Friday, May 13, 2011

And more on why it's over

After the initial report that I wrote about (below), a Roman Catholic online news organ, The Catholic Herald in the UK, has weighed in. One paragraph states:

Added to this, the Church has decided to adopt the process that was used for the ordinariate in Britain, namely requiring the clergy submit to its dossiers for approval and having the people begin a Eucharistic fast while receiving formation and asking them to worship alongside local Catholics. One difference between Britain and Canada (and the United States) is that many of the groups own their buildings, which understandably makes the idea of worshipping in the neighbouring Catholic parish less appealing.

"The Church" means, in that publication, the Church of Rome (not the Universal Church, not the Catholic Church, but simply one See).

The conditions that FiF/UK people have accepted, those described above, are exactly what Anglicanorum Coetibus spelled out from the start. Abp. Hepworth has put on a dramatic show in his letter to Bp. Peter Elliot. Again, either Hepworth is feigning, claiming to be "Shocked, shocked" Claude Rains style, or he has been delusional for quite some time. Either way, the cat is out of the bag, the first domino has been pushed over, and all that.

The "Eucharistic fast" is bad enough for anyone who thought that joining an ordinariate (if ever such an animal comes to life outside of the UK) would be quick and easy. Think of how many people in Anglican churches, in a second legal marriage, have been members in good standing after going through the procedures required in the annulment process of a Continuing Anglican jurisdiction. All of that would be considered meaningless by the Roman Catholic Church. The Sacrament of Confirmation received by an Anglican bishop would be treated as "absolutely null and utterly void." One would be permitted, after the allotted time of sacramental fasting during instruction, to have a "First Communion." 

Who else, other than the obviously impeded Hepworth, is "shocked, shocked" by the revelation that our warnings, sounded on this blog all along, have been completely on target? I hope that fellows such as those Orlando bloggers (who I still hear about in emails from time to time) will accept reality, unlearn the sectarian Roman errors they have been embracing, and become genuine Anglicans-or, if they prefer, that they become real Anglo-Catholics, instead of what they have been heretofore. 

On a related note, someone here at St. Benedict's suggested having Bingo games. If ever we acted on that suggestion, I am sure we would learn that the Church of Rome has declared Anglican Bingo to be "absolutely null and utterly void." If so, I would treat their opinion as no less important than their opinion about Anglican Orders.

But, you have to give them this: The Church of Rome has meant what it said all along; and what they said, in their new constitution, is exactly what we said it was. They did not spin and deceive; that was someone's else's shtick-someone Down Under.

29 comments:

Fr. Wells said...

Abp Hepworth is not the only one guilty of spin and deceit. Think of certain American bishops who went around talking of "inter-communion" and dishing out threadbare cliches popularized in the era of COCU. Remember the man who called Anglicanism, a "400 year failed experiment"? Abp Hepworth had plenty of help.

Nickie Goomba said...

Has the revolving door fallen off its hinges? Does a revolving door even have hinges? I have no idea, not being Roman Catholic.

Anonymous said...

As these churches are not yet RC some should consider being more accurate with how they present themselves. The cathedral in Orlando, for example, identifies itself on its website as a "Catholic Church in the Anglican Tradition." But according to all of this news they are not yet (Roman) Catholic.

JGA

RC Cola said...

The RC bishops don't even want conservative/traditional RCs to bother them let alone a new group of Anglican conservatives/traditionalists joining and "turning back the clock" (as they love to say).
So we shouldn't take this as being anti-Anglican. The RC bishops in the Anglo-Americas are simply unorthodox and--forgive me, Fr. Hart, but the term applies--"bitchy".
Pope Benedict constantly underestimate how uncatholic and downright disobedient his "middle managers" are. I think he had a much smoother transition in mind when he wrote AC. Of course, the Anglicans who imagined that they would be welcomed into Rome with open arms, balloons and a big "Welcome Back!" need only to look at how RC Traditionalists are treated to see that the intention of Popes to help traditionally-minded people can be thwarted for 30+ years.
Example, in 1984 John Paul II gave priests the right to use the 1962 Missal. Bishops heavily restricted it and punished priests who appealed to Rome for permission. In 1988 after Lefebvre's illicit consecrations of four bishops, John Paul issued a motu proprio that broadened the permission of priests to say the 1962 Mass, including forming societies of apostolic life dedicated solely to the 1962 liturgical books. He asked for, and I quote, "wide an generous application" of this permission. The bishops worldwide gave the pope a giant middle finger and proceeded to punish priests who tried to make use of permission granted by the Pope.
After John Paul II died, Benedict XVI issued yet another motu proprio broadening and strengthening yet again permission to use the 1962 liturgy, explicitly stating that priests did not need permission from their bishops. Yet again, the bishops worldwide mooned the pope and toilet papered his house such that just yesterday he had to issue an instruction about the 1962 Mass.
Look, this poor pope can't even get the Americans to use a decent translation of the new mass, let alone use the old mass.

The problem is not with the Anglicans, not with the apostolic constitution, not with the pope, and not even with Hepworth. The problm lay squarely and very definitely with the Roman Catholic bishops who hate, and I mean hate Catholicism, whether it is Roman, Anglo-, or such that it smacks in anyway of having a patrimony of more than about 5 minutes old.
They also think they are doing the Archdruid of Canterbury a favor by thwarting all Anglican defectors. In short, the Anglophone RC bishops will not be happy until they, too, have women priests and sodomy in the aisles while listening to the soundtrack from hair (or perhaps anything from Woody Guthrie).
The Anglophone RC bishops are by and large (but by no means all) neo-pagan heretics who work feverishly to destroy the Roman Catholic Church and all of Christendom from within.
So am I surprised that the Anglo-defectors are having trouble? No, because all faithful catholics are having trouble being catholic with these losers they call bishops.

As an aside, in the latest instruction, Pope Benedict refers to the group of faithful who want to use the 1962 Mass coetus and there is not a hint of insult such that Fr. Wells suggested when the Anglican were called the same.

Confessor said...

Two reasons were given for putting the Canadian ordinariate on hold in the Straight Story, one by the author:
"We spoke about the preparation of the clergy. If there are some who need further studies, there will be programs for that, taking into account individual circumstances and personal responsibilities. Clergy won’t be rejected simply because they need some supplemental studies. When it comes to the holding of property, the archbishop stated without hesitation that determining property issues isn’t part of his task as delegate. The archbishop understands that his responsibility is to prepare things for the implementation of Anglicanorum coetibus."

and this one by a commentor, Conchur: "The ACCC is a legal & corporate entity under Canadian law. Entering the ordinariate en bloc essentially requires the "winding up" of that legal entity with all the associated practical and legal issues that that entails."

These explanations sound reasonable, but they certainly do not explain the angry words of Archbishop's email to the Bishop in Australia.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

You should not blow the education issue out of proportion. Under the terms of the Pastoral Provisions Episcopal priests with their full blown Seminary M.Divs still had to study for years before the RCC would ordain them. They needed to learn all sorts of RC stuff, e.g. RC Canon Law in Latin.

We saw this whole thing coming. It is exactly what we tried to say all along.

Sean W. Reed said...

J.M.J.

Fr. Hart wrote:

"You should not blow the education issue out of proportion. Under the terms of the Pastoral Provisions Episcopal priests with their full blown Seminary M.Divs still had to study for years before the RCC would ordain them. They needed to learn all sorts of RC stuff, e.g. RC Canon Law in Latin.

We saw this whole thing coming. It is exactly what we tried to say all along."

Of course what happened in England did not seem to match what "you saw coming," did it?

You predicted a year or so before being Ordained by the RC Bishop, and in fact, in England the Ordinations are happening within 60 days or so of entering the Ordinariate, except for a couple who were given their date for Ordination BEFORE they were actually received into the RC Church?

Once more, time will tell, but I think you will be proven wrong on this one in terms of your speculation at to this taking some long period of time BEFORE they will be Ordained.

SWR

Fr. Wells said...

Mr JMJ: If you think Fr Hart is wrong, then you are missing something. You missing the glaring contrast between what happened in England and what is NOT happening elsewhere. Your Primate, Bishop Hepworth, gets it. Perhaps he will explain it to you.

Little Black Sambo said...

Most of the clergy joining the English Ordinariate have been Roman Catholic in outlook and in practice for years, and are anxious to cooperate with their hosts and be accepted by them. Moreover, for the present they have very little in the way of money or buildings of their own so they are quite dependent. From the hosts' point of view, therefore, the risk in helping to set up the Ordinariate fairly swiftly is small, and it is bringing with it a useful number of priests with the right kind of "formation".

Fr. Robert Hart said...

From the hosts' point of view, therefore, the risk in helping to set up the Ordinariate fairly swiftly is small, and it is bringing with it a useful number of priests with the right kind of "formation".

I'm not sure what to make of that handle. Nonetheless, For these coverts to become priests acceptable to the RCC will take time. Two or three years is, by RC standards, about as "fairly swiftly" as it gets.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

SWR::

Proved wrong my left hind leg! If any of the English priests have been moved along unusually fast, it is because they spent time preparing for RC ordination, something the Canadians and Americans never thought of. Also, that additional preparation came on top of the level of education they received in that one country, England, where, for example, classical Latin is simply part of the traditional curriculum for a Bachelor's Degree. Not so this side of the pond.

Do you have any idea who you are talking to? Didn't you know that I have seen this from right up close, from a front row seat? Perhaps you would be interested in learning why I am well acquainted with how it works-very well acquainted.

Sean W. Reed said...

Father Hart -

Your ideas are quite interesting, but you are not in the loop.

Father Hurd made clear today, the Ordinariate in the US is moving along on the timetable set by Rome.

Please see his comments athttp://www.theanglocatholic.com/2011/05/a-note-from-fr-scott-hurd/

I remain puzzled by your agenda for this being such a big issue for you. I admire your degree of conviction for what you think is right.

There are no secrets and nothing that parishes such as ours have been told would happen has failed to come through.

I will readily grant that our 143 year old parish is not the typical ACA parish.

We were never told any of the silly stories I hear elsewhere about "sister churches sharing communion." Nor did Archbishop Hepworth play a role in our decision.

The CDF has already provided guidance on how educational issue will be handled.

They have already provided much helpful leadership and support through Cardinal Weurl and his assistant Father Hurd.

One thing I am quite pleased about is how clearly the way the Ordinariates will function has been communicated to the Roman Catholic Bishops in the US.

In our meeting with the Chancery of the local Archdiocese, we were quite pleased with the level of understanding and the absolute commitment to support of and promotion of, the Ordinariate locally.


SWR

Fr. Robert Hart said...

SWR:

Am I really supposed to take seriously anything on The Former Anglican blog? I expect them to kick this dead horse for months and months to come. But, that will not change anything. besides, what does "on track" mean to 1)the Orlando gang?, 2) the CDF, and 3) the Pope? "Going forward" means everything that Hepworth's angry letter says, inasmuch as finally he is aware of everything we already read in Anglicanorum Coetibus.

And, I am aware of the CDF's guidance on the educational issue, and how it is to be handled. It is to be handled as it always has been, with a pace and tempo in which a couple of years is considered fast. From their perspective, that is not a problem. From the standpoint of former Anglicans it will prove to be quite a problem.

Can't you get the obvious? We have never cared who is making what alleged promises. We have commented only about what Anglicanorum Coetibus actually says, and have deplored the spin that interprets, or rather explains away its only possible meaning.

Sean W. Reed said...

Father Hart -

I would think you might take seriously the comment of the USCCB Liaison for the Implementation of Anglicanorum coetibus.



SWR

Fr. Wells said...

Mr JMW: We have noticed what is eluding your comprehension. As far as the USA is concerned, all the statements to the effect that "the Ordinariate in the US is moving along on the timetable set by Rome," come from the TAC side. Nothing has been corroborated or even vaguely supported by RC bishops. By this time, after watching the ACA self-destruct,
following the collapse of ACA-TAC
reading of Abp Hepworth's meltdown, you folks have lost all credibility before the watching world. I fully grasp your anxiety to distance your venerable 143 year old parish from the ACA, but that's a little bit late. Unless you wish to make a separate application to Rome, that's the route you have chosen.
And what became of those 700,000 people the Former Anglican used to brag about?

Sean W. Reed said...

Fr. Wells wrote:

"...As far as the USA is concerned, all the statements to the effect that "the Ordinariate in the US is moving along on the timetable set by Rome," come from the TAC side...."

No, that is not true, Father Hurd made this statement today:


"Dear Friends-

Much speculation has been made, here and elsewhere, to the effect that the implementation of an Ordinariate in the US is happening slowly, or that somehow the US bishops are seeking to delay or prevent an Ordinariate from being established in the first place. It might be good for everyone to reflect on the possibility that it is Rome who is responsible for the timetable of the unfolding of events here in the US, and that the USCCB and the CDF are operating in complete collaboration on this.

In the meantine, I would encourage everyone to watch Cardinal Wuerl's major report on US developments at the June USCCB General Assembly in Seattle.

Yours in Christ,

Rev. Scott Hurd
USCCB Liaison for the Implementation of Anglicanorum coetibus"

Fr. Robert Hart said...

It might be good for everyone to reflect on the possibility that it is Rome who is responsible for the timetable...

i.e., They - in Rome - are the ones who are putting on the brakes.

Yes, we figured that. They are also the ones who wrote the thing in the first place.

Sean W. Reed said...

J.M.J.


Father Hart -

A couple of questions come to mind?

What brakes are being put on?

Will there ever be a point in which you have anything positive to say about the Ordinariate?

Do you not think it will happen?

SWR

AFS1970 said...

Well it seems at the very least that the situation here in the US and the situation in Canada are different. I am not sure if that is a good thing or not, but I do hope it is.

There are most likely some that read Anglicanorum Coetibus, know exactly what it says, and are still moving along that path because they believe it is the right thing to do. While I do not agree and don't completely understand, I wish them well.

Where the problem lies, and it appears that this is a big part of the Canada issue is that there are some who heard about Anglicanorum Coetibus, let others read it for them, then took those others at their word as to the contents of Rome's generous offer. For their part Rome seems quite surprised at what some folks think is in this offer.

So now things move along. Is the pace slow, well not to a church that marks time by the millennium. However to any mortal individual it could appear to be moving at a snail's pace.

Fr. Wells said...

Mr JMJ: Promises, promises! You suggest we wait for "Cardinal Wuerl's major report on US developments at the June USCCB General Assembly in Seattle."
That will be of interest to all of us, but at this point June is next month. My statement stands and your rejoinder only confirms it.

RC Cola said...

The problem, Sean, is that the USCCB has no credibility. They are the primary purveyors of anti-Roman Roman Catholicism.
i.e. They never met a papal document they didn't ignore.
Good luck working with the American bishops. Let me know how many stab marks you have in your back when you're done.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Why did I mention brakes? Of course there are brakes, or Fr. Hurd would not be deflecting criticism by reminding everyone that Rome is in charge of the timetable.

But, anxiety and disappointment are due to unmerited expectations created by the Hepworth spin.

Sean W. Reed said...

I just don't see the brake - It is playing out faster than we ever anticipate in 2007 when we left TEC knowing this was coming.

Even a year ago I would not have expected the Ordinariate to be canonically erected by this fall. This is a very pleasant suprise and does not seem slow at all.

We never made any decisions based upon all this spin you keep talking about.

The only difference in how things are playing out compared to our expectations is that they are happing faster than we anticipated.

SWR

Anonymous said...

The whole thing was a stupid idea to begin with, and they were just better of joining groups like the ACC which has divisions in the UK which hasn't sould out the faith.

Joseph said...

Lets start some of that Anglican BINGO!

Fr. Robert Hart said...

SWR wrote:
The only difference in how things are playing out compared to our expectations is that they are happing faster than we anticipated.

A lot of activity has been happening, yes. Meetings, and correspondence, etc. Big deal. Try to understand this: No matter how much activity goes on, the meaning of Ang. Coet. is clear. It simply won't be anything like the dream house you were promised.

Sean W. Reed said...

J.M.J.

Father Hart wrote:

"...It simply won't be anything like the dream house you were promised..."

What are all these promises you keep talking about? Promises by whom?

We have not had one single thing different from what we understood would be coming along, other than it is all coming together faster than we had anticipated. To have it up and running by this fall is quicker than we ever anticipated.

SWR

Fr. Robert Hart said...

SWR wrote:

What are all these promises you keep talking about? Promises by whom?

Well, if you don't even have the promises your people have been boasting of, and inasmuch as Anglicanorum Coetibus does not give you any reason for your confidence in all the goodies, you have nothing at all.

William Tighe said...

"I will readily grant that our 143 year old parish is not the typical ACA parish.

We were never told any of the silly stories I hear elsewhere about 'sister churches sharing communion.' Nor did Archbishop Hepworth play a role in our decision."

Concerning stories such as these, I have no doubt that such thinks have been said, but by whom and how often? I ask this because the instance concerning which I have the most detail concern the TAC parish in Portland, Maine, in 2008 and 2009 -- but the bishop who made claims along these lines at the time is one of those three ACA bishops who have rejected the Ordinariat scheme.