Tuesday, May 03, 2011

Anglican Journal.com reports

We, at The Continuum, won't say, "I told you so." We are above that sort of thing.


Vatican sees no future for married clergy in Anglican Ordinariate

By: Diana Swift
staff writer



Vatican sees no future for married clergy in Anglican Ordinariate. Italian Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone pictured with Pope Benedict XVI. Photo: REUTERS/Max Rossi
Married priests will be only a temporary aberration within the Anglican Ordinariate, says Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican’s secretary of state. Speaking in an interview in the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore  Romano, and in recently published extracts from his forthcoming book, A Great Heart: Homage to John Paul II, Bertone said that although already married Anglican priests will be acceptable under the ordinariate, “the enduring value of celibacy will be reaffirmed, necessitating that for the future, unmarried priests will be the norm in such ordinariates.” Until then, the procedures developed by Pope John Paul II for the reception of already married Anglican clergy will apply.
Cardinal Bertone added that Anglican clergy seeking full communion with the church of Rome should undergo training with “other diocesan seminarians, thereby ensuing them serious academic, pastoral and spiritual preparation. The acceptance of these Anglicans will be considered in the context of their allegiance to the doctrine and practices of the Catholic church.”

51 comments:

Fr. Wells said...

A friend remarked to me that Anglicanorum coetibus was the "bait" and now comes the "switch."

AFS1970 said...

So wait, you mean Rome is going to keep to the same standards they have always had? Say it isn't so. What about all those (on both sides of the Tiber) who thought things were going to change because of the ordinariates? Oh yeah, they didn't bother to actually read the offer.

Anonymous said...

Those entering the Ordinariate here in England, know what the membership ticket means. Yes married Clergy are entering the Catholic Church, those who come after them will dwindle naturally, as new vocations are sought by men who will sign up to celibacy in the service of God.Anglicanorum coetibus spells this out from the start. So why do you feel the need to keep bringing this topic up?

Canon Tallis said...

Rome's standard of "celibate" clergy is indicative of its continued Gnosticism and rejection of the Biblical and New Testament norms. Or do none remember the heretical sect to which Augustine of Hippo belonged before he became a Christian?

How can you trust even so large an institution as the churches of the Roman obedience to correctly understand the Apostles' doctrine, when they constantly make it plain that equally with the TEO they feel quite free to edit the words of Holy Scripture, even our Lord's own words at the institution of the sacrament of Holy Communion. Oh, they are finally getting around to correcting it, to recognizing that they got it wrong, but aren't they supposed to be infallible?

Anonymous said...

My guess is that former Anglicans won't take kindly to the Vatican's view of birth control, either.

-Gail White

Geo. S. Southerly said...

Those who have left the Anglican Church for Rome, tolerated gays (definition: those who seek to promote acceptance and practice of homosexuality) for decades, but left because of women bishops. They have strained at one species of camel and swallowed another.

They will fit in well with the Roman Church generously (some say more than half) populated with overtly and covertly practicing homosexual (wink) celibate clergy.

These new Roman Catholics will find there is much less transparency and less accountability in the RCC system, much less power for the grass roots parishoner. It is said that the RC has lost a third of its members due to this. There is an entire website dedicated to hourly posting of abuse scandals. The Roman Church may exceed the Episcopal Church in the number of parish and school closures.

William Tighe said...

As I wrote about this elsewhere:

"That seems to be the opinion of Cardinal Bertone, and since the "Anglican Ordinariat(s)" will be part of the Latin Church rather than part of an ecclesia sui juris it is a plausible one, and one with which I would have no problems were it to turn out to be true; but I have some doubts whether it is true."

This would not be the first time that a senior curialist expressed a view that, plausuible as it may be, expressed his own views rather than any "Vatican line," and I have my own doubts both whether Bertone's view is the pope's view and whether the Secretariat of State has been involved in any significant way in the preparation, implementation or interpretation of Anglicanorum coetibus.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Anyone who has taken the time to read the canon law references in Ang. Coetibus, will see that Cardinal Bertone is right. The big Hepworthian lie to the contrary needs refutation as a public service.

Anonymous said...

Well, there you have it!
Eastern Orthodoxy, for all its pitfalls, has seemed to be a third man out, but they do have a large percentage of married parociial clergy, eh?

And we do have a growing Western Rite under the sponsorship of the Moscow Patriachartate. Just ask Bp. Jerome!
Why do you linger? The grass is greener here on the other side.

Rdr. James

Anonymous said...

Why do you linger? The Russian Orthodox Church has announced its Western Rite, under Bp. Jerome in the USA. There is an actual Western Rite in Orthodoxy now.

Rdr. james

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Yawwwwwwwwwwwwn.

Yes, we know all about the other one of the Two One True Churches. So what? We are not interested in converting, or we would have done so already. We have everything we need. Discussions with the objective of Christian unity would be nice; but, we have no interest in such communications until the Two One True Churches treat us as equals.

I don't expect that in my lifetime.

Caedmon said...

Reader James, I've been there on the other side. The grass isn't greener.

There is a green hill far away, however.

As for a church home, well, while the lawn over here in Continuing Anglicanism won't win the neighborhood landscape award, the place is nice and cozy.

Not that the Orthodox Churches who have carved out a place for a Western Rite shouldn't be appreciated, mind you. But if you canvass most Orthodox, you'll find there is much antipathy in high and low places against the WR, rendering its future somewhat questionable.

Gerard said...

I am not quite sure what the problem with you all is - you don't want to join the Ordinariate - then don't. Stop being so petty about it.
Love and serve Jesus where you are - this kind of chatter is hardlt in His service.
Also, as one of these Roman Catholic clergy who is celibate, please stop the cheap gibes;I am surprised that the moderator allows such vile and unsupportable opinions as Mr Southerly's to be printed.

Canon Tallis said...

Unfortunately the Orthodox - who really are not so when it comes to the long shadow of Justinian and his Gnostic demand for celibate bishops which was and remains plainly at odds with the clear teaching of St Paul and Holy Scripture - need to learn something about historical Catholicism as in Acts 2:42 and St. Vincent of Lerins.

I quite agree with Father Hart who says these things so much better than I. But may I ask, which culture created by which Church created the conditions under which freedom and liberty have flourished for "all who call themselves Christians" and that not merely in the English speaking world? It has not been either that of the papacy or Orthodoxy.

Ron said...

Rdr. James wrote, Why do you linger? The grass is greener here on the other side.

No, it isn't. Do you understand the idiom you're mangling? Do you follow current events?

AFS1970 said...

While some who enter the ordinariates are aware of the aging out by attrition of married clergy, there are still quite a few who are not aware of this. Mostly this is due to a combination of misinformation and lack of research, but the condition still exists.

I am not sure that this article can really be considered a matter that one "keeps bringing up" only because it is a new interview, so the source material is fresh.

I for one have taken the attitude that those that cross the Tiber, while I do not agree with them, I wish them well in their journey. However part of wishing them well is that I would not like to see them return disappointed and bearing scars because they did not find what they thought they would.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Fr. Gerard:

Look at this way: I have even allowed your comment, however unjust in its charge I see it to be. Statement of facts that everyone can see is hardly "vile." It may be inconvenient or unpleasant, but not vile. Mr. Southerly has said nothing that cannot be verified quickly and easily.

Colin Chattan said...

Fr. Gerard,

Anglicanorum Coetibus is addressed to groups of Anglicans. Those of us in the St. Louis churches are groups of Anglicans. Therefore Anglicanorum Coetibus is addressed to us.

It is therefore essential that we understand what Anglicanorum Coetibus actually offers. What it actually offers is nothing more or less than Roman Catholicism, as presented in the "Catechism of the Catholic Church," with all that that entails, including acceptance of the fact that at least 5 of the sacraments that St. Louis Anglicans can receive have been and are and always will be absolutely null and utterly void (Ordinariate inductees will have to be absolutely, not conditionally, confirmed and ordained), and that belief in, for example, papal infallibility (as expressly defined by Vatican I), purgatory, the immaculate conception of Mary, and the bodily assumption of Mary cannot be held as mere pious opinions but as dogmas upon which the salvation of one's soul depends - requirements that have been made of no Anglicans since the Elizabethan Settlement. It also requires rejection of the branch theory of Catholicism which classical Anglicans have always held in favour of the "One True Church" theory. In other words entry into an ordinariate through the process delineated in Anglicanorum Coetibus is nothing more or less than CONVERSION to Roman Catholicism - an option, in essence the same old option, available to Anglicans and everyone else from the Reformation to this day. Anglicanorum Coetibus also offers the possibility of using liturgical forms in Elizabethan English, and an administrative provision for protection for this "Anglican use", but this is all merely the sugar coating on the pill, in Aristotelian terms accidents rather than essence. Really, in essence, Anglicanorum Coetibus is nothing more than a program for conversion to Roman Catholicism offered to groups with a fetish for Renaissance English.

When then some Anglicans try to sell Anglicanorum Coetibus to the rest of us by assiduously misrepresenting it, either delusionally or disingenuously, as somehow affecting a mere reunion of Anglicanism with Roman Catholicism without substantively changing either, it is surely understandable that some of us should get a little hot under the collar. When the Anglican papists cease and desist from their smoke and mirrors show and simply, candidly admit that what they're really advocating is abandonment of traditional Anglicanism and outright, unqualified CONVERSION to Roman Catholicism, the rest of us will stop throwing cold water on their project and wish them well as fellow Christians on their journey across the Tiber.

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Colin. Very succinctly put.
H1940

Canon Tallis said...

I read Colin Chattan's post and wanted to jump up and down singing the Te deum.

I know that we are supposed to polite to the members of the churches of the Roman obedience, but I remember with ever greater delight St Paul's brag that he "withstood Peter to his face," not that I have ever believed that Peter ever made it to Rome. But I really hate being condescended to by a members of a Church who pathetically confess that they didn't know what to do when children came to them with the news that they had been repeatedly sexually molested by fellow priests. You pick up the phone and call the police.

And on that point, in spite of everything which the recently beatified John Paul II said as well as the statements of Benedict XVI, I think there is absolutely no intention of Rome actually reforming itself in any real way that will diminish the forces in the Roman Church that result in the sexual molestation of children. Perhaps I am just cynical but this has been my principal experience of the Roman Church since my early teens.

Father Gerard, I will take you at your word that you are celibate - and as an ugly old relic of a man whose wife died over twenty-five years ago, I still know just how difficult that is - but I think you and all Romans need to carefully and prayerfully read and re-read St Paul's first epistle to Timothy as well as that to Titus. It is only too clear that St Paul's vision of the the marital status of bishops and deacons was completely at variance with that of the present Roman Church. Is Rome really above Holy Scripture?

Giuseppe Ambrose said...

@ Canon Tallis

Rome's standard of "celibate" clergy is indicative of its continued Gnosticism

How so?

and rejection of the Biblical and New Testament norms.

How are you defining norms?

Or do none remember the heretical sect to which Augustine of Hippo belonged before he became a Christian?

You refer to manichaeism, right? They weren't too hot on the body I remember. Are you saying his choice for celibacy was influenced by this?

As I recall, that rascally St. Paul says something about making one's self a eunuch for God.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Giuseppe Ambrose:

I will gladly answer your three points.

1. Rome's standard of "celibate" clergy is indicative of its continued Gnosticism

How so?


By claiming to have some special knowledge of God's will that cannot be found in the Scriptures. It is also unknown to the Fathers and to the entire Church of the First Millennium. The claim to have some special revelation of newly disclosed, hitherto hidden gnosis, has been quite Gnostic of Rome since the 12th century, when they inflicted great evil on married priests and their families.

2. and rejection of the Biblical and New Testament norms.

How are you defining norms?


To know the Biblical norms (which includes the New Testament), it helps to know the Bible. As we are about to see, Giuseppe Ambrose, you fail to meet this standard. For you to demonstrate ignorance of the Biblical norms is simply consistent with the second part of what follows.

You refer to manichaeism, right? They weren't too hot on the body I remember. Are you saying his choice for celibacy was influenced by this?

As I recall, that rascally St. Paul says something about making one's self a eunuch for God.


Obviously, canon Tallis is saying that Manichean influence is evident in Rome's Gnostic claim to think that the Holy Spirit has led them into their self-destructive and burdensome requirement of clerical celibacy.

Now, about the problem of your Biblical ignorance, what Saint Paul said about clergy is, "A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife...One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)...Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well..." Read I Timothy chapter 3 (and Titus chapter 1). Every Roman Catholic should find these words to be a serious challenge to his faith in the Roman Magisterium, who have dared to favor their opinion over the word of God through His Apostle.

As for your effort to quote St. Paul, you have actually almost quoted the Lord Himself (not St. Paul). What He said was, "For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." (Matt. 19:12)

This was never applied to the clergy as such by the Universal Church, despite Rome's error since the 12the century. Instead, the Fathers saw this as the Lord's authorization of monasticism. Here Rome has erred concerning Scripture by departing form the Catholic Tradition, as they have done quite often.

Giuseppe Ambrose said...

I'm sure you're aware, we can find in the Eastern Catholic Churches a continuing precedence of allowing married priests, so long as those priests were married before ordination.

Catholics find nothing theologically illict about married priests, but neither is anything theologically wrong with celibate priests. The Latin Church, lead by the Patriarch of Rome, decided that in the Latin Rite of the Universal Church no one married would be called to the priesthood.

As an aside about the bait and switch, you can call me ultramontane and tickle me rose, but I do recall that the Church of England broke away from the Latin Rite, not the Eastern. It would be somewhat exceptional to permit the continuation of married priests after the first generation of the ordinariate (not counting future converts). After all, the Church of England was hardly an autonomous particular Church before their break, like that of Constantinople for instance. It'd make sense that they’d be welcomed back into the Roman tradition rather than the Melkite.

So how are you defining biblical norms? I'm evidently no theologian, nor am I an Anglican, so I'd appreciate your defintion.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Biblical norms, i.e., what is normal in and according to Scripture. Such is not a guessing game, but simply acquired knowledge.

Clerical celibacy is not normal by the standard of Scripture. Obviously, allowing celibacy is encouraged in Scripture, as is the stage that was set for a practice, called monasticism, that came about later modeled after St. Paul, and to some extent after John the Baptist. Rome's practice is not in accordance with the Scriptures nor with the understanding of the Fathers and the practice of the ancient Church.

What we found refreshing and worth posting is Cardinal Bertone's accurate and honest explanation of Anglicanorum Coetibus. I am glad he has spoken the truth.

I can see why, however, Canon Tallis wanted to make a comment that reminds everyone that we do not share Cardinal Bertone's idealism about celibacy for priests. Frankly, I am astonished that so many of these older RC prelates tell people that it is "good for the Church." How can they be so cut off from reality?

Canon Tallis said...

Father Hart,

I thank you in that you have done your usual better job of saying exactly what i would have wanted to do so in answer to Guisippe. What he seems incapable of grasping is that he and others like him are placing the later acts of monarch, bishops and councils above the clear teaching of the Bible and especially of the New Textament. Perhaps it is because so many of the Roman obedience are still reluctant to read what is in their for themselves. I do remember a dear Roman lady of my youth who made it clear to me that they were forbidden to read the Bible because they might be tempted to think and believe that it meant precisely what it said while the priest would let them know what it really meant.

In that spirit I would like to point Guiseppe to the first three verses of the fourth chapter of First Timothy. "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the later times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

Since, as attested by the earliest fathers, the Church in England existed before St Gregory sent his little mission it was our business alone whether we saw fit to reform ourselves on the basis of Holy Scripture as interpreted by the earliest fathers and the decisions of the first four of the General Councils. That reform, it should be pointed out so impressed the Cardinal of Lorraine that he pressed it upon the council at Trent which choice however to follow the political promptings of the Spanish king. Nor did we break from Rome; it was Rome that made the break again to please the king of Spain. What the Church of England did not do and prayer book Anglicans have not done is to break away from the one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church as it was known in the first five centuries.

Fr. Wells said...

I suppose there is value in a continued discussion of the merits and demerits of celibacy for clerics. But the point I see here in Cardinal Bertone's statement
is the chasm between what the TAC bishops originally promised (under the rubric of "inter-communion") and what is materializing (simple absorption). The Ordinariate looks more and more like a half-way house for recovering Anglicans in some sort of 12 step program, It is surely significant that the Former Anglican blog, dedicated to the promotion of Papal submission through such a program, has not yet commented on a fairly major revelation.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Giuseppe was defending the practice of his church, and I respect that desire on his part. I think he was confusing what the Lord said with what St. Paul said in I Cor. 7.

"For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that...Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called..." etc.

The problem, however, is twofold:

1. A gift of God, that is a charism or gift (grace) of the Spirit, is supernatural and given as the Holy Spirit wills to distribute the charismata in the Body of Christ. The Church of Rome tries to make a charismatic dispensation into a discipline, and then to require that specific gift by Canon Law.

2. Whereas Paul encourages those who have this gift not to seek a wife, he also wants the norm for clergy to be those who are, by experience, good fathers (again, I Tim.3 and Titus 1).

Rome has created, by Canon Law, a most oppressive and destructive system, the fruit of which continues to damage the largest of the Catholic Communions in the world. Anglican priests know why we have a good number of former Roman Catholics as members of our parishes. Usually, they came to us for pastoral reasons, and not over theological differences.

It is all so clear, and obvious. Why can the Roman authorities not see what is so clear to everybody else? How much longer will they persist in this foolish enterprise, clinging to their failed experiment?

And, as Fr. Wells has reminded us, the importance of what Cardinal Bertone has said is that it clarifies the dichotomy between Rome's actual constitution, and the promises of the Hepworthians. The Bait and switch is not from Rome. They quite honestly put their cards on the table at the beginning of this whole thing. Cardinal Bertone points out nothing concerning Anglicanorum Coetibus that we have not also pointed since it was published.

Fr. Wells said...

I stand corrected. It was not Anglicanorum coetibus which was the bait, but rather the dishonest interpretation placed upon it by a certain ex-RC priest who wears the purple of a TAC bishop. The Holy Father and the Vatican have been perfectly clear in their reaffirmation of Apostolicae Curae, which anyone who cares for truth should readily grasp.

Shaughn said...

I don't really have any great desire to defend the Roman policy of clerical celibacy, but I'd imagine the initial movement in that direction could be found in the Council of Elvira in 308. That council required continence from all deacons, priest, and bishops of that Synod.

It wasn't an ecumenical council. In fact, the ecumenical councils rather explicitly anathematize anyone who denies clergy their conjugal rights, if I recall correctly. It would be more than a little unfair to lay Augustine's call for celibacy at the feet of the Manichees; he had a concubine nearly the entire time he was a Manichaean, and he came dangerously close to marrying a Roman noblewoman before committing himself to the church. Celibacy for Augustine followed conversion, in large part because he believed he could not control his passions.

As to the claim that England wasn't an autonomous, particular church, this claim simply isn't so. By the Reformation, the English church had fallen under Vatican control, certainly, but that is a very late development.

Most folks who haven't studied ancient history miss the basic events that lead to the Papacy's increase in authority.

1) It's the only historic, apostolic See in Western Europe.
2) N. Africa, which in many ways ran the show in the Western Church, got overran by Vandals in the 430s, reconquered for Justinian in 530s, and conquered rather permanently by Muslims in the 690s.
3) Rome, despite being sacked repeatedly, was still by far the largest, wealthiest city in W. Europe after the Roman Empire's collapse.

The Papacy's spread was a slow, gradual, uncertain, and often purely theoretical thing. England largely enjoyed minding its own business for many centuries, in no small part because it was so far away.

Sean W. Reed said...

Fr. Wells wrote:

"...It is surely significant that the Former Anglican blog, dedicated to the promotion of Papal submission through such a program, has not yet commented on a fairly major revelation...."

Not once, but twice has that in fact been commented on by Father Phillips in comments on other threads.


From day one, it has been clear that married priests are a deviation from the norm of the Roman Rite, and a derogation from Canon 277 Section 1 is required in each case of a married priest.

You guys would like to see that other than initially few such derogations are granted.

My money is on the Ordinary requesting and receiving as many as in his judgment are necessary.

If we suddenly have plenty of celibate priests, there would be no need. I don't see that being the case.

If the need is seen to be there, the derogations, I wager, will be granted if requested, by the Ordinary.

Time will tell - let's all chat about this in five or ten years and see who gets to say "I told you so."


SWR

Fr. Wells said...

In the "I told you so" contest, my money is on Cardinal Bertone. He at least knows how to spell "resurrexit."

Sean W. Reed said...

J.M.J.

Fr. Wells wrote:

"In the "I told you so" contest, my money is on Cardinal Bertone..."

He did not say anything inconsistent with what the Apostolic Constitution says. The Headline contains the words of the reporter, not a direct quotation of the Sec'y of State.

We'll just have to see. My bet remains on the Holy Father and the Holy See helping to make the Ordinariate successful, and doing those things that will insure that it is.

It is encouraging to us to see the hand of the Holy See so solidly guiding the process.

The English Bishops thought they would get involved and suggest that all incoming clergy have a year wait in "formation" and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith swiftly and firmly said no. Rome is calling the shots, not the local chancery Offices nor the local Conferences of Catholic Bishops.


SWR

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Cardinal Bertone has simply pointed out what Anglicanorum Coetibus actually says. It is a disservice to everyone, including Pope Benedict XVI, to perpetuate John Hepworth's absurd spin.

Sean W. Reed said...

J.M.J.

No one is perpetuating any spin, merely discussing the plain reading of the documents and the guidance provided from the CDF which does not include Archbishop Hepworth in any way.

Our parish's moving toward the Ordinariate comes purely from our own informed and conscious decision.


Who do you think any of this needs pointing out to? It seems you are constantly worried about informing and pointing out to straw men.

No one of my aquaintance who is heading to the Ordinariate fails to be fully informed as to exactly what will happen.

SWR

Shaughn said...

It is always a good rule of thumb to let Roman Catholics provide normative interpretations of Roman Catholic documents, just as one would expect Anglicans to interpret Anglican documents, Baptists to interpret Baptist documents, and so forth.

Frs. Hart, Wells, and others have simply taken Rome at her word, rather than try to offer some unofficial spin and not authoritative spin.

Canon Tallis said...

Shaughn, thank you for an excellent job of setting forth some historical facts about the English Church which our Roman (what can we truly call them) "friends" might not know. I think they assume that both Canterbury and York were entirely dependent upon the Roman see after they came into communion with the Roman Church. That, of course, is a false assumption with the struggle becoming more intense the corrupt the Roman See became. The names and events make that entirely clear from William I's reaction to the popes request for feudal submission through the great statues and the Magna Carta itself which declared that "the Church of England shall be free."

The one point on which I would disagree is on Rome's stance as "an Apostolic See." Paul may have been brought there as a prisoner, but it is clear from the text of his letter to the Romans that the Church in Rome was already in existence when he arrived and it is very significant that Peter's name is not to be found in that letter. But the West desperately wanted an Apostolic See and psychologically needed one after the capital of the empire was moved to Constantinople.

As for Augustine of Hippo, I would not blame him for the adoption of clerical celibacy in the West, but I do think that the new fad for monasticism reinforced that part of his personality that was attracted to ideals of the Manichees. I have seen much the equivalent of it men who came to the Episcopal ministry from other Christian bodies and who after they had achieved some position proceeded to revert to a polity that reflected more on their previous loyalty that that required by the Book of Common Prayer.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

JMJ

I must object to the mention of "straw men." We have not "set up" anything. As Shaughn correctly points out, we have taken Rome at her word, that their constitution means what it says. As for the mythical "guidance provided from the CDF" we have heard about, what guidance is that? Where can we read their "guidance" in a public document that actually comes from them? Frankly, we do have the answer, and let me tell you what it is. They are headed, last I heard, by Cardinal Levada. They announced and released Anglicanorum Coetibus, and have given no "guidance" that leads to a conclusion any different from the clear reading of the same document by Cardinal Bertone. That is their real guidance, no matter what absurdity one hears from second hand sources.

Sean W. Reed said...

J.M.J.

I think the straw man adage is quite proper - because you are always talking about these people you need to set straight. Who are they? More of these people who were looking for sister churches sharing communion? I have never met any of those.

No one that I know that is heading to the Ordinariate, and I am in communication with a lot of them, has any of the confusion you seem very concerned about addressing.

Additionally, I have consistently encouraged those heading toward the Ordinariate to be sure that they are doing so whilst being on the exact same page theologically. People should not come to the Ordinariate because of what they are against in their current jurisdiction. They should come because they beleive what is taught by the Roman Catholic Church and would like to be in communion with the Holy Father and still enjoy an Anglican expression while doing it.

Fr. Wells said...

"Married priests will be only a temporary aberration within the Anglican Ordinariate, says Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican’s secretary of state."

Anyone of even dull-normal intelligence can read and comprehend the meaning of this sentence.

Fr. Robert Hart said...

Sean Reed:

I can well understand your point, but I cannot understand why you think it justifies accusing us of setting up "straw men." we have addressed facts, not "straw men." With the abundance of facts to draw from, we would need no straw men.

But, by all means, let those who believe all that Roman catholic stuff go where they want to go. Better that than further corruption of Anglican theology and practice.

Anonymous said...

No one is as blind as he who does not wish to see.............

Mr Reed, for your sake I hope that what you are defending so tirelessly will bring you the joy you are so desperately seeking.

If, or when, it backfires, because it will, please do not blame it on anyone but yourself and your resistance to abundantly clear facts.

Sean W. Reed said...

Anomyous wrote:

"...If, or when, it backfires, because it will, please do not blame it on anyone but yourself and your resistance to abundantly clear facts."

Please share exactly what you think is going to backfire. Any by the way, why can't you use your own name?

SWR

Fr. Wells said...

Although I was not the writer of the last unsigned anonymous post, I will explain to Mr Reed what "backfire" looks like. It looks like an epidemic of congregations leaving the ACA and ACCA. It looks like three out of four diocesans in ACA back-pedaling on the signature of the CCC. It looks like a continuing ACA. It looks like the recent warning from the Vatican on No More Married Priests. It looks like the deafening silence from Bp Reid in Ottawa about what he really said. I could go on, but that should help you understand what "backfire" looks like.

Sean W. Reed said...

J.M.J.

Father Wells -

What do the things you name have to do with parishes taking advantage of the terms of Anglicanorum Coetibus?

How is that backfiring on us?

You guys seem obsessed about the Continuuing Church, about the ACA, about Archbishop Hepworth - none of which are part of a parish making a decision. There is no backfiring on us.

Is the ACA a mess and even at that heading in a worse direction - Yes, I think so. It is too bad this could not have ended up with what is staying in the ACA joining in the rest of the Continuuing Church.

Just as the past track record has indicated the Continuuing Church as being unable to effectively evangelize, the past track record has shown an inability to find unity within the various groups. I honestly pray that these two points change.

Even now, your glee at the ACA as an institution fracturing, while less than charitable, is odd.

Father Hart is quite right about the good coming from some of us leaving. It will narrow the spectrum within the "big tent". The only problem is there is still a very broad spectrum - from KJS and TEC to you guys in the ACC - all claiming to be the real voice of Anglicanism and its proper representation.

There will be no "backfire" for those heading to the Ordinariate because those doing so understand what it is about.

It may come as a surprise that the CDF through its representative here in the US does communicate regularly with parishes like ours and our clergy.

They set deadlines for certain things (the local meetings no later than May 7th, documents to be returned by the 16 etc etc) and also provide answers to questions etc.

These communications are regular, helpful, encouraging and show we should be done in the near future.

SWR

Fr. Robert Hart said...

SWR:

Your last comment is full of completely wrong assumptions. I will place some of your words in italics, and answer them.

1. ...about the ACA, about Archbishop Hepworth - none of which are part of a parish making a decision.

You are just plain wrong about that. Are you the only one who does not know what has been going on?

2. It is too bad this could not have ended up with what is staying in the ACA joining in the rest of the Continuuing Church.

What makes you think you have any idea at all about how this will "end up"? Frankly, you have shot at the broadside of a barn and missed the target.

3. Just as the past track record has indicated the Continuuing Church as being unable to effectively evangelize...

What track record? Where? Who? I challenge that whole statement-and it certainly is not what we are experiencing here.

4. Even now, your glee at the ACA as an institution fracturing, while less than charitable, is odd.

Please present evidence of this alleged "glee" on the part of Fr. Wells, or of anyone here. And, what fracturing? The facts show that you touch upon the truth that refutes your words in what I have listed as point 2 above.

5. The only problem is there is still a very broad spectrum - from KJS and TEC to you guys in the ACC - all claiming to be the real voice of Anglicanism and its proper representation

And, even though it is not right that "some animals are more equal than others," it is true that some arguments are more factual and logical than others. We have made scholarly, historical and theological arguments that prove to hold up. This tends not to be the case with others.

6. There will be no "backfire" for those heading to the Ordinariate because those doing so understand what it is about.

If you did "understand what it is about" then you also would know that our analysis has been correct (as is Cardinal Bertone's).

7. It may come as a surprise that the CDF through its representative here in the US does communicate regularly with parishes like ours and our clergy.

No, it does not come as a surprise. Neither does it alter the clear meaning of Anglicanorum Coetibus.

8. These communications are regular, helpful, encouraging and show we should be done in the near future.

Actually, you are "done" already. If you want to be a Roman Catholic, then be one.

Fr. Wells said...

I will not dignify Mr JMJ's charge that I am "gleeful" over the collapse of the Hepworth scheme. But I will point out that such a charge almost explicitly acknowledges the facts on the ground. Whereas Hepworth and his followers were very recently claiming that 700,000 adherents of TAC were about to go marching off to Rome, now it is down to just "us," or "parishes like ours and our clergy." And whereas this little group used to talk of "an open-ended offer" and a first wave, second wave, etc, now they talk of Roman bishops setting deadlines. It is truly impossible to explain a "backfire" to someone who either slept through it or is in denial.

Shaughn said...

Fr. Wells,

You're dealing with a True Believer. Regardless of faction or allegiance, the True Believer will not be dissuaded by mere facts, evidence, or rational argument. True Belief will overcome such petty things.

I don't mean to single out die hard folks in the TAC headed to Rome. You'll find True Believers anywhere. Tee Totallers are True Believers. Iconoclasts are True Believers. The most ardent of Arminians, Calvinists, Erastians, Jansenists are True Believers, as are Liturgists, Traditionalists, Modernists, and Post-Modernists. When someone is irrationally wedded to a system of belief, only some other equal or greater irrational conviction will divorce that person from it.

These irrational convictions needn't be eschatologically detrimental. For example, I was at one point in grade school ardently and self-consciously anti-church. Then I met a cute girl who went to morning prayer at school. She's long gone, and here I am. I was tricked, I tell you.

Anonymous said...

Shaughn,

You are right. Mr JMJ is indeed a True Believer and probably even the revelations of today concerning his Archbishop-Primate writing a nasty letter attacking a RC bishop will do nothing to shake his True Belief.

In that great movie The Holocaust there was an unforgettable character, a young Nazi army officer. He was an intelligent and sensitive man, a musician and poet, the sort who represented the very best in German culture. I seem to recall a scene in which he was saying grace at the family table on Christmas Eve, But he bought into the Nazi party line and became an accomplice to the slaughter of the gas ovens. As the story developed, he deteriorated mentally, so that even after the Reich fell, he was still mouthing Nazi propaganda slogans which had ceased to have meaning or relevance.

I suspect that in a short time, all the JMJ's of TAC will be sitting in some dark corner, staring with glassy eyes into space, and saying Ut Unum Sint, Ut Unum Sint, dreaming of an imaginary church which never existed.

Anonymous said...

The World Court in The Hague is the appropriate venue to bring people to trial for crimes against humanity. Where does a person take errant Primates?

Caedmon said...

"The only problem is there is still a very broad spectrum - from KJS and TEC to you guys in the ACC - all claiming to be the real voice of Anglicanism and its proper representation."

Also a bit of a spectrum from you to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rh_nqtp3VrU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrDbgjLKoxU

http://www.phayul.com/news/article.aspx?id=6067

Anonymous said...

Were is a good forum for Romans who have seen the light and now want to swim the Themes? There is a need for an outreach by the Episcopal Church to 'disaffected' Romans. How many Roman priests have become Episcopal priests? Why are so many Anglicans on the defensive over this issue?