Rome is stuck with this shoddy piece of work and that's that. Whatever Rome ever said about Anglican Orders and Sacraments blew back and destroyed Roman claims of any kind. They should have known better than to fool with our great scholars back then.
Enough on this head. Tolle lege, fratres, tolle lege.
In +,
Benton
This bull, I repeat, was re-iterated on a near infallible basis by the former prefect of the Holy Office, one Josef Alois Ratzinger...
Actually, the point was to say that the Bull was not on the level of dogma and could be rescinded.
I can attest that the Former Anglican blog does not allow any dissent. They call you names and get really angry.
Post a Comment