The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
What the Vatican's welcome of Anglicans means
One caution: Many of the details remain up in the air
Oct. 23, 2009
Episcopal Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and Episcopal Auxiliary Bishop Nerva Cot, the first woman bishop named by the Episcopal Church in a developing nation, during Cot's ordination in Havana, Cuba, in 2007. Ordaining women is one of the issues causing a split in the Anglican Communion.
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionThis week's big Vatican story is obviously the decision to create special structures, called "personal ordinariates", to welcome Anglicans seeking to join the Catholic church. In some reports, the move was touted as a bold gambit to end the schism that began with the English Reformation in the 16th century -- a dubious bit of spin, given that the actual number of Anglicans likely to sign up for one of these ordinariates will almost certainly be quite small.
When the dust settles, the centuries-long breach between Rome and Canterbury will remain intact.
More in the realm of reality, the move was styled as Rome rolling out a welcome mat for "disaffected Anglicans," meaning conservatives unhappy with the ordination of women as priests and bishops, the blessing of same-sex unions, and the ordination of openly gay clergy. That's indeed likely to be the constituency most disposed to take up Rome's offer, but in principle these new structures will be open to all Anglicans, whatever their position on the culture wars.
(In the United States, the primary branch of the global Anglican Communion is the Episcopal Church, "Episcopalians" for short. Worldwide there are about 77 million Anglicans, including 2.2 million American Episcopalians.)
The announcement came in a Vatican briefing on Tuesday with two Americans: Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; and Archbishop Augustine Di Noia, Secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, formerly the number three official at the CDF. Their appearance was accompanied by a joint statement from the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, along with the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols.
The gloss from those sources boils down to three basic points:
- This move is a natural response to requests from some Anglicans to join the Catholic church, rather than a case of the Vatican going fishing for new converts. (That's why many Catholic leaders have winced at headlines using the term "lure" to describe what's going on; their line is, 'We didn't go looking for them, they came to us.')
- By allowing these folks to bring a fair bit of their spiritual heritage into the Catholic church, the decision is a gesture of respect for the Anglican tradition. (The statement from Williams and Nichols actually said this move would not have been possible without forty years of Anglican/Catholic dialogue.)
- The decision will not disrupt official ecumenical relations between the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church.
A bit of background: A "personal ordinariate" is like a non-geographical diocese, with its own ordinary (usually a bishop), priests and laity. On an individual basis, Anglicans have always been able to join the Catholic church, but what's new is that whole groups of Anglicans can now come into communion while preserving much of their spiritual heritage – how they pray and worship, and even their tradition of a married priesthood. (More on that in a moment.)
While the analogy isn't exact, one can think of these structures by comparison to the twenty-two Eastern Rite churches in communion with Rome, such as the Maronite Church in Lebanon or the Ukranian Greek Catholic Church. Those churches preserve a great deal of Orthodox spirituality, and they too have married priests.
Before going too far down this road, however, a major caution is in order: While the Vatican has announced that a papal document creating the basis for these ordinariates is coming (called an "apostolic constitution," the device popes use to amend canon law), it hasn't yet been published. Many of the details thus remain up in the air. Right now, things are a bit reminiscent of when Obama first started promoting health care reform, without actually offering a bill -- it could mean almost anything, depending on who's talking.
* * *
On the record, most Anglican leaders have reacted with calm to Tuesday's announcement, seeking to play down impressions of yet another ecumenical crisis. Privately, however, sources involved in Anglican/Catholic relations say that at least some Anglicans have voiced disappointment and anxiety, wondering if this move will further call into question the whole point of official dialogue.
That reaction has an undeniable logic. During the early 1990s, the Catholic church, as part of its dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox churches, affirmed that it "rejects uniatism ... [which] can no longer be accepted, either as a method to be followed nor as a model of the unity our churches are seeking." The term "uniatism" refers to the creation of several Eastern rite churches in the 16th century, partly as a result of Jesuit missionary activity, which have been viewed ever since by many Orthodox as embodying a "divide and conquer" strategy. (The statement added that rejection of uniatism as a method should not call into question the present right of those churches to exist and to care for their faithful.)
It will probably be tough for some Anglicans to look at these new "personal ordinariates" and not feel that they're tantamount to a revival of the uniatism which Rome has supposedly disavowed.
Before concluding that this is inevitably a setback for ecumenism, however, there are two points worth bringing into focus.
First, the Vatican has not gone looking for these Anglicans. In this case, Rome didn't dispatch Jesuit missionaries into the hinterlands of Great Britain or the United States looking to set up splinter churches. Instead, these Anglicans have been knocking on the door of the Catholic church for some time.
Given that Catholicism is in the business of making converts, turning these people away was never a serious option. In that context, allowing them to preserve a great deal of their heritage could actually be seen as a rather remarkable gesture of respect for Anglicanism. As I put it in a brief commentary for The New York Times, if some percentage of the world's Anglicans were going to swim the Tiber anyway, the Vatican has at least tried to bring them ashore in the most ecumenically sensitive fashion possible.
Second, traffic between Catholics and Anglicans is a two-way street. It's not just that some Anglicans are becoming Catholics, but there are also a number of Catholics who in the past few decades have chosen to become Anglicans (in the States, Episcopalians). In equal-and-opposite fashion, these tend to be more liberal Catholics who support all the measures that traditionalist Anglicans oppose -- gay marriage, women priests and bishops, and so on.
For whatever reason, few people seem to accuse Anglicans of being anti-ecumenical for receiving these disaffected Catholics, even though everybody knows that it goes on. Since there are more Catholics to begin with, there are probably more Catholics entering into communion with Canterbury than the other way around.
Of course, one key difference is that Catholicism is so much bigger than the Anglican Communion -- 1.2 billion faithful worldwide to roughly 77 million -- that no Catholic is seriously worried about being swallowed up by Canterbury. Some Anglicans, meanwhile, have precisely that fear about Rome. That, however, is about politics and demographics, not theology.
Here's how Cardinal Walter Kasper, the Vatican's top official for ecumenism, put things during a news conference in Rome last week -- obviously before the decision was announced, but with some inkling it was coming:
"We are not fishing in the Anglican lake," Kasper said. "Proselytism is not a policy of the Catholic church."
"But if, in conscience, some [Anglicans] want to become Catholics, we cannot shut the door," Kasper said. "We must respect freedom of conscience and of religion. There are also some Catholics who want to become Anglicans, and we have to respect that too."
* * *
One curious twist is why the Vatican decided to make its announcement before the apostolic constitution was ready for release, seemingly a cart-before-the-horse maneuver.
Sources tell NCR that the constitution, the result of almost three years of work, still needs some canonical fine-tuning. Nevertheless, the Vatican could have waited to make its splash until the document was complete, so the question still looms: Why do it this way?
I don't know the answer, but I can at least point to two (possibly unintended) consequences of the delay.
First, it gives Vatican officials a chance to gauge public reaction and to get a sense of the questions people will be asking, flagging potential misinterpretations and indentifying gaps in the new rules. That way, it's possible that some of the holes can be plugged before the document appears.
Second, the way things have worked out actually amounts to something of a PR masterstroke.
In the past, the Vatican has sometimes dumped documents or decisions onto an unsuspecting world, without much explanation. When Vatican officials finally did try to put things in perspective, their reassurances were a day late and a dollar short. (The lifting the excommunication of a Holocaust-denying bishop, and authorizing wider celebration of the old Latin liturgy, including a Good Friday prayer for the conversion of Jews, come to mind.)
In those cases, the external parties likely to be affected were caught off guard, so their initial comments were often resentful and negative. This time, the Vatican got the Archbishop of Canterbury on board right away. (I actually can't recall another case in which a major Vatican announcement was bundled with an approving statement from a non-Catholic religious leader.)
In other words, the Vatican reversed its normal sequence: It's offered the explanation first, with the details to come later.
Whether Rome's soothing spin will hold up over time -- especially once the apostolic constitution appears -- is anyone's guess. For once, however, the Vatican doesn't find itself trying to defuse a bomb after it's already gone off.
* * *
Before singing the praises of the Vatican's PR savvy too lustily, however, it's worth noting that Tuesday's briefing was still marked by a sort of "church-speak" that's tough for the outside world to grasp.
I did a radio talk show Wednesday morning with Bishop George Langberg of the Anglican Church of America. The host began with a clip of Levada from Tuesday's briefing, which went something like this: "The Holy Father has approved an apostolic constitution, which creates a canonical provision facilitating a kind of corporate reunion of Anglican groups."
The host's toss to me after the clip was the following: "John, can you tell us what the hell that means?"
The vignette makes the point that even when church leaders are trying to be sensitive to communications dynamics, their language still sometimes requires a bit of decoding.
* * *
Naturally, observers are anxious to know precisely how these new "personal ordinariates" are going to work. Alas, until the apostolic constitution is published, most of those details are impossible to fill in. For now, all we can do is list six questions (in truth, more like families of questions) that are obviously looming.
1. What's the deal on married priests?
The Vatican announcement on Tuesday clearly ruled in current Anglican ministers who are married and who wish to become Catholic priests, and clearly ruled out married bishops. It's still vague, however, what the situation will be going forward. During the briefing, Levada appeared to suggest that married Anglican seminarians could also be ordained Catholic priests -- but will that be a transitional allowance, or a permanent exception to the discipline of celibacy? In other words, will be the personal ordinariates be like the Eastern churches, able to ordain married priests in perpetuity?
Jesuit Fr. Tom Reese has raised two related questions along these lines:
- Could a married Catholic man join the Anglicans, enter an Anglican seminary and then return to the Catholic Church?
- Could married Catholic men from the traditional dioceses join the Anglican ordinariate and become seminarians and priests?
Obviously, the question becomes what impact such allowances might have on the broader debate over priestly celibacy. Whatever happens, it seems likely that the Vatican will be concerned that the opening to Anglicans not evolve into a massive loophole that ends up eroding the discipline of celibacy on a wider basis.
2. What happens to the Pastoral Provision?
Back in 1980, the Vatican approved something called the "Pastoral Provision" for ministers and laity of the Episcopal Church who wanted to become Catholics. It authorized the ordination of married Episcopal ministers as Catholic priests, as well as the creation of "personal parishes" for former Episcopalians that retain some elements of Anglican liturgical practice. Over thirty years, around one hundred former Episcopal ministers have become Catholic priests under the Pastoral Provision, and seven personal parishes or worship communities have been created. (Four are in Texas, one in Massachusetts, one in Pennsylvania, and one in Missouri).
So, what's to become of those folks?
For example, will the personal parishes be folded into a new personal ordinariate? If so, how will property questions be resolved? Currently, those parishes belong to the dioceses in which they're located. Will the diocese have to cede ownership, or at least rights of use, to a new ordinariate? What happens if the local congregation doesn't want to be absorbed -- if they're perfectly happy, for example, being part of the Archdiocese of San Antonio or Boston?
Likewise, will the priests ordained under the Pastoral Provision be incardinated into a new ordinariate? If so, will local bishops in those dioceses necessarily be willing to lose a priest in an era of shortages? Or, what happens if the priest himself doesn't want to make the move? Such a priest might reasonably think, for example, that his salary, pension, and health care are more secure in his current diocese than they might be in a new ordinariate, which will likely be fairly cash-starved at the beginning.
Understandably, nobody's more anxious to get their hands on the forthcoming apostolic constitution than the people in the Pastoral Provision, so they can begin to get some sense of their fate.
3. What's the relationship between an ordinariate and a local church?
The Vatican announcement said that ordinariates will be created "in consultation with local conferences of bishops," and that "their structure will be similar in some ways to that of the military ordinariates which have been established in most countries." That seems to suggest that the ordinariates will be set up along national or regional lines -- perhaps one for the United States, where there are lots of Episcopalians, but maybe just one for all of Latin America, where the Anglican Communion doesn't have a large sociological footprint.
If so, this would be the major difference between a "personal ordinariate" and a "personal prelature," a canonical category currently occupied only by Opus Dei. A personal prelature, by definition, is global, whereas these ordinariates will seemingly have some sort of tie to a local church.
That prospect raises several questions. First of all, what exactly does "in consultation with" local bishops mean? What if, for example, a given bishops' conference doesn't actually want an ordinariate in its territory, feeling that it would rather integrate former Anglicans into existing pastoral structures?
Once they're in business, will the "ordinary" of these new structures, in most cases a bishop, become a member of the national conference of bishops? How would that work if there's only one ordinariate for a whole region? For example, would the ordinary become a member of CELAM, the Latin American bishops' conference, without belonging to the conference of any Latin American country?
For that matter, how will the ball start rolling? Will it be the case, for example, that whichever group of Anglicans in a given country or region crosses the finish line first, putting in its formal request for an ordinariate, will be in a position to dominate the ordinariate in that area, setting the tone for whoever might follow? (If so, are we in for an ecclesiastical equivalent of the Oklahoma land rush, with various groups scrambling to stake their claims first?)
4. Who gets to join?
The target audience, so to speak, for the new ordinariates is obviously Anglicans (and former Anglicans) wishing to become Catholic. Let's suppose, however, that once these structures are up and running, some current Catholics find they prefer the liturgical style in the Anglican ordinariate, and decide that they want to join -- not a completely improbable scenario, since "high church" Anglican liturgies have long held a strong appeal for some Catholics.
Or, suppose a given Catholic gets to know Fr. Geoff of the Anglican ordinariate, or becomes friends with Jim and Suzy who worship in the ordinariate, and decides that he or she would like to become part of their community -- again, hardly a long-shot prospect, given the way Catholic sociology often works.
Will such Catholics, without any connection to the Anglican tradition, still be able to join? In other words, will prospective members of the ordinariate be required to establish some sort of Anglican bona fides, or will they eventually be opened up to all comers?
A related question: At present, when a given Anglican (or Episcopalian) wishes to become Catholic, he or she generally goes through some sort of catechetical process, which among other things is designed to assess readiness for entry into full communion. Will the Anglicans who form the nucleus of these new ordinariates be asked to go through a similar sort of one-on-one scrutiny, or will their preparation be established on a more collective basis?
5. Which Vatican office will be in charge?
When the Pastoral Provision was created, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was placed in charge, appointing a delegate in the United States to run the show (currently, it's Archbishop John Myers of Newark.) The CDF is also the office that's prepared the new apostolic constitution.
Typically, however, dioceses and other ecclesiastical jurisdictions (such as apostolic administrations, or, for that matter, Opus Dei as a personal prelature) report to the Congregation for Bishops. At this stage, the safe bet seems that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will be in charge, but again it's not clear whether that will be styled as a transitional measure until the ordinariates are "normalized," or whether they'll always remain an exception to the usual lines of authority.
6. Will the ordinaries become a kind of bishops' conference?
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that what the dust finally settles, ten personal ordinariates for former Anglicans are established around the world, and that each has a bishop. Will those ten prelates come to think of themselves as forming a bishops' conference? Would they be recognized as such by the Vatican, doing at least some of the things that bishops' conferences usually do -- such as approving translations of liturgical texts, or hammering out policies on sexual abuse and child protection?
Should things develop in that direction, such a conference could become an important force in English-speaking Catholicism -- perhaps especially on liturgical questions, which tends to be a particular preoccupation of Anglicans who come into communion with the Catholic church.
* * *
Alas, perhaps the biggest question of all won't be answered, because it can't be answered, by the pope's apostolic constitution: How many Anglicans are actually going to sign up?
The Traditional Anglican Communion, the largest and most visible group seeking communion with Rome, claims a global following of 400,000, including some 5,000 in the United States. (The TAC is essentially a federation of heterogeneous groups, with the bulk of its following apparently concentrated in the global south, especially Africa and India.) How many of those folk will actually decide to make the jump isn't yet clear, nor is there any way of knowing how many other Anglicans might come out of the woodwork.
During the Tuesday briefing, Levada said that 20 to 30 Anglican bishops have made overtures to Rome, but there's a difference between putting out feelers and actually signing on the dotted line. During my radio bit on Wednesday with Langberg, he said that "the devil is in the details," and that most of his colleagues are waiting to see what's actually in the apostolic constitution.
At least three variables will likely come into play:
- The extent to which Anglicans, or former Anglicans, will feel that the apostolic constitution offers sufficient guarantees that their distinctive spiritual heritage will be protected. Some Anglicans might fear that the provision for "consultation" with local bishops will mean, in practice, that where a local bishop is lukewarm to the whole idea, their autonomy will be honored more in the breach than the observance. Similarly, if the provision for married priests is merely transitional or temporary, that might turn off some potential takers.
- How many conservative Anglicans, who might have been attracted to becoming Catholic two or three years ago, have lost interest by now? In the United States and Canada, several traditionalist congregations have in the meantime formed the Anglican Church in North America, and much of their energy is now devoted to building up that structure. Yesterday, the group issued a statement welcoming the Vatican's decision, but predicting that "this provision will not be utilized by the great majority of the Anglican Church in North America's bishops, priests, dioceses and congregations."
- What will happen inside the Anglican Communion between now and when these new structures are actually created, which will probably be at least a year or so down the road? If the Anglicans are able to assure those traditionalists still on board that they have a future, it might hold down the numbers inclined to jump ship. (If so, one great irony might be that Rome's opening to the Anglicans, which some fear will contribute to the dissolution of the Anglican Communion, might actually end up helping it stick together.)
On all these questions, the only thing one can say for sure is: "Stay tuned."
* * *
The Synod for Africa comes to a close on Sunday, and as this column went to process work was still continuing on its final conclusions. I'll cover the final stages on the "NCR Today" blog, and I'll have a final wrap-up next week. An index of all my stories from the synod is here: NCRonline.org/synodforafrica.
This move blurs the lines
This move blurs the lines between two branches of the Catholic (i.e., universal) church. That's good, regardless of how it will ultimately be explained.
Catholics, conservative and liberal, will feel less conflicted about attending Anglican churches for the superior liturgy and fellowship, and Anglicans, conservative and liberal, will feel less anxiety about their attraction to the religion of their pre-reformation ancestors.
One very thorny problem for a
One very thorny problem for a great many Anglicans (clergy and laity alike) who feel drawn to the Catholic Church will be the validity of their marriages. Anyone who has ever been married to someone other than their current spouse (or whose spouse was married before) must undergo a tribunal investigation and receive a declaration of nullity for the prior marriage(s) before being received into full communion. This process usually takes many months, and there is no guarantee that the verdict will be affirmative. I suspect that many of those who might otherwise approach full communion will be discouraged from doing so by the complexity of this process.
May we also have some more
May we also have some more objective viewpoints?
Why will this not prohibit an
Why will this not prohibit an Anglican / Episcopalian congregation with same-sex married priests from becoming a part of a larger, like-minded 'personal ordinariate"? Cardinal Levada smilingly didn't think they would. But what if they did? Is the apostolic constitution going to have to list all the exclusions to it's general provisions?
No: it is not up to the
No: it is not up to the Non-Catholic congregation to become Catholic, if the Roman Catholic Church does not receive them into full communion. Since full communion is not possible without the agreement on faith and morals, the congregation which endorses the errors you mention (like the acceptance of same-sex marriage and the like) may not become a part of the Roman Catholic Church. So there is no need to list the exclusions: they are already there, in the Catechism.
why would they want to join?
why would they want to join?
The Christian Church today
The Christian Church today faces many challenges. There is firstly, the great "isms" of today such as secularism, hedonism,atheism,and the like. Secondly, there is the great emphasis upon the personal verus the corporate interpretation of spiritual truth. Thirdly, the continued denominationalism of the Church is itself an challenge.
In light of these challenges, many Christians have sought a restoration of the full organic unity of the Church in the West. I underscore the "West" because the situations and circumstances in the Eastern Church are significantly different.
Anyway, the goal of the ecumenical dialogs from 1960's forward was to find doctrinal agreement between Rome and the churches of the Reformation. The dialogs looked at the major issues of doctrinal teaching such as: The Apostles and Nicene Creeds, Holy Baptism, the Holy Eucharist, Confession and Penance, the Office of the Holy Ministry and Justification and Sanctification. On all of these issues the participants found remarkable convergence of teaching. Even on the key issue of Justification, the Lutherans and the Roman Catholics were able to agree that their respective understandings of this doctrine were not cause for the continued separation of the Church.
But there was very little practical progress in visible and organic Church unity from these dialogs. It seemed that the denominations had a "feel good" moment when they agreed and then went about business as if nothing significant had happened. Maybe the dialog participants were willing to move forward with the logical outcomes of the ecumenical agreements but their home denominations were not.
Pope Benedict is dedicated to Church unity and most likely understands that unity as something resulting in the visible organic unification of the denominations into the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Therefore, he is willing to take unilateral action in order to move the denominations toward that goal.
It's the beginning of the end
It's the beginning of the end of "celibacy" as the norm.
I hope so. I am a
I hope so.
I am a theologically orthodox Roman Catholic that believes he is called to marriage and priesthood. Clerical celibacy is a wonderful gift to the Church if the person embracing it truly possesses the charism; however, as we all know, many men currently in the seminary and those already ordained have chosen celibacy because this is the only way they can become a priest. Unfortunately, many of these people without the real charism of celibacy end of living very sexually dysfunctional lives (pornography, etc.). I have personally witnessed this.
First, the Vatican has not
First, the Vatican has not gone looking for these Anglicans. In this case, Rome didn't dispatch Jesuit missionaries into the hinterlands of Great Britain or the United States looking to set up splinter churches. Instead, these Anglicans have been knocking on the door of the Catholic church for some time.
Of course not John, why should Rome do this when they have the Institute on Religion and Democracy ("IRD") to do much of the dirty work for them? Perhaps NCR would do well to shed some light on this nefarious neoconservative think-tank that since 1981 has been attacking both mainline Protestant denominations and open-minded Catholics.
Let's call this for what it really is: a move to replace moderate and liberal Catholics with ultra-conservatives. This, my fellow Catholics, is schism by substitution.
Three things here. 1. Roman
Three things here.
1. Roman rite Catholics cannot become non-Roman rite from what I've read. We can't go join the Coptic Churches or whatever so it seems we'll be barred from crossing over to the Anglicans too.
2. What happens to the women priests in these groups. Say one church in the diocese that moves over to the Catholics has a woman priest. Will she be allowed to remain a priest or is she suddenly without a church home?
3. If Opus Dei, and now the Anglicans get their own bishops and groups why can't other people like Catholics for women priests or gay rights? Or do only groups in schism with us or with sexual predator leaders get these special things?
None of these convert clergy
None of these convert clergy have valid orders in the eyes of the Church anyway, and so will have to "re-apply" for the job. The married clergymen will be given consideration despite their married state (similar to the "Pastoral Provision"). Women will, of course, not be eligible to do so, as per 2000 years of Tradition.
1. A Roman rite Catholic can
1. A Roman rite Catholic can attend the church of other rites and can even join, though I'm a little fuzzy on exactly what the process for that is.
2. Women priests are not allowed in the Catholic Church. Period.
3. The people you've mentioned cannot get their own bishops because they are in violation of Catholic teaching. If the Church were to grant them bishops and their own ordinaries, the Church would be violating its own teachings.
I am one of the interested
I am one of the interested parties to this great event. This is the best explanation I've yet seen and you covered just about all the questions I have, except how this will be implemented locally-- in this diocese.
Thank you
John Allen neglected to get a
John Allen neglected to get a handle on some very important Anglican terms in this article. Anglicans do not call their PRIESTS "ministers". In both America and England, their prayer books and lay people have always considered them PRIESTS. John Allen needed to get such fundamental facts correct when addressing this issue. Anglicans or Episcopalians have always considered themselves both CATHOLIC and REFORMED. The extreme Protestant elements identified as "low church" may reject the Catholic and emphasize the Protestant but they are only a small segment of the world wide Anglican Communion. Overall, I do thank John Allen for a good article, I just wanted to point out a glaring error of terms. Remember, Anglicans consider their Priests and Bishops to have completely VALID orders, unlike the former Cardinal Ratzinger who called their orders INVALID. This was a right winger's slap in their collective faces and it set ecumenical relations back by decades. It was insulting and disrespectful. I think this entire affair is going to backfire on Rome in ways they never dreamed of.
The insanity continues in
The insanity continues in Rome. The right wing of the church prevails and the people of Vatican 2 teaching continue to be abandon.
A worthy continuation of your
A worthy continuation of your recent NPR interview, Mr. Allen.
So, it looks like we've moved from a vocal GOP bought and paid for right-wing minority of USCCB members, to a full blown GOP, right wing Vatican. But no real surprise here, considering all of the American profligate hierarchs on-the-run Rome has had to absorb cuz they are no longer welcome in their own country due to their inflammatory politics and so-called pastoral style. Let them all dress up in fiddleback chasubles and run around the basilica...No wonder the Pope was so courteous to President Obama last July. He knew what was already in the pipeline.....
Not having the document in
Not having the document in question means there is much guess work. I think, however, the situation which exists will let us figure some things out.
There have been several Anglican and ex-Anglican jurisdictions which have approached Rome about corporate reunion, most prominently, the Traditional Anglican Communion. Some have been much less vocal, but in some ways are more significant and ecumenically weird - the Catholic Herald reported that more than one Episcopalian Diocese in the US approached the Holy See.
"Personal Ordinaries" would allow these jurisdictions to continue as is - the TAC jurisdiction in the US could exist side by side with the ex-Episcopalian diocese of Anywhereville. It allows geographic overlap. I think this would be a good step, since the psychology of a "Continuing Anglican" diocese would be completely different than a traditionally conservative Episcopalian Diocese.
As for the Pastoral Provision, I very much doubt the priests would have their incardination changed, nor would the few existing parishes change jurisdictions. However, my guess is they could request such a change of incardination, as any priest can.
I don't think a loophole would be created. Although these jurisdictions would be able to keep their houses of formation, I think a clear delineation would be drawn, and no man born a Roman Catholic could take a back door to become a married Catholic priest. However, a Roman Catholic who left the Church, joined a Continuing Anglican congregation, then was ordained in said jurisdiction, and it later became Catholic might be in a better position. Several of the clergy of the TAC fall into this position. I think numbers of faithful will play a role in this, and in every case it will involve a special dispensation from the Holy See.
I think the question on the ordinaries becoming a bishop conference is an interesting one - just because in the beginning, the situation will be a mess. Possibly after 10 years, all of the ordinaries can get together and fix any overlapping structures, coordinate their houses of formation, etc. But I think that individual ordinaries will have a role to play in their respective national bishops' conferences, as do Eastern rite bishops. However, since the Anglican-rite is considered a "Usage" of the roman rite, they would be able to participate in liturgy meetings!
Ecumenically speaking, I think this should be seen as positive. Accusations of "poaching" are silly, especially given the nature of many Anglican parishes in Hispanic neighborhoods - look Catholic, seem Catholic, etc, all in the name of inculturation. However, if we really think ecumenism is about unity, as opposed to just talking about unity (which, sadly, many in the ecumenical movement do not believe), then such a step is very important. Ecumenically, we must hope that the Catholic and Anglicans will come into communion with each other. The Catholic Church is much larger than the Anglican Communion, and if she treats these small jurisdictions with respect and allows them an amount of freedom, it will help the Anglicans (and Orthodox, Lutherans, etc) see that communion with Rome will not lead to an erasure of their identity.
Just some thoughts.
Great. Now lets reach out,
Great. Now lets reach out, if it is not too late, to the millions of christians excluded from the mainstream Church, especially the sacrament of the Eucharist, because of divorce. Most find the process of Annulment too painful, and too shameful. Can't we find a process that makes it possible and not embarrassing for these christians. In many ways charity does "begin at home."
And what form would that
And what form would that "process" follow? To simply say that the first marriage is invalid because someone says so? Or perhaps a mass annulment pronouncement that divorce is now allowed. What do you suggest?
I believe the writer is
I believe the writer is suggesting that we treat divorced Catholics with a bit more mercy. I've seen the question sheet that those seeking an annulment have to fill out; if your ex is hostile toward you or the church, it is unlikely he/she will cooperate. If your spouse cheated on you and wanted the divorce in order to marry or cohabit with someone else, it is unlikely he/she will care much about what the church thinks.
But the spouse that was cheated on--the one most likely left with the children and the responsibility of raising them in the faith--should not be left without the comfort of the sacraments.
Why is it necessary to "invalidate" a past marriage at all in order to receive Communion? Priests who have broken their vows by having affairs or, God forbid, molesting a child, can go to confession, do penance, and still receive Communion. Some are even permitted to say Mass for themselves in private.
People are human; they make mistakes. Perhaps a counseling session with their local pastor would be enough to determine their 'worthiness' for the sacrament.
...on the other hand, perhaps not. Are any of us really worthy?
Just a response to one
Just a response to one comment - Because an individual (male or female) is divorced or separated does not prevent them from the sacraments. When the person remarries without an annulment does Canon Law withhold the sacraments from the individual. And I believe in danger of death even an ex-communicated person could receive the sacrament of the Sick/Extreme Unction/Anointing.
It seems very clear that the
It seems very clear that the Church has acknowledged the fact that the Anglican Communion as gone too far. They will never repudiate attempted ordination of women as priests and bishops. Married clergy is no big deal. We have them in the Catholic Church, and I hardly see Rome making it a major issue, only a minor disciplinary issue given this situation.
What people fail to recognize is that Rowan Williams is not an Anglican Pope. He has no real authority over local dioceses or Churches. We cannot apply a Catholic ecclesiology to a Protestant church (or properly, ecclesial community).
Not having the document in
Not having the document in question means there is much guess work. I think, however, the situation which exists will let us figure some things out.
There have been several Anglican and ex-Anglican jurisdictions which have approached Rome about corporate reunion, most prominently, the Traditional Anglican Communion. Some have been much less vocal, but in some ways are more significant and ecumenically weird - the Catholic Herald reported that more than one Episcopalian Diocese in the US approached the Holy See.
"Personal Ordinaries" would allow these jurisdictions to continue as is - the TAC jurisdiction in the US could exist side by side with the ex-Episcopalian diocese of Anywhereville. It allows geographic overlap. I think this would be a good step, since the psychology of a "Continuing Anglican" diocese would be completely different than a traditionally conservative Episcopalian Diocese.
As for the Pastoral Provision, I very much doubt the priests would have their incardination changed, nor would the few existing parishes change jurisdictions. However, my guess is they could request such a change of incardination, as any priest can.
I don't think a loophole would be created. Although these jurisdictions would be able to keep their houses of formation, I think a clear delineation would be drawn, and no man born a Roman Catholic could take a back door to become a married Catholic priest. However, a Roman Catholic who left the Church, joined a Continuing Anglican congregation, then was ordained in said jurisdiction, and it later became Catholic might be in a better position. Several of the clergy of the TAC fall into this position. I think numbers of faithful will play a role in this, and in every case it will involve a special dispensation from the Holy See.
I think the question on the ordinaries becoming a bishop conference is an interesting one - just because in the beginning, the situation will be a mess. Possibly after 10 years, all of the ordinaries can get together and fix any overlapping structures, coordinate their houses of formation, etc. But I think that individual ordinaries will have a role to play in their respective national bishops' conferences, as do Eastern rite bishops. However, since the Anglican-rite is considered a "Usage" of the roman rite, they would be able to participate in liturgy meetings!
Ecumenically speaking, I think this should be seen as positive. Accusations of "poaching" are silly, especially given the nature of many Anglican parishes in Hispanic neighborhoods - look Catholic, seem Catholic, etc, all in the name of inculturation. However, if we really think ecumenism is about unity, as opposed to just talking about unity (which, sadly, many in the ecumenical movement do not believe), then such a step is very important. Ecumenically, we must hope that the Catholic and Anglicans will come into communion with each other. The Catholic Church is much larger than the Anglican Communion, and if she treats these small jurisdictions with respect and allows them an amount of freedom, it will help the Anglicans (and Orthodox, Lutherans, etc) see that communion with Rome will not lead to an erasure of their identity.
Just some thoughts.
excellent questions from the
excellent questions from the brilliant and professional journalist Mr. Allen who here for us comprehensively frames the issues under discussion.
My question as an exile to Latin America is this:
Is this entire ballet bending over backwards for wealthy Anglicans (despite the brutal history of the Anglicans oppressing, enslaving and slaughtering Roman Catholics for over five hundred years) simply a strategy to pump up on ecclesial steroids the diminishing English-speaking element of the US Church, rather than providing adequate and integral ministry to the growing Latino population of Roman Catholics, the original Catholics within this hemisphere founded by the Franciscans, etc.?
Does a bankrupt Church find more appealing courting and curtsying to the wealthy anglicans than serving our poor and human beings?
just wondering
frère charles du désert OSB OBLAT (Congrégation de Subiaco)
Hmmm, Someone's words about
Hmmm, Someone's words about motes and beams in eyes comes to mind. While the Anglican church has in its past certainly had some bloody unChristlike behavior, it hasn't had nearly the centuries of blood-soaked crusades (for which the Muslim world still hates all Christiains), inquisitions, or burning of heretics that the Holy Mother Church has had.
As for pots calling kettles black--"conquistador" is not an English word.
John -- Thanks for
John -- Thanks for articulating so many of the questions whirling in my mind, some of which I was not able to clarify for myself, but that you were able to state. This is certainly a very interesting area for the Church(es).
Can I assume that the TAC does not ordain women? I ask only because that question did not come up in your article.
Thanks for continuing to stay on top of things.
God bless!
The TAC certainly does note
The TAC certainly does note ordain women; they left the Anglican Communion decades ago, in part over that issue. They do have divorced clergy, though, and this is likely to be the major sticking point in their discussions with the Vatican.
If the Anglican action
If the Anglican action becomes official, what is a woman Anglican priest wants to become Catholic?
anonymous on Oct. 23, 2009.
anonymous on Oct. 23, 2009.
You stated:
If the Anglican action becomes official, what is a woman Anglican priest wants to become Catholic?
------------------------------------------------
First of all, the reason that this offer is being made by the Catholic Church to the Angelicans---is because some of the more traditional communions DO NOT want women priests (and women bishops), nor gay-bishops, same-sex marriage, etc.
I am sure that the Catholic Church would not recognize the 'validity' of the Anglican woman's priesthood.
She could become a Catholic---but a Catholic priest? Not the way the current pontificate is set up.
Not the way any pontificate
Not the way any pontificate is set up. Have you not read Pope John Paul II's 1994 documnet where he definitively and infalliably states that the Church has not authority to ordain women. To continue to oppose this teaching of the Church places you OUTSIDE the Church where there is wailing and grinding of teeth.
Tom A. on Oct. 25, 2009. You
Tom A. on Oct. 25, 2009.
You stated:
"Not the way any pontificate is set up. Have you not read Pope John Paul II's 1994 documnet where he definitively and infalliably states that the Church has not authority to ordain women. To continue to oppose this teaching of the Church places you OUTSIDE the Church where there is wailing and grinding of teeth."
----------------------------------------------
The ordinance set-up is NOT part of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church. Secondly, we can prove that the Early Christian Churches (home churches) were indeed presided over by women (men, too, certainly). Never say "never" in the Catholic Church. Besides no pope---can state that until the end of human history---there can never be married priests (we already have them). Or no women priests---that is an item in the current Canon Law---and can be changed in the next pontificate.
Besides, whom do you consider "outside of the Church"? All Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics are the Church---and that is stated in Vatican Council II---Gaudem et Spes and Lumen Gentium.
Pope John Paul was very
Pope John Paul was very careful NOT to infallibly pronounce on women's ordination "ex-cathedra". Our friend Tom A. is in error and shows himself not to be infallible either.
There have been several
There have been several Episcopalian women priests who have converted to the Catholic Church. They are members of the laity in the Catholic Church.
I presume the "sugar coating"
I presume the "sugar coating" is what keeps John Allen Jr (even if he is NCR)acceptable to Vatican corridors. It is a valuable service.
This move by the Vatican to welcome the, virtually exclusively, Anglican traditionalists, into the Catholic Church is neither ecumenical nor honest. It is the perverse use of "change" to stem change. The stated regime objective of Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI to reassert the traditional identity of the Roman Catholic Church and to ostensibly avoid change, applies a flagrent abuse of change himself. Nothing exposes perversity and hypocracy of "sugar talk" like opportunity and action. This action is politically strategic in its content, its intention and in its timing. It is dishonest and makes a mockery of ecuminism. I guess there is some value in that it reveals "our holiness"....
Reinforcing the ranks of the ultra conservative wing of Catholicism with Anglican bishops, clergy and members who oppose women clergy, women bishops, and the inclusion of gays and lesbians is amplified by the addition of virtually pre-reformation and thus anti-Vatican II troops. They will largely find comfortable bed-mates with the lefebrites and Opus Dei while the Vatican attempts to "conquor" the women religious of the USA.
As the power behind Pope John Paul II and now as Pope, Ratzinger has identified liberalism, proportionalism,secularism and all the "ism" applied pejoratively to reviving the church into contemporary relevance as intrinsic evils. To achieve this goal he uses the tool of these devils: change
The "Tablet" indicates a distinctly uncomfortable demeanour by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the "joint" announcement. I suspect that it is a resolution to his problem he neither expected nor wanted. It does seem that he was blindsided.
To all Anglicans of good faith, I apologize, for whatever that is worth. If you do not realize it already, I suggest that those considering becoming "Canglican", understand that you are being used.
Where is the Queen when she is needed? How will the Holy Spirit make a silk purse out of this sow's ear?
Not long ago an African
Not long ago an African Anglican bishop made quite a noise about the liberal tendencies in the North American and European branches of the Anglican communion. To my memory he even suggested that the liberals secede and form their own church. Could it be that Rome, during the African Synod, is making a pitch for the reactionary Anglicans in Africa?
The Anglican bishops
The Anglican bishops affiliated with GAFCON, the umbrella for conservative Anglicans around the world, have issued a statement (available at the Thinking Anglicans Website) that certainly did not welcome the Vatican's overtures.
Another question: right now
Another question: right now Episcopalians and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) are 'in full communion' based on the document "Called to Common Mission" (CCM). Based on the sense of 'transitivity' in ministry and recognition of things like doctrinal agreement and sacramental validity, should this not mean that 'disaffected' Lutherans could also come under the umbrella of the Catholic Church, expecting the same kind of welcome?
It should be noted that Rome
It should be noted that Rome was approached by Anglican bishops. That's why they are taking this move. I think it is a good plan provided that the only exemption for a married priesthood should be those Anglican married priests who want to become both Catholic & priests. They will need to be carefully screened for admission to the priesthood.
There should be a window of opportunity to join, say a few years and then this exemption for married clergy is over. That ensures that the married priesthood for the Anglican rite will die out in time. If these people want to join the Catholic Church, they should hold to the whole Deposit of the Faith and Church teaching on faith and morals. No cafeteria types need apply!
My first thought was: So now
My first thought was: So now the hierarchy WILL allow "GIRM-free" churches for some people and respect their need for a liturgy based on their tradition, but........ only for Anglicans who wish to be Catholic. Meanwhile, at least in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, the hammer is coming down on those liberal churches that dared to let their tradition of Vatican II liturgies continue, and many people are leaving the Catholic Church because of the hierarchy's insistence on strict compliance with GIRM (General Instruction on the Roman Missal). Indeed, one of those churches has been virtually vacated by its English-speaking community, many of whom have left to form a non-Roman Catholic Church, with others going elsewhere or nowhere. Yes, there is much mystery in the Church.
Pleae pray for those ill
Pleae pray for those ill formed souls who left Holy Mother Church to experiment with heresy and schism. They place themselves outside the protection of Holy Mother Church and risk thier immortal souls. Please come home to Rome and accept all her teachings. Your eternity depends on it. It is very silly to get upset because you were expected to follow the rules. Vatican II never called for liturgical innovations and experimentation.
The cartoon image I have of
The cartoon image I have of inviting disaffected Anglican is unfortunately cynical on my part. It consists of a statue of liberty with an inscription saying, "give me your weary, your homophobes and misunderstood misogynists." I would rather hope that the Anglicans and the Romans within their own communions could come to a hegelian like synthesis by having an honest and charitable dialectic directed at non-infallible issues. Question: how many infallible (ex cathedra) pronouncements have officially been made since 1870? I don't see a dialectic on these pages because no one takes the opposite position seriously. Thank you Fox News for creating the all shout-no listen behavior.
There is an agreement between
There is an agreement between the Episcopalians and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) based on the document "Called to Common Mission" (CCM)--it establishes 'full communion' between the two bodies, including Eucharistic sharing, pulpit sharing, exchange of ministers at the altar, etc. Given this agreement, should not some 'disaffected' ELCA pastors and/or congregations, if they wished, expect they could be welcomed into the Catholic Church under the same protocol as is now being offered Anglicans? After all, as we all learned in math class, the 'principle of transitivity' states, "If A = B and C = B, then A = C."
When do we Catholics who
When do we Catholics who follow the teachings of Vatican II get our own personal ordinate?
What about the other
What about the other councils? Do you follow them too???
Tom A., turn the question
Tom A., turn the question around as well. Do you accept the teachings of ALL of the Councils, including Vatican II? If so (and I have some doubt that you fully do, based on the way you posed your question), how do you reconcile the different theological issues that are addressed differently from one another? My own thought is that, as opposed to what some commentors here repeatedly state to the contrary, the Church is always in a state of change, it is not constant. We, the Church, are on a mission and have not yet reached our final goal. As a result, changes such as the most recent move by Benedict XVI with the disaffected Anglicans, is proof of that, even if it is troubling to many of us.
I don't know how sarcastic
I don't know how sarcastic you are being here, but I have often given thought along these lines. I can't help but wonder if The Catholic Church should have some kind of set-up like the Jews have with the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform branches. I do realize that the Jews do not have a central governing body, so there is a significant difference. And I am sure that the different branches would probably just spend a lot of time pointing fingers at one another. And I also realize that there is just too much emphysis on control and the need for agreement in areas where I don't think that strong of a need exists, for this to ever happen. Yet, I sometimes do give this some thought.
Amid all the church-speak,
Amid all the church-speak, convoluted rationalizations, and proposed constitution, there still remains the very questionable reason for wanting to welcome the converts: a likeness in bigotry. Is the Catholic church, then, to be seen as a haven for those who prefer to disdain women and the gay population? Does Rome seek to welcome Anglicans while it investigates its own women religious? Is Rome to welcome the married Anglican priests, make provision for them, honor their "tradition," and still be blind to the Catholic priests laicized when they chose to marry? This situation is strange indeed.
Christa on Oct. 23, 2009. You
Christa on Oct. 23, 2009.
You stated:
"Amid all the church-speak, convoluted rationalizations, and proposed constitution, there still remains the very questionable reason for wanting to welcome the converts: a likeness in bigotry. Is the Catholic church, then, to be seen as a haven for those who prefer to disdain women and the gay population? Does Rome seek to welcome Anglicans while it investigates its own women religious? Is Rome to welcome the married Anglican priests, make provision for them, honor their "tradition," and still be blind to the Catholic priests laicized when they chose to marry? This situation is strange indeed."
-------------------------------------------------------
Christa, you brought up some excellent practical points----but our Church is no stranger to prejudice and bias. As a pre-schooler in the deep South (long ago), if any African Americans were Catholic---they had to stand in the back or along the side during Mass---even though they were baptized, they were not considered members---because of their race. And they weren't even permitted to sit down in the church. In our parish---the priest would come out after Mass and give them communion.
I truly believe that Rome wants the Anglicans' money! In many of the traditional Angelican/Episcopalian churches---the parishioners are of the blueblood aristocracy---old money. With all the money going out for sexual abuse payment to victims---taking in people with money---similar rituals---"hey, we'll move heaven and earth to make it work."
And all the questions that you raised---well, our Catholic Church has done stranger things in the past.
I see at least one positive
I see at least one positive point in this move: the number of married Catholic priests will slightly increase, thus making the defense of obligatory celibacy a bit more difficult.
Reminds me of the days of the
Reminds me of the days of the American Church's referencing the ideas, knowledge and experience of the faithful, before debating the reality of marriage and family.
Rome, in my memory, was appalled that the Bishops would stoop to consulting the "sheep." Did they not understand the capacity of the clergy to make no error in matters of religion and morality?
If this be progress we'd better check our destination.
John you are just too close
John you are just too close to The Vatican.
What this means to this average involved Catholic is that the Vatican has lost even more creditability. With married and woman priests forbidden to be even discussed and so many loyal married catholic priests who would love to serve. This is just another scandal
John you are just too close
John you are just too close to The Vatican.
What this means to this average involved Catholic is that the Vatican has lost even more creditability. With married and woman priests forbidden to be even discussed and so many loyal married catholic priests who would love to serve. This is just another scandal
I'm a married priest, and of
I'm a married priest, and of course not allowed by the Church to perform any sacerdotal functions. Could I enter the new Anglican Ordinariate and function as a married priest? I don't see why not.
The good man do not open his
The good man do not open his house's doors to the other man's wife
There is one other question
There is one other question that I didn't see you consider.
"How many Catholics will give very serious consideration to switching to the Anglican Faith since Rome would seem to be saying that they really see no difference between our two Faiths except an acceptance of Gays?"
PAX to All
and Jerry the Cynic might even suggest, "Pox to all hypocrites."
How unChristlike this is. He
How unChristlike this is. He embraced the lowly, the disinfranchised, the needy, and this does none of that.
Kasper: not 'fishing' in the
Kasper: not 'fishing' in the Anglican lake? What lakes will you fish, Cardinal? I always fish in lakes I'll be most likely to get a bite. Benedict: same thing. Secondly, the fish I'm interested in have backbones. I have witnessed nothing less congruent in American religious circles than seeing women priests (and now bishops), gay men bishops, and stylized marriages between homosexuals. Cardinal, the fish will jump in the boat! Just row out there a little.
Kasper: not 'fishing' in the
Kasper: not 'fishing' in the Anglican lake? What lakes will you fish, Cardinal? I always fish in lakes I'll be most likely to get a bite. Benedict: same thing. Secondly, the fish I'm interested in have backbones. I have witnessed nothing less congruent in American religious circles than seeing women priests (and now bishops), gay men bishops, and stylized marriages between homosexuals. Cardinal, the fish will jump in the boat! Just row out there a little.
Kasper: not 'fishing' in the
Kasper: not 'fishing' in the Anglican lake? What lakes will you fish, Cardinal? I always fish in lakes I'll be most likely to get a bite. Benedict: same thing. Secondly, the fish I'm interested in have backbones. I have witnessed nothing less congruent in American religious circles than seeing women priests (and now bishops), gay men bishops, and stylized marriages between homosexuals. Cardinal, the fish will jump in the boat! Just row out there a little.
Anglicans who oppose women
Anglicans who oppose women priests, and oppose gay equality re marriage and priesthood (though everyone knows there are thousands of closted gay priests) are welcome with open arms by Pope Benedict. I am sure he is sincere in his efforts to reach out to disaffected Anglicans but I have to ask: what does any of these political and cultural macinations have to do with Jesus or his message? Where in the Gospel did Jesus dis women or gays? B16, as the Patriarch of the West, apparently sees it as his duty to uphold traditional Western patriarchal culture. But is that the Gospel, the Good News, that Jesus preached? I sincerely doubt it.
Two issue unaddressed here, I
Two issue unaddressed here, I think: The traditional Anglicans who are likely to sign up for this are a heterogeneous group, and have some squabbles with each other. They are unaccustomed to having a central authority settle all squabbles, and may ignore Rome's judgment. Second, while it's true that the Anglican Church in North America is already launched, and unlikely to provide many bodies for the pews in the new structure, one of the interesting reasons for this is that they already have (male) bishops, and they are all emphatically married (to women!). Those guys aren't about to step aside, especially to any single (and suspect?) upstart.
The Vatican never stops
The Vatican never stops surprising me. It turns out that some Catholics can get to heaven even if they have GIRM-free services and respect their own tradition, but only if they were formerly Anglican. Meanwhile, in the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, the hammer comes down on those progressive parishes who have a 40-year tradition of listening to Vatican II, and they are told that their tradition means nothing, and they must strictly comply with GIRM. (General Instruction on the Roman Missal). In one of those parishes, the Anglo community essentially left, with some forming a non-Roman Catholic Community where all are welcome, others going somewhere else or nowhere. This decision is yet another of the mysteries of the church that are beyond understanding. It is disgraceful that the Roman Catholic church makes itself a haven for Anglicans who don't approve of GLBT people, female priests, etc. etc., while those folks are leaving to find a place they are welcome.
One thing to keep in mind:
One thing to keep in mind: Not only disaffected liberal Catholics become Episcopalians. Hispanic immigrants are also being targeted, and the methods are, at the very least, questionable, and should be scrutinized in any discussion about the Episcopal Church's true ecumenical etiquette.
I've personally visited Episcopal Churches in which Hispanic newcomers unfamiliar with the US religious scene are told that this is a "catholic" church, with a Catholic Mass in Spanish. Images of the Virgin of Guadalupe can be seen and, in the bookshelves, the Catholic "Biblia Latinoamericana"...
I am a confirmed Episcopalian
I am a confirmed Episcopalian who asks the question if I had a secular marriage many years ago and at the time was not baptized, if I chose to become a Catholic under the new rules for Anglicans to join the Catholic church, would I still have to petition for an annulment,which I would not do because of my sons and how they would feel about it. Thank you
Victor Stevens-Rosenberg on
Victor Stevens-Rosenberg on Oct. 23, 2009.
You stated:
"I am a confirmed Episcopalian who asks the question if I had a secular marriage many years ago and at the time was not baptized, if I chose to become a Catholic under the new rules for Anglicans to join the Catholic church, would I still have to petition for an annulment,which I would not do because of my sons and how they would feel about it. Thank you"
-----------------------------------------------
Hi Victor,
Question: You stated that you had a SECULAR marriage. Do you mean that you were married by a justice of the peace? If yes, are you still married to the same woman? If you say, "YES" and if neither you nor your wife were ever married before---your marriage can be sacramentalized (blessed) by the Catholic Church.
If however, you divorced, then married another woman (who was previously married in a church, divorced and then married you)---she would need an annulment. Or if you were married before, in Church, had the children, then divorced, re-married a woman before a justice of the peace---yes, you would need an annulment (from the first Church marriage)
Either way---your sons would NOT be considered illegitimate(never that)---if that is what you are worried about.
Since I don't know the circumstances completely---it's a bit difficult to define the situation. The Catholic Church recognizes Christian marriage within other Christian communities. For example, the marriage of two Episcoplians within an Episcoplian marriage ceremony (liturgy) is consided valid in the Catholic Church's mind.
I hope that I answered your question somewhat :)
It means that misogynists of
It means that misogynists of a feather flock together.
If you can't keep the flock from exiting via the back door, then keep importing new ones through the front door.
Make sure that the cafeteria line has something for everyone, too.
Note: the catechism in the
Note: the catechism in the Episcopal Church's Book of Common Prayer contains this question and answer:
Q. Who are the ministers of the church?
A. The ministers of the church are laypersons, bishops, priests, and deacons.
To speak of "Episcopal ministers" is anachronistic; "Episcopalian" and "Episcopal minister" are virtually synonymous terms. The ordained ministry consists of bishops, priests, and deacons, not "ministers."
Many of Mr. Allen's questions
Many of Mr. Allen's questions have already been brought up on the NCR forums. Like most things involving Church law, the devil is in the details and how they are ultimately interpreted for implementation. If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with church speak.
.
Considering most of the reasons being given for Anglicans wanting to jump ship from their communion, I can't help but wonder if they are merely 'running away' from difficulties and their internal church squabbles, rather than 'running toward' whole-hearted acceptance of Roman Catholicism. For the discontented, the grass always looks greener on the other side of the Tiber. Disgruntled Anglicans may find that divisions, scandals and assorted Catholic institutional politics, will not be a bit more satisfactory than what they left behind. The Roman Catholic Church has its own considerable problems when the rose-colored glasses come off.
.
I would find this new "outreach for unity" more believable if the Church was showing equal concern for those who are already baptized Catholics, but due to unresolved canonical difficulties with marriage laws and other issues, these folks became relegated to the margins of the Church as second-class citizens. Many of them finally gave up trying to be part of the community and left the Church because they felt so devalued and alone. Where is Rome's concern for these sheep who have wandered away in abject discouragement... those never offered any hope of resolution for their plight?
.
Rome is willing to change or re-script the Code of Canon Law to pull in those deemed to be 'highly desired' non-Catholics, but will not budge an inch to accommodate the needs of its own flock, even in the most heart-rending of dilemmas where the person involved is guilty of no personal wrong-doing in the matter at hand. Having watched such tragedy unfold with dear friends and sharing their anguish as they gave up on the Church who gave up on them — this has become my greatest heartache as a Catholic. It's a sad commentary about Roman legalistic shepherding, and the legacy of lost sheep, in the Church... and it's not likely to ever change. The lost are merely replaced with those thought to be "more desirable" members.
I always considered the
I always considered the diplomatic style and actions of the Vatican and especially the leading authorities there to be of the most careful and sophisticated extant. But after reading some of these posts I realize how impossible a mass "conversion" is for all the social, cultural, theological, economical, historical and blindness to individual Traditional Anglican consciences must be. The days of Constantine or mass "conversions" by the sword are over, at least in this part of the world. If "disgruntled Anglicans" want to enter the Ark they will have to do it one by one or maybe two by two. Oops! Bad metaphor. They are already in the Ark. They just don't have front row seats, like us. Seriously, How can any large number give internal assent to such dogmas as the Primacy of the Pope (not just primacy of honor but also of jurisdiction), Papal Infallibility when speaking ex cathedra etc., etc. - all because Anglican authorities issue a decree to make the leap. I believe those doctrines and hold them close but I studied the issues for a long time and understand them as a gift of God. My father, a Methodist, was one of the holiest men I ever knew.He died when I was 10. I am now 80. All the Sisters from my Irish Catholic school came to his wake in a funeral home. I can remember it like it were yesterday. I think I must have been the only kid with a Protestant father in that school. Believe it or not I remember the homily preached by the Methodist minister that day: "In my Father's house there are many mansions..."
Post new comment