tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post8994307104351286172..comments2024-02-04T15:10:18.485-05:00Comments on The Continuum: The ex- Anglican MobFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-65243557066190351592010-05-23T18:03:47.629-04:002010-05-23T18:03:47.629-04:00Gentlemen,
Until recently, I didn't know how ...Gentlemen,<br /><br />Until recently, I didn't know how to post comments; didn't have an account.<br />I have asked a few of you privately, but I recognise that you are all busy men.<br />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?<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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?<br /><br />I'm sure many of you have been thinking and working toward sensible solutions for this.<br /><br />Heaven protect us all.<br /><br />BentonBenton H Marderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15859682977804992245noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-78070501755394173272010-02-06T19:46:40.626-05:002010-02-06T19:46:40.626-05:00Look, Joe, we can go back and forth endlessly and ...Look, Joe, we can go back and forth endlessly and pointlessly about the nuances of the word "coetus."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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"?<br /><br />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. <br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-73811572788415809712010-02-06T00:45:52.364-05:002010-02-06T00:45:52.364-05:00I only want to dismiss the notion that coetus is &...<i>I only want to dismiss the notion that coetus is "clearly a disparaging and pejorative term," i.e., an insult.</i><br /><br />But, no one said it was. That was never the point.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-52948156118942320762010-02-05T22:48:29.349-05:002010-02-05T22:48:29.349-05:00But my point stands: whether coetus means a formal...<i>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.</i><br /><br />Granted that <i>coetus</i> doesn't rise to the level of ecclesial community in this era of <i>Dominus Iesus</i>; nor should it, if we remember that from Rome's point of view the entire Anglican Communion constitutes an ecclesial community, not an <i>ecclesia</i> strictly speaking. <br /><br />That said, however, I don't think <i>coetus</i> is at all <i>clearly</i> a pejorative term. After all, you'll find it in the Latin text of <a href="http://gavvie.tripod.com/39articles/art3.html" rel="nofollow">Article XIX</a>: "Ecclesia Christi visibilis est <b>coetus</b> fidelium..." <br /><br />St. Robert Bellarmine employed the word almost exactly the same way: "Ecclesia enim est <b>coetus</b> hominum ita visibilis et palpabilis..." (<i>Controversiae</i>, Book III, Chap. 2).<br /><br />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 <i>Coetus Internationalis Patrum</i> (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 <i>coetus</i> 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 <i>sacra</i> descriptive, either, to ward off any untoward connotation.<br /><br />Other examples exist, of course. I only want to dismiss the notion that <i>coetus</i> 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 <a href="http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2008/07/pope-benedicts-anglican-mind.html" rel="nofollow">familiar with his theology</a>.<br /><br />JoeJoe Oliverihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18158355659523906494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-58610495649716677342010-02-05T19:01:01.656-05:002010-02-05T19:01:01.656-05:00I will yield the point to Mr Olivieri that the Lat...I will yield the point to Mr Olivieri that the Latin noun "coetus" is not a precise euivalent to our word "mob."<br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br />LKWAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-31623567996919629302010-02-05T18:12:20.963-05:002010-02-05T18:12:20.963-05:00And, I am perfectly happy for people who find the ...And, I am perfectly happy for people who find the same Christ there that I have known all these years. <br /><br />You wrote:<br /><i>but they are bringing much of the Anglican heritage with them, which heritage Anglicanorum Coetibus explicitly describes as "a precious gift."</i><br /><br />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.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-20436463317559175572010-02-05T17:31:44.387-05:002010-02-05T17:31:44.387-05:00But, are you suggesting that they will not be movi...<i>But, are you suggesting that they will not be moving away from Anglicanism?</i><br /><br />They are leaving some things behind, yes -- no one denies this; but they are bringing much of the Anglican heritage with them, which heritage <i>Anglicanorum Coetibus</i> 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.<br /><br />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 <i>Anglicanorum Coetibus</i> will be <i>Roman</i> 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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Only time will tell.Joe Oliverihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18158355659523906494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-54507389550473024352010-02-05T16:21:15.504-05:002010-02-05T16:21:15.504-05:00At any rate, I maintain -- as Fr. Wells seems prep...<i>At any rate, I maintain -- as Fr. Wells seems prepared to admit -- that</i> coetibus<i> is actually dative case here.</i><br /><br />Does he? We will see. <br /><br />But, are you suggesting that they will not be moving away from Anglicanism?Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-35752316007592555762010-02-05T16:09:48.388-05:002010-02-05T16:09:48.388-05:00The word "ablative" means separation fro...<i>The word "ablative" means separation from a source, or moving away. If it is the ablative case, that is the meaning.</i><br /><br />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. <br /><br />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 <i>electione</i> (abl. of <i>electio</i>/ex+lectio): "by election"; etc.).<br /><br />At any rate, I maintain -- as Fr. Wells seems prepared to admit -- that <i>coetibus</i> is actually dative case here.<br /><br />JoeJoe Oliverihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18158355659523906494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-7292961928727755502010-02-05T13:42:48.359-05:002010-02-05T13:42:48.359-05:00Joe Oliveri wrote:
By quoting Abp. Warham out of ...Joe Oliveri wrote:<br /><br /><i>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><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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 <i>correct</i> his words. <br /><br />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.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-43896072427910677352010-02-05T13:32:26.088-05:002010-02-05T13:32:26.088-05:00Joe Oliveri:
Whereas you could no doubt teach me ...Joe Oliveri:<br /><br />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.<br />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. <br /><br />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:<br /><br />You argued that:<br /><br /> <i>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."</i><br /><br />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:<br /><br /><i>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..."</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />Your comments are the <a href="http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2010/01/about-comments.html" rel="nofollow">kind of disagreement</a> 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 Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-38459766877491920712010-02-05T13:11:42.270-05:002010-02-05T13:11:42.270-05:00As you say, Fr. Hart, it is important to know the ...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.<br /><br />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 <i>turba</i> or <i>vulgus</i> 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. <br /><br />Fr. Wells was incorrect; and you were incorrect to adopt his mistranslation for the title of this post.<br /><br /><i>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.</i><br /><br />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.) <br /><br />Second, <i>coetibus</i> is almost certainly dative, being the object of a verb involving motion or influence -- "[T]he Holy Spirit has moved groups of Anglicans...".<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><i>[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.</i><br /><br />Once again: There is no "implication" in the title of this document. You chose to see an implication where none exists.Joe Oliverihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18158355659523906494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-56568949094506504132010-02-05T11:08:53.538-05:002010-02-05T11:08:53.538-05:00Fr. Wells has defined the word, and shown that it ...<i>Fr. Wells has defined the word, and shown that it is significant in understanding the Roman mind behind the constitution</i><br /><br />Fr. Wells has done nothing of the kind. What he has done is carelessly -- I won't say purposely -- mistranslated the word <i>coetus</i>. This was a poor attempt at a rhetorical flourish meant to ridicule the TAC leadership.<br /><br /><i>"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><br /><br />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 <i>previous</i> Roman Catholic teaching. <br /><br />Episcopal <i>jurisdiction</i> 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 <i>Magisterium</i> 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.<br /><br />JoeJoe Oliverihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18158355659523906494noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-89666677961514714602010-02-05T02:38:37.837-05:002010-02-05T02:38:37.837-05:00"...on matters of Canon Law no one has a bett...<i>"...on matters of Canon Law no one has a better grasp than Fr. Nalls."</i><br /><br />Is he a Roman Catholic canon lawyer, or formerly one or something? <br /><br />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.Tnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-64216547491126443382010-02-04T22:38:40.009-05:002010-02-04T22:38:40.009-05:00To be very clear to readers who might be confused,...To be very clear to readers who might be confused, I'm not going anywhere and am quite content in the ACC-OP. :>RSC+https://www.blogger.com/profile/00639369749327986414noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-50552049563716303772010-02-04T20:50:22.900-05:002010-02-04T20:50:22.900-05:00Fr. John wrote:
"Sean,
So sorry I misspelle...Fr. John wrote:<br /><br />"Sean,<br /><br />So sorry I misspelled your name in my previous post.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"I said, tomorrow they will eat their bread of sorrow.""<br /><br />Fr. John -<br /><br />No problem about the spelling. <br /><br />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 :)<br /><br />Seriously, let's just wait and see.<br /><br /><br /><br />Sean W. ReedSean W. Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02782194974794706695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-51933381331894923102010-02-04T14:15:24.532-05:002010-02-04T14:15:24.532-05:00Sean,
So sorry I misspelled your name in my previ...Sean,<br /><br />So sorry I misspelled your name in my previous post.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />"I said, tomorrow they will eat their bread of sorrow."Fr. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18097549748468739701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-30092347170708550292010-02-04T12:59:59.640-05:002010-02-04T12:59:59.640-05:00Sean:
Do you really think a year is enough time? ...Sean:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />It would not change my convictions about why I am an Anglican, not in the least.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-37000939637612833682010-02-04T12:56:47.595-05:002010-02-04T12:56:47.595-05:00Father Hart -
Let's do this - you have said h...Father Hart -<br /><br />Let's do this - you have said how you think it will play out.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />SWRSean W. Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02782194974794706695noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-65611729739845821212010-02-04T12:54:00.671-05:002010-02-04T12:54:00.671-05:00T wrote:
I am far from convinced that Rome's ...T wrote:<br /><br /><i>I am far from convinced that Rome's documents are being interpreted correctly (dare I say "infallibly") on this blog.</i><br /><br />Ok, but, on matters of Canon Law no one has a better grasp than Fr. Nalls.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-63809450137292053752010-02-04T12:50:55.776-05:002010-02-04T12:50:55.776-05:00Sean Reed:
You have alluded to a specific set of ...Sean Reed:<br /><br />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?<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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? <br /><br />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 Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-11610913987188776952010-02-04T10:11:54.879-05:002010-02-04T10:11:54.879-05:00Dear Shaughn,
Thanks for your honest answers. I ...Dear Shaughn,<br /><br />Thanks for your honest answers. I appreciate your responses.<br /><br />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.”"<br /><br />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.<br /><br />You also wrote: "If he is teaching contrary to the Church's position, it should be reported to the Holy See."<br /><br />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."<br /><br />Shaughn,<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Good luck to you in the name of God.Fr. Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18097549748468739701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-24209710780259962862010-02-04T03:44:33.905-05:002010-02-04T03:44:33.905-05:00JOhn A HOllister saith:
"Again, this is a mi...JOhn A HOllister saith:<br /><br /><i>"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><br /><br />I agree with that 110%. I could say more....but I won't right now.<br /><br />But having said that..<br /><br /><i>... -- from Rome's own documents -- ."</i> <br /><br />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.<br /><br />Just my opinion.Tnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-71822380576484098722010-02-04T03:33:50.060-05:002010-02-04T03:33:50.060-05:00Fr John saith:
"How about you Mr. "T&qu...Fr John saith:<br /><br /><i>"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?<br /><br />This is one of your bishops. Do you recommend that I place my parish into his hands?</i><br /><br />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.Tnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-27690143567973043372010-02-03T22:37:30.879-05:002010-02-03T22:37:30.879-05:00Father Hart wrote:
"...You need to take a cl...Father Hart wrote:<br /><br />"...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..."<br /><br />From Anglicanorum Coetibus:<br /><br />"IV. A Personal Ordinariate is entrusted to the pastoral care of an Ordinary appointed by the Roman Pontiff.<br /><br />V. The power (potestas) of the Ordinary is:<br /><br />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;<br /><br />b. vicarious: exercised in the name of the Roman Pontiff;<br /><br />c. personal: exercised over all who belong to the Ordinariate;<br /><br />This power is to be exercised jointly with that of the local Diocesan Bishop, in those cases provided for in the Complementary Norms."<br /><br />From the Norms:<br /><br />"§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.<br /><br />§2. The Ordinary is a member of the respective Episcopal Conference.<br /><br />Article 3<br /><br />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..."<br /><br /><br />Please point out to me the part you are thinking about.<br /><br /><br />SWRSean W. Reedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02782194974794706695noreply@blogger.com