Sunday, January 31, 2010

The ex- Anglican Mob

A necessary rebuttal to bad news, i.e. misleading journalism.

(Pictured: Archbishop John Hepworth of the "Traditional Anglican Communion")

Sometimes the news can be very misleading by quoting someone without comment., The news as reported becomes for many people "the truth," even when the report was merely covering what someone said. As long as Anglicanorum Coetibus is part of the news, and as long as its contents are the subject of misinformation that affects people's lives and may affect the future of whole parishes, it would be irresponsible to ignore it (much as we might like to) rather than to correct the record. The following specimen is fairly recent coverage of what someone said, and it cries out for balance.

Not riding the Coeti Bus

To begin with, the very name Anglicanorum Coetibus requires closer examination than anyone has yet applied to it. As, Fr. Laurence Wells recently put it: "To date no one has picked up on the meaning of the term coetibus. This is the ablative (maybe dative) plural of the 4th declension noun coetus, translated 'meeting, assemblage.' The Vatican authorities could not bring themselves to describe TAC/ACA as a 'church' or even as an 'ecclesial community' (the term popular after Vatican II). Just an assemblage, a mob." Therefore, translated, Anglicanorum Coetibus could be "The Anglican mob."

But, the image of the Latin phrase is not one of fellows in pin-striped suits with violin cases under their arms, headed for a Chicago garage. It is more the image of a crowd in the street. Furthermore, being in the ablative case, it means the mob is being carried away or moving away from something. So, it suggests a mob distancing itself from Anglicanism. Remember, it is the Vatican that named their unilateral constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, so the implications we derive have come from their choice of a title. The final implication is simply to make use of the phrase that is suggested throughout the body of the constitution, "former Anglicans." For, that too is a valid interpretation of the name Anglicanorum Coetibus, and appears to be the intended meaning: "Former Anglicans."

In what follows you will see in full a story from The Church Times, but with our helpful comments interspersed throughout, a method we have used before on The Continuum.


Ordinariate: the sceptics ‘are eating humble pie’

by Bill Browder

(Fr. Robert Hart) RH: Right here, at the headline, I am forced to refute what has been said. I am a sceptic myself, and I will not be eating humble pie at all; neither crow, nor the dish they are serving.

A MEETING of bishops who have petitioned the Pope to be received into full communion while retaining an “Anglican” identity is to take place in Rome in Low Week.

It would be the culmination of the response to Benedict XVI’s Apostolic Constitution (Anglicanorum Coeti­bus) to establish personal Ordinariates for former Anglicans, Archbishop John Hepworth of the Traditional Angli­can Communion (TAC), a Con­tinuing Church, said on Wednesday.


RH
: Please keep in mind that phrase "former Anglicans." It will prove very important as we proceed.


He was due in Rome in three weeks’ time for a meeting with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) after a series of regional TAC synods, and would then, two weeks after Easter, meet most of the bishops who had peti­tioned the Pope to make their formal response on the Ordinariates.

“The ball is in our court. We asked for this and this is what we got. This is becoming Anglican Catholics, not Roman Catholics,” Archbishop Hep­worth said, speaking from Australia.

(Rev. Canon John Hollister) JH: In current Roman jargon, “becoming Anglican Catholics, not Roman Catholics” is code for “becoming a church sui juris, i.e., a “uniate” body. Anglicanorum Coetibus makes it crystal clear that this is one thing that is not happening. Instead, it is expressly set out that the new “ordinariates” will be placed within the so-called “Latin Church” and thus, in Roman terminology, any transferee “former Anglicans” will most definitely be “Roman Catholics”, not “Anglican Catholics”.

RH: Only from a Roman Catholic perspective can Abp. Hepworth speak of Anglicans who adhere to the Affirmation of St. Louis as "becoming" Catholic in any sense of the word. I expect this from someone who knows only Roman Catholicism, but not from a man who claims in some way to be Anglican himself. It is, frankly, offensive. It indicates yet again that Abp. Hepworth cannot identify with the Anglican ethos, indeed, begging the question of whether he can even so much as understand it. I am an Anglican Catholic already, and I plan not to take part in the exodus.

The letters from the Vatican replying to all those who had res­ponded to the Pope’s offer had now been received. He had followed that with a pastoral letter to TAC members last week.

RH: Yes, a pastoral letter which seemed to have one purpose; to get around the clear meaning of the letters from the Vatican (which was one letter, really, copied and sent to each TAC bishop). That purpose was to present Rome's letter as an anticipated and welcome part of the the plan. In fact, that letter said to the TAC bishops, in effect, This constitution as written is all you get: No special deal. Take it or leave it.

“After an introduction about church unity, we talk about our original meeting with the CDF. They gave us advice and we followed it. A team of Roman Catholic bishops and scholars were helping us to reflect on unity. They provided a critique of the TAC, and we quote some of that back to them. The TAC wants to achieve communion while ‘main­taining those revered traditions of spirituality, liturgy, discipline and theo­logy that constitute the cherished and centuries-old heritage of Angli­can communities throughout the world’.

JH: Bear in mind that, so far as is demonstrated by the experience with “Book of Divine Worship” of the present “Anglican Use”, Rome’s idea of a permissible “Anglican liturgy,” is the 1979 BCP with the Novus Ordo Canons of Consecrations.

“So our way of doing theology is there, as is our way of discipline.

JH: Does he really think Richard Hooker will survive this transition?
RH: Or Andrewes, etc.?

Our group will have the right to elect our bishops.

JH: That’s not what the Apostolic Constitution said.

RH: In the context of the Roman Catholic Church, even if it were true, election of your own bishop may be granted theoretically; but, a RC bishop is not a bishop at all until the Pope appoints him. Even after consecration, he is not a bishop "until his name is read in the consistory in Rome." But, the text of Anglicanorum Coetibus makes it clear that the former Anglicans will be under the bishop of the local Roman Catholic Diocese, granting only that each local diocesan bishop has to allow for the structure of the ordinariate (which directly affects only the clergy who want to be postulants).

We asked the CDF (i.e. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome) for elec­tion by council. They laughed at us at first, but we got it. We are also working with a commission with Forward in Faith to produce our lit­urgy.

JH: Is this the same Forward in Faith, most UK members of which use the undiluted Novus Ordo Missae, which has about it nothing distinctively Anglican?

We signed the Catechism as ‘the most complete and authentic expres­sion and application of the Catholic faith in this moment of time’.

“We did that to put our commit­ment beyond dispute, but we did not have to agree to Apostolicae Curae [which declares Anglican orders ab­solutely null and utterly void], be­cause that is not in the Cate­chism.”

JH: But, as Benedict XVI previously stated (when he was Cardinal Ratzinger), it is something that all Roman Catholics are required to assent to and abide by.

RH: About Apostolicae Curae, the point is academic. True, that Papal Bull is not a statement of dogma, but only of discipline, but it is nonetheless required that the Roman Catholic faithful behave as if all Papal statements are infallible unless and until they are rescinded. In fact, they are required to believe it unless and until they are told not to (a kind of discipline that Anglicans have never regarded as consistent with Reason). It is a small matter if Rome will not require each clergyman in the TAC who rides the Coeti Bus (to the dock where he swims the Tiber), to make some public statement about his "absolutely null and utterly void" orders. If he is accepted as a postulant and eventually becomes "ordained" "again," on the basis of the RC position on Anglican orders as stated in 1896, his actions will have said all that needs saying.

The laity, by the way, will have to be "confirmed" "again." Has anyone told them this? Conditional ordination and conditional confirmation have, in some cases, very real justification, related to the compromise of Holy Orders in churches of the Anglican Communion, and also the willful removal in the 1979 American Confirmation Rite of the Form stating the Intention. But, the 1896 Bull provides no valid reason for ana-confirmation or ana-ordination, conditional or not (as the case may never again be).

A consultation was taking place on “reordination in the TAC con­text”. “We separated from the Angli­can Church. Some left because of sacramental and doctrinal issues, and have got lost. We chose to take up ARCIC [the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commis­sion], and we have got what we wanted. People who said we could not are having to eat humble pie, and I am sinfully enjoying that.”

RH: Really? Did they get what they wanted? They requested various things which they placed under the heading "full corporate communion." They have stated a desire for different things at different times, ranging from a "Uniat" status to "inter-communion." All of these things imply a specific identity as at least Anglican-ish, in some way. They requested a way to have their own structure and a degree of self-determination.

To that request, with its variations, Anglicanorum Coetibus is really an answer of "no," with a different offer in return. The ordinariates will protect the former Anglicans from their new bishops (a problem with Catholic order in and of itself) in the event that any bishop is not eager to play by the new rules, that is, never saying no to Pastoral Provisions and some sort of so-called Anglican Use. But, the Canon Law and specific statements of the Constitution and Norms do not give any assurance of self-determination for the former Anglicans, not even to remain sort of Anglican-ish.

Anyone familiar with the Pastoral Provisions knows that most cases take on average at least a couple of years. When the Coeti Bus arrives in Roman territory, away from the mob world of Anglicanism, only the existing Roman Catholic clergy will be available to give care to the new arrivals. The clergy among the former Anglican arrivals will be laymen, unable to act as priests. Archbishop Hepworth himself, would not be allowed to receive Communion unless and until his own marriage and annulment issues are settled (by Anglican standards they were settled long ago, but that is not enough for Rome); and he would be in the category of a Roman Catholic priest returning to "Mother Church" after converting to a Protestant ecclesial group, having married, meaning lifelong laitization (as clearly spelled out in the constitution, and in accordance with Canon Law as cited in the constitution).

Who knows if they might speed up The Pastoral Provisions process that is part of Anglicanorum Coetibus? Had the TAC been granted what they really asked for, the situation would have allowed the former Anglican clergy a fast track to recognition as clergy, and the authority to minister as such, in a venue of either "inter-communion" or of a recognized "Anglican Rite" like the Eastern Rites. But, as it is in fact written, under strictly RC authority, what is it, of anything remotely Anglican, that they think might endure for any length of time?

We cannot, therefore, accept Abp. Hepworth's claim that they got what they wanted. What they got was a firm "no," with a counter offer.

The Archbishop said that he was issuing TAC’s original 2007 petition to the CDF at the same time as his pastoral letter.

In his letter, he writes: “Re-ordination is an issue because the Church requires absolute certainty in the matter of future sacramental life. I have been told that the TAC should understand this because we ourselves moved beyond the Angli­can Communion in order to ensure the validity of sacramental life. Rome is now seeking the same assurance.”

JH: If Rome were (a) truly concerned about certainty in sacramental life, and (b) believed in what Leo XIII stated in Apostolicae curae, then Rome would be asking the TAC bishops to reordain the Roman ones, on the ground that 19th Century and later Roman ordinations fail the tests for validity set forth in that Bull.

RH: Actually, that Bull does, in effect, declare all orders everywhere to be invalid. The logic of it in light of true history would have canceled out valid orders from the very beginning, as Anglicans have pointed out since 1897 in Saepius Officio.

Now, the theory about absolute certainty in sacraments is quite right, a principle that all Anglicans should believe. But, judging the validity of sacraments by the standard of Rome's 1896 Bull is not acceptable to any Anglican. Sadly, self-contradictory as it is in certain ways, that 1896 Bull is still the law in the RCC. Anglicans should be content to allow the silliness, bad history and overall pathetic scholarship of Apostolicae Curae to remain strictly Rome's problem, as it is not our problem. If I were a Roman Catholic it would only embarrass me.

The Apostolic Constitution “speaks of Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church. There at the outset are the three critical factors: Anglicans, full com­munion and Catholic Church.”

JH: And the Apostolic Constitution deals with these as follows: (1) Former Anglicans must now become Roman Catholics. (2) Full communion means complete submission to all preexisting Roman doctrinal positions. (3) The Catholic Church is solely the Roman Church, as understood on Roman terms. One becomes a member of the Catholic Church only by complete submission to Roman ways.

RH: Abp. Hepworth's closing line is misleading. The same document that says "Anglicans" at the outset, afterward calls them "former Anglicans." He claims to have attained some victory, exhibiting an attitude of personal triumph over Roman Catholics and Continuing Anglicans who, by contradicting his commentary, properly interpret Anglicanorum Coetibus. And, once again he uses the term "Catholic Church" not as Anglicans have always used it, based on the Creeds; rather he means those under the authority of the See of Rome, using the term in a manner that has always been offensive to Anglicans. The terms of this Roman constitution are clear: Entering full communion with Rome means you are Anglican no longer. So what we see at the outset has the opposite meaning from what Abp. Hepworth sees in it.

67 comments:

Anonymous said...

With all the distorion, spinnings, and half-truths put forth by the TAC bishops, they have forgotten, apparently, the advantage of being consistent. Compare the gloaitng of Abp Hepworth with the the clergy letter of Bp Campese, dated 1.27.10:

"Let me assure you -- again -- that as soon as I have hard facts to share, I will pass these on to you. We are only in the initial steps of determining how Anglicanorum Coetibus might be implemented. I do not want any of you to feel that you are being forced to make any rash decisions. It is my intention to proceed in such a way as to preserve -- as best we can -- the unity of our diocese. While there may come a time for hard decisions, that time is not now. I will do my utmost to see that needless divisions are prevented and that as many of our people as possible are able to participate in whatever the future may hold for our diocese, the ACA, and our Traditional Anglican Communion. We have all worked and sacrificed together to advance the Great Commission. We are committed to Our Blessed Lord's command in John 17 -- ut omnes unum sint. But this remains a period of discernment. As this process continues to unfold, I beg you, in the Name of Almighty God, to be patient, waiting for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. And I ask your fervent prayers for your bishops."

This surely sounds like a bishop in terror of his diocese crumbling beneath his feet. What else could he mean by "rash decisions" and "needless divisions"? That does not sound like 400,000 Former Anglicans marching into Vatican Square with "Land of Hope and Glory" playing in the background.
LKW

Fr. Robert Hart said...

With all the distorion, spinnings, and half-truths put forth by the TAC bishops...

Let us give them the benefit of the doubt, that they actually believe their sales pitch. Of course, that does not say much for them as scholars or theologians.

George said...

I noticed you made a small mention about 1979 "prayer book" and confirmation's being valid. I am curious is the understanding in the Continuing Anglican church that confirmations performed under the 1979 prayer book maybe considered invalid? If you don't mind elaborating. THanks.

Anonymous said...

As one subject to all this I find absolutely no "assurance" in negotiating for clergy rights and where the furniture is going because at the end of the day this is about moving into Rome's house and becoming Roman not the long touted "Inter Communion".

Even if they believe what they say- that they will get a deal, and Rome will change it's canon for a few thousand people (thereby setting a precedent we all know they can't possibly do without causing chaos), they are still negotiating to be Roman Catholics!

If the lay people must be re-confirmed then it only goes without saying that those doing the confirming admit to being frauds masquerading as priests and there is no difference between the Orders of the ACA/TAC and women clergy in ECUSA.

signed,

Pie in the sky bye and bye!

Fr. Robert Hart said...

George:
See this link.

Mr. Pie in the sky:

No, I disagree. But, it does mean they are willing to submit to those who regard their sacraments as worthless.

Canon Tallis said...

This is so sad. I feel so sorry for those people, for all of them. But their bishops, priests and other leaders had been telling them for so many years that it was really Rome that was the authority, that was truly 'Catholic.' And now this.

It seems there is no possibility that any of them are going to wake up and smell the sulphur. Or realize that at bottom it is only a game of dress up or something close. "Put not your trust in princes nor in any child of man." I realize that there is nothing any of us can probably do at this moment but pray and hope that God, in His mercy, will open their eyes.

Don't any of those bishops have any real idea of what is going to happen to them when they actually fall into the hands of Rome?

"outeremp"

Anonymous said...

Perhaps I misstated:
-If lay people must be re-confirmed by the RCC then it only goes without saying that those Anglican clergy accepting (believing?) that their Orders are invalid and having done the confirming admit their sacraments are fraudulent and that they are masquerading as priests and there is no difference between the Orders of the ACA/TAC and women clergy in ECUSA since both groups are acting as clergy but in reality laity.

If intention is all important I do not see how I can look at this differently. If lay people need to be reconfirmed then those confirming cannot said to be validly ordained- right or wrong?

What is the official difference between Rome's view of Anglican Orders and the CC's view of Women's Ordination?

Pie

Fr Odhran-Mary TFSC said...

I think these posts are painting you into a corner. You may find in a year or so that the Apostolic Constitution is an acceptable way toward unity. And it is difficult for anyone to admit that he was in error.
Making enemies is not a good idea.

Please.

Anonymous said...

"What is the official difference between Rome's view of Anglican Orders and the CC's view of Women's Ordination?"

Well, let's see.

Could we break it down for you like this:

Rome regards Anglican Orders as "invalid" because of a defect of intention or because of this, or because of that, or for whatever reason. As Bicknell shows, the reason has changed from time to time, but whatever it is, Anglicanorum Coetibus has clearly and emphatically re-affirmed that position. But this invalidity can be cured by "new" ordination, but conditional but absolute, as Rome has so plainly stated.

OTOH, female ordinations are invalid for numerous reasons, centering around the reality that a female is not "valid matter" for tbe sacrament of Holy Orders. The problem cannot be cured by any "second ordination" at all.
LKW

Anonymous said...

Fr Hart must have struck a real nerve with this article, judging from the undignified hissy-fit on this morning's Former Anglican. I now despair of its leadership putting together a coherent argument. But their central thesis is that Anglican Orders are both valid and invalid at the same time, from which they draw an inference that there is no difference between an Absolute and a Conditional Ordination. It will take more than a tantrum using words like "vile" to refute the arguments presented here against absorption by Rome.
LKW

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Making enemies is not a good idea.

Fr Odhran-Mary:

Have you read Anglinorum Coetibus? If so, I cannot understand how you could imagine that it will achieve unity.

Nonetheless, if telling the truth makes enemies for me, I am in very good company. If simply making an argument makes enemies, rather than producing refutation as we all try to get to the truth, it says something very bad about those who disagree.

Sean W. Reed said...

LKW wrote:

"...OTOH, female ordinations are invalid for numerous reasons, centering around the reality that a female is not "valid matter" for tbe sacrament of Holy Orders. The problem cannot be cured by any "second ordination" at all...."


Where did you ever get the notion that the matter of the Sacrament of Holy Orders was the person receiving the Orders.

Form and matter are critical, but the problem with attempting to ordain women is not one of matter.

Summa does a great job, as always, in addressing the problem with attempting to ordain women to Holy Orders:

"...I answer that, Certain things are required in the recipient of a sacrament as being requisite for the validity of the sacrament, and if such things be lacking, one can receive neither the sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament. Other things, however, are required, not for the validity of the sacrament, but for its lawfulness, as being congruous to the sacrament; and without these one receives the sacrament, but not the reality of the sacrament. Accordingly we must say that the male sex is required for receiving Orders not only in the second, but also in the first way. Wherefore even though a woman were made the object of all that is done in conferring Orders, she would not receive Orders, for since a sacrament is a sign, not only the thing, but the signification of the thing, is required in all sacramental actions; thus it was stated above (Question 32, Article 2) that in Extreme Unction it is necessary to have a sick man, in order to signify the need of healing. Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order. Some, however, have asserted that the male sex is necessary for the lawfulness and not for the validity of the sacrament, because even in the Decretals (cap. Mulieres dist. 32; cap. Diaconissam, 27, qu. i) mention is made of deaconesses and priestesses. But deaconess there denotes a woman who shares in some act of a deacon, namely who reads the homilies in the Church; and priestess [presbytera] means a widow, for the word "presbyter" means elder..." = Supl Q39 art 1


Faithfully,


Sean W. Reed

Joe Oliveri said...

As Fr. Laurence Wells recently put it: "To date no one has picked up on the meaning of the term coetibus... [T]ranslated, Anglicanorum Coetibus could be "The Anglican mob."

Why this display of bad faith against Rome? It's been said here again and again that you only have a bone to pick with the TAC leadership, not with Rome per se; but if any post gives the lie to that defense, it's this one. First of all, Latin offers two possible choices for "mob" in this sense: turba, and vulgus. Coetus carries no negative connotation whatsoever; nor has it ever, even in classical Latin, as any collegiate dictionary will testify.

Moreover, coetus is the very term Pope Benedict used in Summorum Pontificum to refer to those "groups [coetus] of the faithful attached to an earlier liturgical tradition" (Art. 5, § 1.) Pope Benedict's long-standing affection for both the old Rite and those attached to it are well known; so to suggest that coetus has any dark implications, in the context of any document under his hand, is absurd.

The final implication is simply to make use of the phrase that is suggested throughout the body of the constitution, "former Anglicans."

In point of fact, the phrase "former Anglicans" is found nowhere in the Constitution or Complementary Norms. The phrase "originally part of the Anglican Communion" is found; but that is hardly tantamount to "former Anglicans," because if it were, then the Anglican Catholic Church itself would be comprised entirely of "former Anglicans."

Art. 11 of the Complementary Norms does refer to "a former Anglican Bishop" four times -- five if we include the heading, "Former Anglican Bishops." But these provisions do not refer to the faithful at all.
(Cont'd) .

Joe Oliveri said...

[T]he so-called “Latin Church”

I would appreciate some clarification here. Are we to understand that such an entity no longer exists, or that its modern form has no right to that name? Why the scare quotes?

Even after consecration, he is not a bishop "until his name is read in the consistory in Rome."

I believe you are thinking of the naming of Cardinals, not the ordination of Bishops. Kindly provide the source being quoted here (presumably the 1917 Code?). I would defer to Dr. Tighe, but placed in context the above almost certainly treats of rights or temporalities or somesuch -- not the sacramental fact of ordination. Even those consecrated without papal mandate (cf. Can. 1013 of the 1983 Code) are not considered simple priests. The SSPX situation is unique; but consider Rome's recognition of episcopal ordinations carried out by others we consider to be in formal schism: e.g., the PNCC and the "Patriotic Catholic Church" in China.

[I]t is nonetheless required that the Roman Catholic faithful behave as if all Papal statements are infallible unless and until they are rescinded.

All papal statements? No. All formal judgments of the Holy See intended to settle doctrinal controversies? Yes. To pretend there is no distinction between the two -- or that this is "a distinction without difference" -- is disingenuous.

Canon Law and specific statements of the Constitution and Norms do not give any assurance of self-determination for the former Anglicans, not even to remain sort of Anglican-ish.

Title III of the Constitution refers to "the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion... as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared." I think one goes too far to argue that such a statement is empty and offers no assurance of self-determination. Joe Oliveri

Ken said...

Pie,

The operational word that is at issue is "fraudulent". I think fraud is only present when there is an intention to deceive. Did the bishops of the TAC intend to deceive those they confirmed in the past?

However, I think it is proper to conclude that if one has genuine doubts about the validity of one's orders or sacraments one performs, which acceptence of absolute ordination implies, that he ought to refrain from his activities until his conscience is satisfied.

Actual priests and bishops may have a different take.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Sean Reed:

You wrote:

Where did you ever get the notion that the matter of the Sacrament of Holy Orders was the person receiving the Orders.

Where did you get the notion that he is not? The matter includes the laying on of hands with Form and Intention, but also the right matter as to what or who is consecrated in the sacrament. Can you use anything other than bread and wine for Communion? Furthermore, the quotation you provide actually backs up what Fr. Wells said.

Joe Oliveri:

Why this display of bad faith against Rome?

Just because Fr. Wells has defined the word, and shown that it is significant in understanding the Roman mind behind the constitution, does not amount to him calling them devils. He is clarifying the meaning. There is no accusation made in that clarification.

...to suggest that coetus has any dark implications, in the context of any document under his hand, is absurd.

No one has applied "dark" implications, unless darkness implies a thing somewhat hidden. It is simply important to know the facts. Rome means one thing, and the TAC sees something else.

The phrase "originally part of the Anglican Communion" is found; but that is hardly tantamount to "former Anglicans," because if it were, then the Anglican Catholic Church itself would be comprised entirely of "former Anglicans."
Art. 11 of the Complementary Norms does refer to "a former Anglican Bishop" four times -- five if we include the heading, "Former Anglican Bishops."


And, the clergy are not even called former deacons, priests and bishops, but instead, "Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops..." I expect that from Rome. However, that these are former Anglicans is indeed suggested strongly by the word coetibus,. More importantly, the body of the constitution sets up a way to come under the local RC diocesan authority, and requires the "sacraments of initiation," clearly treating them as converts.

(cont.)

Fr. Robert Hart said...

I believe you are thinking of the naming of Cardinals, not the ordination of Bishops. Kindly provide the source being quoted here...

"A man is not made Bishop by consecration, but is pronounced so at Rome in Consistory ; and he has no jurisdiction given him by
consecration, but only the rights of his Order, namely, consecrating of children, et caetera." It was stated by William Warham (c. 1450 – 22 August 1532), Archbishop of Canterbury, a loyal Papist.

All papal statements? No. All formal judgments of the Holy See intended to settle doctrinal controversies?

I did not say Papal private opinions. You have stated, as a matter of fact, a distinction without a difference.

Title III of the Constitution refers to "the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion... as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared." I think one goes too far to argue that such a statement is empty and offers no assurance of self-determination.

All that amounts to is a nice warm fuzzy. The rules, canon law, the constitution itself, do nothing to protect and nurture any of that.

Furthermore, the standing theological issues needing resolution have not simply vanished away

Sean W. Reed said...

Father Hart -

While your opinion is always entertaining and interesting, once again your opinion differs from the teaching of the church, and once again, Summa provides good information:

"...I answer that, The matter employed outwardly in the sacraments signifies that the power which works in the sacraments comes entirely from without. Wherefore, since the effect proper to this sacrament, namely the character, is not received through any operation of the one who approaches the sacrament, as was the case in Penance, but comes wholly from without, it is fitting that it should have a matter, yet otherwise than the other sacraments that have matter; because that which is bestowed in the other sacraments comes from God alone, and not from the minister who dispenses the sacrament; whereas that which is conferred in this sacrament, namely the spiritual power, comes also from him who gives the sacrament, as imperfect from perfect power. Hence the efficacy of the other sacraments resides chiefly in the matter which both signifies and contains the divine power through the sanctification applied by the minister; whereas the efficacy of this sacrament resides chiefly with him who dispenses the sacrament. And the matter is employed to show the powers conferred in particular by one who has it completely, rather than to cause power; and this is clear from the fact that the matter is in keeping with the use of power.>

The matter of Holy Orders is not the person receiving them.

To say differently may be the ACC position, and I just learned from your parish website today that the ACC calls upon all its communicants to: "...believe without reservation that deposit of Faith that has been given to the Anglican Catholic Church."

An amazing statement.


SWR

George said...

Fr. Hart: Furthermore, the standing theological issues needing resolution have not simply vanished away

I think that says it right there. As an ACA parishioner the AC does leave somethings to be desired.

It may seem small but what about married Bishops. Anglicans have understood that even Bishops can be married under the ordinates this will certainly not be the case. Can a man who is married be consecrated? If not than as Anglicans we are not in Apostolic Succession. I believe as an Anglican Catholic a Bishop can be married.
Our lines would have very good chance of being broken somewhere. I do understand there is a practice of 3 Bishops of being present to prevent these issues. However, The practice of married Bishops among Anglicans has been around for many generations.

My point is this. Married Bishops is one of many parts of the "Anglican Patrimony". And should raise other questions about those considering accepting the AC option.
No valid Bishop, no valid Priest, than no valid Sacraments. To me this is plain logic.

I apologize for the grammar issues. I am not a very good writer. Hopefully, My point is understood. I am not trying to stir controversy. It is to make you think. The reason I read this blog is that same reason because it does ask the hard questions and makes really think about all aspects of our faith and heritage as Anglicans.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Sean Reed:

Despite your unprovoked manifestation of contempt, expressed by your insulting and condescending tone, I published your comment anyway (unlike your earlier one that accused us of not being Christians. You may try any substantial point of that one again). I am trying to find a polite way of asking what is wrong with your reading comprehension? Your quotations from St. Thomas Aquinas are, in fact, not even relevant to the very issue you seek to disprove. Neither would his opinion necessarily constitute the Teaching of the Church anyway. Read his words again and study saramental theology; you have misunderstood him.

Indeed, the body of the man and the body of the woman are part of the necessary matter of matrimony, and the body of a man of ordination. Otherwise, Bill could marry Fred, and Shirley could be ordained. Look again at this bit: "Accordingly, since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order." Without matter, what is her sex? Without matter, can there be sexes? Is not her sex a reason why she cannot be ordained? I hope you will, in thinking about these questions, require very little time.

But, if you are so wise, and able to make fools of us, tell us what is the matter in the sacrament of Absolution?

George:

You should find this interesting: The Polish National Catholic Church has married bishops, and Rome has officially recognized their orders as valid. The issue of a married episcopate has nothign to do with validity, but only with canons.

Fr. John said...

Since we seem to have a fair number of RC apologists on this thread, please allow me to direct your attention to some recent news you may have missed, since it appeared on the thread about “Reaffirming St. Louis,” something no RC would have an interest in.

The Most Reverend J. Kevin Boland, Roman Catholic Bishop of Savannah, attended the recent consecration of Scott Benhase as Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Georgia. Bishop Benhase has performed same sex blessings and has a non-celibate homosexual working on his staff according to Episcopal news sources. You may see Bishop Boland at the ceremony in photos posted here:

http://picasaweb.google.com/christchurchvaldosta/20100123ConsecrationOfBishopBenhase#slideshow/54

I am now imagining that I and my parish have become Anglican Use Roman Catholics, and in fulfillment of the language of the A.C., made to participate fully in the life and activities of the Roman diocese in which I now find myself. Bishop Boland may ask my ordinary to send me as a representative to such a "consecration."

My conscience and sense of honor would not permit me to obey such a command.

I am intensely interested in how faithful Roman Catholics react to Bishop Boland’s attending. Especially in light of the fact that he also marched in the procession and recession with women vested as bishops and priests. See for yourself at the web pages below.

Do you approve? Disapprove? Or do you not give a rap?

I really think we deserve an answer from a group that invites us to their house only to ask us to return to the same heretics and apostates we just fled from.

http://picasaweb.google.com/christchurchvaldosta/20100123ConsecrationOfBishopBenhase#5430798063612144098
http://picasaweb.google.com/christchurchvaldosta/20100123ConsecrationOfBishopBenhase#5430798358146322690
http://picasaweb.google.com/christchurchvaldosta/20100123ConsecrationOfBishopBenhase#5430798870058193026
http://picasaweb.google.com/christchurchvaldosta/20100123ConsecrationOfBishopBenhase#5430798926477834226

Shaughn said...

Fr. John,

While Bp. Boland attended the consecration, he (or perhaps the Monsignor, I don't know) also refused to allow it to take place in St. John the Baptist cathedral, where TEC originally hoped to do it. That, I think, puts his attendance in perspective. It would be alarming -- far more alarming -- if he had served as a co-consecrator.

Fr Matthew Kirby said...

The matter of Holy Orders is not the person receiving them.

To say differently may be the ACC position, and I just learned from your parish website today that the ACC calls upon all its communicants to: "...believe without reservation that deposit of Faith that has been given to the Anglican Catholic Church."


This is largely an argument about words. Sean is correct that in standard scholastic definitions the ordinand is not the Matter of the Sacrament. He is the Subject. In this analysis, 5 things are required in a vaild sacrament: correct matter, form, intention, minister and subject. This is also the standard teaching in the Anglican Catholic tradition.

However, neither in the Roman or Anglican tradition are all these terms given a dogmatic status, as far as I know. They are basically convenient categories relying on Scripture plus Reason to help us think about the sacraments. Anglican Catholics are inclined to note that this kind of analysis is not natural to the East, and is not the only way of understanding the Sacraments.

Also, if we compare Ordination to the sacramental act of consecrating the Eucharist, then the ordinand undergoing change can be sensibly considered as "matter" by analogy with the bread and wine undergoing change. The confusion arises partly because the word "sacrament" can either be considered to meean the act (in all its outward aspects) that conveys grace, which is the normal way of using the word, or as the consecrated entity in the case of the Eucharist. If we consider the priest to be a walking sacrament, which I do, then the non-standard use of the term "matter" is entirely defensible.

As for the ACC's Deposit of Faith and its obligation on ACC members, it should be remembered that the ACC officially defines this deposit as the meaning of Scripture as understood by the Church Universal through the ages, in particular, by the consensus of East and West before their separation. In other words, the obligation does not refer to some specific idiosynchratic confession but simply to Holy Tradition in the larger sense common among the Eastern Orthodox.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Sean Reed:

Try again with only the substance of your arguments and without the insults. Your arguments are easy to answer, but your insults will not be published; I don't have to put up with that crap, and I won't.

I will answer the main point you tried to make. You claimed I was confusing matter in general with sacramental matter. Wrong. The matter in the sacrament is sacramental matter, and it is quite arbitrary to eliminate elements of any relevant matter, without which there could be no sacrament.

Try again, since the discussion can be worthwhile; but, keep a civil tongue in your keyboard.

T said...

All this ranting about the term "former Anglicans" seems rather daft.

The Vatican clearly drafted this document with Canterbury in the back of their minds- relations with Canterbury are still important. Remember, Canterbury was informed of this formally when it was released.

Hence, the Vatican must be careful not to be seen as "sheep stealing". So, the Anglicans who have approached Rome for this are described as "former Anglicans", (and this in in fact true anyway) in order to distinguish them from the original Anglican church who still earnestly seek full communion with Canterbury.

In fact, to many Canterbury Anglicans, all Continuers who have separated themselves from the Canterbury communion (the historic Anglican church) are in fact former Anglicans anyway.

I think Rome was using very wise and diplomatic language in drawing up the AC. They gave those seeking communion with the Holy See some breathing space by giving them a title that distinctly draws a line between them and Canterbury.

It seems to me that all this bashing of the TAC or other Rome-friendly Anglicans as not being "true" Anglicans or even "Anglican-Catholics" is an exercise in "last man standing" debate tactics. It looks as if proving them to be "false" Anglicans would therefore make the authors of such articles "true" Anglicans. This is not a certain conclusion, obviously.

This of course is a drill in purely relative thinking and given the diminutive size of so many Continuing parishes and organisations it all looks like fleas arguing over who owns the dog.

We would be wise to remember rule of theological discussion #1- everyone is someone else's heretic. Portraying the TAC and others seeking full communion with Rome as false, misguided and unintelligent "former Anglicans" does not make one's own claim to being the "last true Anglicans" valid- Canterbury Anglicans would certainly object to such an arrogant claim.

T

George said...

Thanks for the clarifying that. I want so far as to make an assumption that if a man was married he would be "ineligible" for ordination/consecration based on the Scripture talking of the qualifications of Bishops and Priests not the Church canons. I also had connected in my head that it was similar to a Woman's ordination.

I was attempting to express that there are parts of Anglicanism which are unique. It would seem to me accepting the AC would be denying many of those Anglican traditions.

And I am surprised I did some quick reading on PNCC. The fact they achieved some sort of intercommunion without accepting papal infallibility among a few other things is amazing to me.

Thanks, Fr. Hart. I am going to do some more reading about them.

Fr. John said...

Shaughn,

If the Roman Church denied the use of their cathedral for this "consecration" on theological grounds, then they did the right thing.

However, I fail to see how doing one right thing gives Bishop Boland a pass to do one wrong thing. The act of him, and I suppose that is the Monsignor with him, marching in the procession of this travesty, and that is what it was, has to be considered a scandal to faithful Roman and Anglican Catholics alike.

Let us say for comparison purposes that the Red Front asked to use the cathedral to install their newest commissar, but the Bishop turns them down on "principle" not defined. However he is pleased to attend the event held in a hotel and march with the faithful Red Brigades into the assembly hall.

To me that sends a powerful message of sympathy, and an explicit endorsement of the event taking place.

In regards to Bishop Boland attending, do you:

Approve? Disapprove? Or do you not give a rap?

I would hate to find myself in an ecclesiastical administrative chain with Bishop Boland.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

T:

What the hell are you going on about? From, your comment, I presume you do not read this blog enough to know the real contents of what we post here, since you rave like an ancient prosecutor who has not one shred of innocence.

The opening of your comment is fine, inasmuch as we never thought that Rome was acting in anything but good faith (despite the undiplomatic choice of Cardinal Levada, which we attribute to a serious blind spot).

As for dwindling parishes shrinking away, all I can say is that is not at all what we are experiencing in the ACC. I am seeing the opposite everywhere I go.

As for Rome drawing up the constitution with Canterbury in mind, it is the Orlando fellows and Abp. Hepworth who will argue with you about that. They claim it was with the TAC in mind.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

T said...
It looks to me like Joe Oliveri is right about the proper usage of the word "Coetibus". Why has the statement from Wells not been addressed and retracted?


Perhaps because he did not contradict Fr. Wells, though it seemed like he wanted to.

Fr. John said...

How about you Mr. "T" ? What do you think about Bishop Boland marching with the gay rights, women's ordination, "Jesus is mot the only way" crowd?

This is one of your bishops. Do you recommend that I place my parish into his hands?

John A. Hollister said...

"T" wrote about:

1. "the original Anglican church who still earnestly seek full communion with Canterbury."

Some words must have been inadvertently dropped here -- there's many a slip 'twixt the keyboard and the LCD screen -- because this clause makes no sense whatever.

2. "It seems to me that all this bashing of the TAC or other Rome-friendly Anglicans as not being 'true' Anglicans or even 'Anglican-Catholics' is an exercise in 'last man standing' debate tactics. It looks as if proving them to be 'false' Anglicans would therefore make the authors of such articles 'true' Anglicans. This is not a certain conclusion, obviously."

"T" misapprehends what the critics of the TAC's leadership are up to. What they seek is "truth in advertising". Anyone who wishes to is free to become a Roman and, as they say down in Oz, the home of this initiative within the TAC, "good on 'em, mate." What they are not free to do, without incurring strident corrections, is to claim that they can become Romans, on Rome's currently offered terms, and still remain Anglicans in any meaningful sense.

It has nothing to do with the rest of us being "real Anglicans" -- we already know that, and don't need any further proof of it, any more than we need further proof that Leo XIII was either devious, or nuts, or completely manipulated by Vaughan and Merry del Val, or any or all of the above.

We certainly aren't going to get any self-affirmation from those whose feet are on the Via Appia, whether by their agreeing with us or from their rejection of us.

3. "Portraying the TAC and others seeking full communion with Rome as false, misguided and unintelligent 'former Anglicans' does not make one's own claim to being the 'last true Anglicans' valid -- Canterbury Anglicans would certainly object to such an arrogant claim."

Again, this is a mischaracterization. What is necessarily being shown is that those former Anglicans -- again, it's Rome's term for them -- who are on their way to Rome are being treated by their own leadership as though they were unintelligent because the representations made to them by that leadership are so easily demonstrated -- from Rome's own documents -- to be incorrect.

It would certainly be misguided for anyone to opt for Rome -- even though he has the complete right to do so -- under the false impression that, at the end of that journey, anything significantly "Anglican" will be left.

On the other hand, if anyone feels an irresistable call to be a Novus Ordo Western Rite Roman, then he really has no reasonable option but to trek across those Tiber bridges.

John A. Hollister+
"piratica"
"pedme"

Shaughn said...

Fr. John,

If he went in a suit and tie, I probably would disagree, but not much care. To go vested or in clericals, however, would be unwise and provide a sense of legitimacy that the event did not warrant.

I've attended services where some of my classmates became deacons in the Episcopal Church, for example, but I a) sit in the back and b) wear civilian clothes and c) don't stay terribly long.

Boland's act is much like service men and women attending a political event in uniform, but probably worse.

John A. Hollister said...

George wrote, "The fact [the Polish National Catholic Church] achieved some sort of intercommunion [with Rome] without accepting papal infallibility among a few other things is amazing to me."

The PNCC has no intercommunion with the RCC. What they have is a mutual recognition of the validity of each other's Sacraments. That places their relationship on the same footing as that between, for example, the RCC and the Eastern Orthodox.

That is, in emergencies, and when no PNCC clergy are available, PNCC members (those who are not former RCs, that is) may approach RC clergy and ask to receive the Sacraments from them. Similarly, in emergencies, and when no RC clergy are available, RCs may approach the half of the PNCC's clergy who are not former RC clergy and ask to receive the Sacraments from them.

And in this context, "emergency" and "unavailable" mean just what they say. There is none of the "wink, wink, grin" that is applied to the RCs' treatment of the word "extraordinary" in "extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist".

Also, it must be noted that (a) it took more than 20 years of talks for the RCC and the PNCC to accomplish this much -- which is incorporated in no single document or agreement signed by both sides, but is expressed only in unilateral declarations by each body to its own members -- and (b) in nearly 20 yars of further talks, no progress beyond this point has been made.

John A. Hollister+

John A. Hollister said...

"Pie in the Sky" asked, "What is the official difference between Rome's view of Anglican Orders and the CC's view of Women's Ordination?"

In five words, both would have to say "absolutely null and utterly void".

John A. Hollister+
"cicupe"

Anonymous said...

"T" said:
"The Vatican clearly drafted this document with Canterbury in the back of their minds- relations with Canterbury are still important. Remember, Canterbury was informed of this formally when it was released".

As I remember it the AB of C was caught off guard by the announcement of the AC and rather irritated. It (AC) was not drafted for Canterbury but for those looking for a way out of it. It is important to be accurate.

" Nov 22 2009 Timesonline: The announcement a couple of weeks ago, with little notice or preparation that he was aware of, left the Archbishop of Canterbury in a state of some discomfiture, not knowing how to respond."

and this is relevant in general: November 22nd, 2009 Reuters
"Those disaffected Anglicans in England and Wales who think they can take up Pope Benedict’s offer and switch to Rome with a “pick and choose” attitude should think again, the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols has said". I think goes to Fr Hart's not saying anything others are not saying within the Canterbury Communion". and "It is still unclear how many Anglicans will convert, but the invitation, in the form of what’s called an Apostolic Constitution, has opened up old wounds between the Vatican and Lambeth Palace". as well as "It has also raised questions about the approach adopted by Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, the head of the Church of England and spiritual leader of the Anglican Communion, towards the offer – details of which he did not know until two weeks before the announcement. Some say he has been too soft, while others say he has been judicious".

So Rome was not doing Canterbury any favors here.

Thanks Canon H. that was what I thought.

Pie

Veri: bashout

Fr. Robert Hart said...

But, did T mean for the benefit of Canterbury, or with the "Canterbury Anglicans" in mind? Was he thinking of FiF?

Fr. John said...

Hello! I am asking our RC commentators a real life, and not a theoretical question. Same to those in TAC/ACA who are planning on following their bishops to Roman Catholicism.

Do you think that it would be a smart move for me to place my Georgia parish into a matrix that includes Bishop Boland in the command structure?

It's a simple question. Why no takers? Could it be that you are deeply embarrassed by Bishop Boland marching with the gay rights, women's ordination, "Jesus is not the only way crowd?" Or do you approve of a Roman bishop standing in solidarity with Mrs. Jefferts-Schori?

I can understand the reluctance to address this question on your part, it tears all of your arguments about accepting the Roman offer to shreds.

"Between the idea and the reality, falls the shadow."

T.S. Eliot

Shaughn said...

Fr. John,

If it makes you feel better, he Diocese of Savannah's not part of the Archdiocese of Atlanta. Boland wouldn't be in your chain of command, as it were. Now, I don't know a thing about the current Archbishop of Atlanta, the Most Rev. Gregory, but I might relate an amusing (and possibly apocryphal) story about an earlier one.

Back when Bp. Child, of illustrious reputation, was the Episcopal bishop of Atlanta, he wandered across Peachtree Street to the Catholic Cathedral to have a chat with Archbishop Donnellan about southerners. Both were New York / New Jersey folk. Abp. Donnellan told him, "Judson, the thing you need to know about these people in Atlanta is they're all Baptists. Now, there are Methodist Baptists, Episcopal Baptists, Catholic Baptists. But they're all Baptists. Even the Jews down here are Baptists."

Sean W. Reed said...

Fr. John wrote:

“...Same to those in TAC/ACA who are planning on following their bishops to Roman Catholicism.

Do you think that it would be a smart move for me to place my Georgia parish into a matrix that includes Bishop Boland in the command structure?...I can understand the reluctance to address this question on your part, it tears all of your arguments about accepting the Roman offer to shreds....”

I am not sure how you personally, define matrix, but the Ordinariates will be a parallel structure to the existing Dioceses in the US.

I don’t follow what arguments this tears apart? Nor does it change the clear teaching of the Church as set forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.


SWR

Fr. John said...

Sean Reed,

Answer the questions I have posed and you will gain a clearer understanding of the shredding process.

Shaughn,

Yes, I am in the territory of Archbishop Gregory, but we have all the rest of the state to think of, so my question remains valid, would the ACC, APA, and ACA parishes in Georgia be making a wise move to place themselves into an ecclesiastical relationship relationship with Bishop Boland? A relationship with him being the chief executive officer of the organization that I find myself in administratively. Will my ordinary be able to protect me from this man? My ordinary, whomever he turns out to be, will be a member of Bishop Boland's council. The AC says the ordinariates will work with the local bishop to enter fully into the life and work of the diocese.

Wonder what kind of work Bishop Boland will have in mind?

If I were about to take Rome up on this offer, I would find out all I could about the Roman Bishop who will be my new partner. If that was Bishop Boland, then a feeling of dread would be coming over me right now.

Sean W. Reed said...

Father John's questions =

“Do you think that it would be a smart move for me to place my Georgia parish into a matrix that includes Bishop Boland in the command structure?”

Again, the organizational structure of the Ordinariate is a parallel structure to the existing RC Diocese. I understand the point you are trying to make, I think, and that is to paint people like me into a corner that means if we are moving to the Ordinariate we therefore must say you should take your parish in this “matrix.”

That is a red herring, it would apply if you were talking about Anglican Use. Then you would be a parish of his diocese. The comparison might hold.

This would be a question and a point to present to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as to how to proceed in that particular circumstance, just like we have in the past, and are in the future, presenting additional questions to be answered by the CDF. In like manner we are proceeding now, as we have been advised by the CDF.


“It's a simple question. Why no takers? Could it be that you are deeply embarrassed by Bishop Boland marching with the gay rights, women's ordination, "Jesus is not the only way crowd?"”



While “gay rights” can mean a muptiplicity of things, so I would want that term defined, Certainly in all cases, women’s ordination and multiple ways to salvation are no-go.

If he is teaching contrary to the Church's position, it should be reported to the Holy See.





SWR

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Sean Reed wrote:

Again, the organizational structure of the Ordinariate is a parallel structure to the existing RC Diocese.

You need to take a closer look at the text of the constitution. It is not parallel, but under the local Diocesan Bishop. That is not what Abp. Hepworth says, but it is what Anglicanorum Coetibus says, and says clearly.

Sean W. Reed said...

Father Hart wrote:

"...You need to take a closer look at the text of the constitution. It is not parallel, but under the local Diocesan Bishop. That is not what Abp. Hepworth says, but it is what Anglicanorum Coetibus says, and says clearly..."

From Anglicanorum Coetibus:

"IV. A Personal Ordinariate is entrusted to the pastoral care of an Ordinary appointed by the Roman Pontiff.

V. The power (potestas) of the Ordinary is:

a. ordinary: connected by the law itself to the office entrusted to him by the Roman Pontiff, for both the internal forum and external forum;

b. vicarious: exercised in the name of the Roman Pontiff;

c. personal: exercised over all who belong to the Ordinariate;

This power is to be exercised jointly with that of the local Diocesan Bishop, in those cases provided for in the Complementary Norms."

From the Norms:

"§1. The Ordinary follows the directives of the national Episcopal Conference insofar as this is consistent with the norms contained in the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus.

§2. The Ordinary is a member of the respective Episcopal Conference.

Article 3

The Ordinary, in the exercise of this office, must maintain close ties of communion with the Bishop of the Diocese in which the Ordinariate is present in order to coordinate its pastoral activity with the pastoral program of the Diocese..."


Please point out to me the part you are thinking about.


SWR

T said...

Fr John saith:

"How about you Mr. "T" ? What do you think about Bishop Boland marching with the gay rights, women's ordination, "Jesus is mot the only way" crowd?

This is one of your bishops. Do you recommend that I place my parish into his hands?


Sorry Fr John, but I have no idea who Bishop Boland is. Never heard of him, but wouldn't agree with an action like you describe as fitting for any Christian.

T said...

JOhn A HOllister saith:

"Again, this is a mischaracterization. What is necessarily being shown is that those former Anglicans -- again, it's Rome's term for them -- who are on their way to Rome are being treated by their own leadership as though they were unintelligent because the representations made to them by that leadership are so easily demonstrated...to be incorrect"

I agree with that 110%. I could say more....but I won't right now.

But having said that..

... -- from Rome's own documents -- ."

I am far from convinced that Rome's documents are being interpreted correctly (dare I say "infallibly") on this blog. From where I stand, I see a number of interpretations floating around in Roman and Anglican and "former Anglican" circles. I think there are going to be a lot of variations in the application of the AC from region to region, depending on the Ordinary etc. and I think that is fairly normal for modern Rome.

Just my opinion.

Fr. John said...

Dear Shaughn,

Thanks for your honest answers. I appreciate your responses.

You wrote: "Again, the organizational structure of the Ordinariate is a parallel structure to the existing RC Diocese. I understand the point you are trying to make, I think, and that is to paint people like me into a corner that means if we are moving to the Ordinariate we therefore must say you should take your parish in this “matrix.”"

My friend, my fellow Anglican, Christian brother, please read the A.C. again very carefully. I will not take up valuable space here by quoting for the umpteenth time sections of the A.C. dealing with the integration of the ordinariates into the surrounding RC diocese. You ordinary will sit in council with other RC bishops and be exposed to all of the pressures, both societal and organizationally, to conform to the prevailing mind set of those now fellow bishops. News stories in the "Wandrerer" and the "National Catholic Register" as well as Traditionalist RC web sites are full of stories like the one I posted here about Bishop Boland. You will be in conflict with Boland's ilk from day one. Please be aware of that.

You also wrote: "If he is teaching contrary to the Church's position, it should be reported to the Holy See."

Yes. If you become an RC it will be your duty to do so. That will not endear you to him or his supporters. Be prepared for a struggle and for "blowback."

Shaughn,

I spent a year in the School of Theology at the Catholic University of America (2004-2005), I've been where you are planning to go, I think you will be amazed at what you find in the American branch of the Roman Catholic Church.

Good luck to you in the name of God.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Sean Reed:

You have alluded to a specific set of Norms for each group, as if each one will be a "uniate" or "church within the Church." Rather, there will be one Set of Norms for each RCC diocese. Again, this fact contradicts Abp. Hepworth's astounding promise that the TAC folks will get top choose their own bishops. How so, when the constitution places them in their local RC diocese, under that bishop?

The portion you have quoted about Ordinariates presents a question of Catholic Order, as I have been saying all along. It is not that there will be two bishops of each diocese, obviously, but that each bishop will have someone in his diocese reporting directly to the pope. That is not new, inasmuch as we have always said that Roman Catholics have one universal Bishop Ordinary, and thousands of suffragans.

Furthermore, nothing you quoted changes the fact that what Abp. Hepworth is still telling people amounts to a declaration of uniate status for the TAC as a group. That is not what has been offered. The ordinary described in those rules can be an advocate for former Anglicans (if he does his job), who answers to the pope, and who works things out in the local diocese by negotiating with the bishop.

There will not be a set of norms for the TAC people, nor an ordinary for them. There will a set of norms for each diocese, and it will be consistent with the constitution and with RCC Canon Law. The ordinary therein described is, as of yet, an unknown factor. Will he be a liberal? A strict Roman Traditionalist? What will he be?

You said you have never been an Anglican. I am glad you said it, for had I said it, someone would assume I have been insulting you. I accept what you say about yourself, and about many others. But, if you want to get to Rome in your lifetime, you will have to do it on your own. The "group" will never do it.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

T wrote:

I am far from convinced that Rome's documents are being interpreted correctly (dare I say "infallibly") on this blog.

Ok, but, on matters of Canon Law no one has a better grasp than Fr. Nalls.

Sean W. Reed said...

Father Hart -

Let's do this - you have said how you think it will play out.

Don't delete your comments, and let's look back later this year and just see who is right. Then the other can say, I told you so.

SWR

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Sean:

Do you really think a year is enough time? I do not. The delaying tactics will continue, because the answer was not supposed to have come so soon. It really threw them for a loop. On Feb. 4, 2011, I will publish a note saying so, if you are proved right.

It would not change my convictions about why I am an Anglican, not in the least.

Fr. John said...

Sean,

So sorry I misspelled your name in my previous post.

I will take no joy whatsoever in being able to say, "I told you so." It will be a sorrowful day if "groups of Anglicans" find themselves in a situation analogous to where we all were prior to 1977.

"I said, tomorrow they will eat their bread of sorrow."

Sean W. Reed said...

Fr. John wrote:

"Sean,

So sorry I misspelled your name in my previous post.

I will take no joy whatsoever in being able to say, "I told you so." It will be a sorrowful day if "groups of Anglicans" find themselves in a situation analogous to where we all were prior to 1977.

"I said, tomorrow they will eat their bread of sorrow.""

Fr. John -

No problem about the spelling.

I appreciate your thoughts about not taking pleasure in saying I told you so - I also don't think you will have to worry about the burden :)

Seriously, let's just wait and see.



Sean W. Reed

Shaughn said...

To be very clear to readers who might be confused, I'm not going anywhere and am quite content in the ACC-OP. :>

T said...

"...on matters of Canon Law no one has a better grasp than Fr. Nalls."

Is he a Roman Catholic canon lawyer, or formerly one or something?

To state my point a little differently: lawyers don't always agree on things. Rome demonstrates a lot more flexibility than its observers, commentators and critics sometimes allow them. This is why I think there won't be (nor will there need to be) a single "version" of how future Ordinariates will operate.

Joe Oliveri said...

Fr. Wells has defined the word, and shown that it is significant in understanding the Roman mind behind the constitution

Fr. Wells has done nothing of the kind. What he has done is carelessly -- I won't say purposely -- mistranslated the word coetus. This was a poor attempt at a rhetorical flourish meant to ridicule the TAC leadership.

"A man is not made Bishop by consecration, but is pronounced so at Rome in Consistory; and he has no jurisdiction given him by consecration, but only the rights of his Order, namely, consecrating of children, et caetera." It was stated by William Warham (c. 1450 – 22 August 1532), Archbishop of Canterbury, a loyal Papist.

I thank you for the source. Now we see that you were quoting one man who lived 500 years ago, not even a school, and still less a current Roman authority. By quoting Abp. Warham out of context and without attribution, you implied (at least to the casual reader) that his opinion is current Roman Catholic doctrine -- which, you should know well enough, it is not. That consecration effects nothing until one's name is read in consistory isn't even previous Roman Catholic teaching.

Episcopal jurisdiction is another matter, and one that has long been debated in the schools according to that liberty which Roman Catholic theologians have always enjoyed in matters that the Church's Magisterium hasn't found necessary to settle in favor of a single view. In the quote above, Warham seems to treat more of jurisdiction; and with his background in practising law, this was a subject which he no doubt found interesting.

Joe

Joe Oliveri said...

As you say, Fr. Hart, it is important to know the facts. So when you insist (above) that I did not contradict Fr. Wells, "though it seemed like [I] wanted to," I think we need to clarify that I did indeed contradict him.

Again: Fr. Wells sought to examine "the meaning of the term coetibus"; and he maintains that, translated, "Anglicanorum Coetibus could be 'The Anglican mob.'" In fact -- as I remarked -- no, it could not. Both Classical and ecclesiastical Latin use the word turba or vulgus for a "mob" in the sense Fr. Wells (and you) want to suggest. Coetus simply means a group, gathering or assembly -- nothing more. There is nothing here about a "street," or suggesting unruliness.

Fr. Wells was incorrect; and you were incorrect to adopt his mistranslation for the title of this post.

Furthermore, being in the ablative case, it means the mob is being carried away or moving away from something. So, it suggests a mob distancing itself from Anglicanism.

There are a few important facts to note here. First, Anglicanorum Coetibus was composed in English, not Latin. We know this because the Latin version hasn't been made available yet. The title is simply drawn from the first two words of what will be the official Latin version. (It is not uncommon for Vatican documents to be composed in French, Italian or English nowadays and only afterwards translated into Latin for official publication in the Acta.)

Second, coetibus is almost certainly dative, being the object of a verb involving motion or influence -- "[T]he Holy Spirit has moved groups of Anglicans...".

Third, lacking one of the usual prepositions -- e.g., a/ab, e/ex or de -- there is nothing about the ablative case that suggests "being carried away or moving away from something." Your translation is incorrect. You've read into the phrase a meaning that quite simply and manifestly is not there.

[I]t is the Vatican that named their unilateral constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, so the implications we derive have come from their choice of a title.

Once again: There is no "implication" in the title of this document. You chose to see an implication where none exists.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Joe Oliveri:

Whereas you could no doubt teach me the subtleties of Latin, I have to regard you and Fr. Wells as two educated men to whose words I give weight. Hebrew and Greek are the languages I have spent my time on.
I am sure your disagreement is worth noting, but to say I ought to "correct" what Fr. Wells has said is more than I can assent to.

The evidence tells me that he knows what he is talking about. To weigh your words, I am left with stronger confidence in Fr. Wells than before. here is why:

You argued that:

Third, lacking one of the usual prepositions -- e.g., a/ab, e/ex or de -- there is nothing about the ablative case that suggests "being carried away or moving away from something."

The word "ablative" means separation from a source, or moving away. If it is the ablative case, that is the meaning. This is brought out by your own words:

Second, coetibus is almost certainly dative, being the object of a verb involving motion or influence -- "[T]he Holy Spirit has moved groups of Anglicans..."

Yes, motion, but influence? Fr. Wells cited both ablative and dative. The opening line normally is the source of a title, so you have a point there. Usually, however, when that is done it is the opening words. So, this is quite unusual.

Your comments are the kind of disagreement that I happy to welcome. That does not mean that I am ready to "correct" another learned man's thoughts, especially as I can be no proper judge of the more subtle aspects of Latin.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Joe Oliveri wrote:

By quoting Abp. Warham out of context and without attribution, you implied (at least to the casual reader) that his opinion is current Roman Catholic doctrine -- which, you should know well enough, it is not.

I see that as a distinction without a difference. Whether we use the words "read in the consistory in Rome" or not, the fact itself remains. In the RCC every bishop is appointed and given his authority by the Pope.

Nonetheless, the fact remains, glaring and obvious, that Abp. Hepworth was wrong when he said that the people could elect their own bishops under the terms of the constitution or its norms. I will judge neither his character nor the state of his mind when making such a false claim; I will content myself to correct his words.

As I said, your disagreements are welcomed here, since you give a reason for each one. I have even posted Mr. Campbell's comments here. However, it has been made clear to me that on his blog no disagreements are ever posted. Only assent from "yes men" gets through in Orlando.

Joe Oliveri said...

The word "ablative" means separation from a source, or moving away. If it is the ablative case, that is the meaning.

That is the strict definition of the word, sure enough (ab + latus); but the Latin ablative case is actually three distinct cases that eventually merged at some point in antiquity: locative, instrumental, and "true" ablative.

What this means in practical terms: without a preposition (ab, ex, de), a Latin noun in the ablative case does not by itself signify a moving-away or separation -- unless the word itself is a compound, like electione (abl. of electio/ex+lectio): "by election"; etc.).

At any rate, I maintain -- as Fr. Wells seems prepared to admit -- that coetibus is actually dative case here.

Joe

Fr. Robert Hart said...

At any rate, I maintain -- as Fr. Wells seems prepared to admit -- that coetibus is actually dative case here.

Does he? We will see.

But, are you suggesting that they will not be moving away from Anglicanism?

Joe Oliveri said...

But, are you suggesting that they will not be moving away from Anglicanism?

They are leaving some things behind, yes -- no one denies this; but they are bringing much of the Anglican heritage with them, which heritage Anglicanorum Coetibus explicitly describes as "a precious gift." You and I will simply have to disagree whether Pope Benedict actually means those words in any substantial sense or not.

The Ordinariates form an ambitious experiment. It is possible that they may fail, or in some places never even get off the ground. In such cases, yes, those reconciled with the Holy See under the terms of Anglicanorum Coetibus will be Roman Catholics -- no other qualifier -- attending Latin Rite (Ordinary / Extraordinary Form) Masses. I don't think anyone denies this fact, either. It's a sad reality that has already played out in one or two of the early Anglican Use parishes, which your brother could probably tell you about. The bottom line is that the TAC has placed unity with the Holy See above attachment to Anglican heritage in the order of priorities. Some will find such a thing a heroic act of obedience and trust in God; many others will consider this a reprehensible betrayal.

Is the TAC leadership naive in their gamble? Personally, I don't think so. I trust in God, and I look to groups like the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter that started small, in an ecclesiastical atmosphere positively toxic towards what the Fraternity represents, and yet grew beyond anyone's expectations.

Only time will tell.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

And, I am perfectly happy for people who find the same Christ there that I have known all these years.

You wrote:
but they are bringing much of the Anglican heritage with them, which heritage Anglicanorum Coetibus explicitly describes as "a precious gift."

At this point, such language remains vague. One thing I can say is I know what it does not mean at this point in history. If this were about reviving the old discussion about unity, discussions that included the few remaining theological points of controversy, I would be all for it. But, it isn't. It is about a way to become Roman Catholic, perhaps with Elizabethan language.

Anonymous said...

I will yield the point to Mr Olivieri that the Latin noun "coetus" is not a precise euivalent to our word "mob."
If one worked through all occurrences of the word in ancient authors, conceivably you might find it as a synomym for "vulgus" or "turba," but I would not bet the family farm on it.

Coetus is a noun formed from the verb "coeo," to come together. It has an alternative form "coitus" which means coming together sexually. A coetus was a "coming together" of a group of people, either formally or informally, lawfully or spontaneously.

But my point stands: whether coetus means a formal or informal gathering, called by lawful authorities or merely spontaneous, it is no synonym for "eccelsia." It does not even rise to the level of "ecclesial community." It is not modified by "sacra" or any such adjective. It is clearly a disparaging and pejorative term. "Coetus" might be used for a a group of Mahometans in a Mosque or a group of prisoners complaining about their victuals.

Whether it is ablative or dative is neither here nor there. Since we have not been allowed to see the Latin official version, my best guess is that it is dative, the object of a compound verb. But that is academic, in the worst sense of the word.

When one considers that the various "coetus" (4th declension nouns are identical in sing. and plu nom, save for lengthening the u) are only tiny splinters and feeble remnants, the term "mob" might actually be complimentary.
LKW

Joe Oliveri said...

But my point stands: whether coetus means a formal or informal gathering, called by lawful authorities or merely spontaneous, it is no synonym for "eccelsia." It does not even rise to the level of "ecclesial community." It is not modified by "sacra" or any such adjective. It is clearly a disparaging and pejorative term.

Granted that coetus doesn't rise to the level of ecclesial community in this era of Dominus Iesus; nor should it, if we remember that from Rome's point of view the entire Anglican Communion constitutes an ecclesial community, not an ecclesia strictly speaking.

That said, however, I don't think coetus is at all clearly a pejorative term. After all, you'll find it in the Latin text of Article XIX: "Ecclesia Christi visibilis est coetus fidelium..."

St. Robert Bellarmine employed the word almost exactly the same way: "Ecclesia enim est coetus hominum ita visibilis et palpabilis..." (Controversiae, Book III, Chap. 2).

That's all well and good if we're talking about hundreds of years ago, you might say; but what about modern times? Well, there's the Coetus Internationalis Patrum (International Group of Fathers), a band of episcopal brothers (so to speak) that formed just before the Second Vatican Council in reaction to what was seen as a liberal/progressive bias in the prepatory commissions. The members of this coetus included such luminaries as Alfredo Ottaviani, Antônio de Castro Mayer, and Marcel Lefebvre. I don't have to tell you that these men were eminent Latinists. They would hardly have given their group a name that held a pejorative meaning. They didn't even need to attach a sacra descriptive, either, to ward off any untoward connotation.

Other examples exist, of course. I only want to dismiss the notion that coetus is "clearly a disparaging and pejorative term," i.e., an insult. To maintain that it is an insult is both incorrect, as well as an needless insult against Pope Benedict, whose fascination with the Anglican Way is no secret to anyone familiar with his theology.

Joe

Fr. Robert Hart said...

I only want to dismiss the notion that coetus is "clearly a disparaging and pejorative term," i.e., an insult.

But, no one said it was. That was never the point.

Anonymous said...

Look, Joe, we can go back and forth endlessly and pointlessly about the nuances of the word "coetus."

Its present context is a papal document, or rather a series of papal documents, which goes out of its way to affirm that Anglican Churches are not really Churches, Anglican priests nd bishops are merely "ministers," and Anglicans themselves are not really Catholics.

Since the word comes in a context which can only be called insulting to any Anglican who reads it thoroughly, it is at best a euphemism.

Vatican documents commonly speak of the EO and Oriental Churches as "Churches." RC pastors normally speak of Protestant congregations with the same term, as a matter of common courtesy. So in a series of documents alleged to be "generous," why the word "coetus"?

I recall a disagreeable spike priest who referred to the local Reformed Dutch Church (this was in the Hudson Valley of NY State) as "the Calvinist Society." That was simply bad manners, and so is this term coetus.
LKW

Benton H Marder said...

Gentlemen,

Until recently, I didn't know how to post comments; didn't have an account.
I have asked a few of you privately, but I recognise that you are all busy men.
My question is simple: Why are these people lying about Ratzi's Bull & Norms? I read this materiel and can easily see the lies. Why are they lying?
Another question is also simple: How much do the layfolk in the pews really understand about this deal? I gather that the clergy are duly informed.
I hear that this thing may be finalised by the end of this year. However, I understand that all manner of consents and approvals from synods and parishes are necessary.
Now, what is going on is that Rome is drawing up the trip agenda, the list of things to be accomplished before these people get off the bus down by the riverside.
Rome is not going to finance the Anglican Ordinariate. These people must bring along large numbers of tithe-paying sheep. they are going to have to bring their dowry in the form of cash and assets and property. otherwise, no Ordinariate; just straight absorption.
The bishops have to undo the section of the Affirmation and get the property transferred so they can transfer it to the Ordinariate before they swim. They have to get it all nailed down before they gather by the rivr. They are not about to leave much for any remnant.
The clergy that will swim need to bully and coerce their parishes into going along. they will threaten to leave the parish without a priest if the vestries don't comply.

Now, let's be frank, please. We may have some parishes that refuse to swim; they willlose their priest if they call his bluff and see it. They are going to have to find a new jurisdiction, a new bishop, a new priest in, possibly, a hot hot hurry. Do the other jurisdictions have the priests to spare? The jurisdictions will have to vet those priests that won't swim---how well & quickly?

This whole scenario is a nightmare for a number of parishes. How do your bishops plan to deal with parishes needing a new home? How much co-operation could there be among the jurisdictions to ensure that these parishes and people come out of this with minimal damage?

I'm sure many of you have been thinking and working toward sensible solutions for this.

Heaven protect us all.

Benton