Rorate Caeli

Notes

1. Many in the Vatican see the ongoing battle. Andrea Tornielli in today's Il Giornale:
[In the Vatican], where nonetheless the existence of obstacles and problems is not denied, there are those who are convinced that what is in play in these weeks is a "battle" of greater and deeper dimensions than it may appear from the outside, and that the recent epiosodes themselves [Williamson and Wagner] have strengthened and granted visibility to those who have never forgiven Benedict XVI for having become Pope.

Those same who had spent years portraying Joseph Ratzinger as the "Panzerkardinal", attributing to him a restraining role during the pontificate of John Paul II - a caricature out of History, considering that Ratzinger himself was the one who worked more with Pope Wojtyla, and the latter never accepted the request of retirement repeatedly put forward by the Cardinal - now place once again on him the same stereotyped clichés.


2. The leader of the Traditional Anglican Communion has clarified the rumors about the precise canonical structure which the Holy See may offer them (read previous post). From the official paper of the Communion, The Messenger (tip: Creative Minority Report):

In an interview with Archbishop Hepworth, His Grace agreed to clarify some aspects of these reports for the Messenger Journal as follows:

“It is possible for a church to come into union with the Bishop of Rome, in which case it is known usually as "a ritual church sui iuris - that is a church with its own rite and canonical regulation. There are some twenty-eight of these churches, and they appoint their own bishops by synodical processes, and seek confirmation of the election from the Bishop of Rome.

Much of the Concordat of the Traditional Anglican Communion was designed to mirror the processes of a ritual church, a point noted by some Vatican officials. We have not anticipated that our present application would lead to this sort of structure - most of these rites are descended from ancient churches that have never been part of the Roman or Western rite. Of modern origin, however, are the Personal Prelatures and Apostolic Administrations that are essentially vehicles for specific groups to coalesce around their own episcopate for a particular pastoral reason.

We have taken the advise of those with whom we have been meeting, and not sought any particular structure. We understand that no existing canonical structure might prove appropriate. Since the idea of a Personal Prelature is itself a modern creation, dating only to the late Pope, from a structural point of view the Holy See is open to new forms of community within the Church.

We have simply asked, in the words of our letter, to "seek a communal and ecclesial way of being Anglican Catholics in communion with the Holy See, at once treasuring the full expression of catholic faith and treasuring our tradition within which we have come to this moment."

We have not sought to design something for ourselves. We have asked for the guidance of the Holy See, given the reality of our position and the mind of our episcopate.

We remain in quiet prayer, while growing our Communion in key parts of the world. We agreed, rightly, to allow the Holy See the opportunity to respond to the difficult problems that our letter undoubtedly caused. When there is a reply, I am committed to presenting it to a full meeting of our College of Bishops, and to formal meetings of each of the general synods of our churches that voted to support this initiative."

36 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's impossible, in any structure, for the "bishops" of these Anglicans to remain as bishops. They are mostly all married men. The can possibly with re-education/formation in Catholicism be re-ordained as Catholic priests..but certainly not bishops.
The Catholic Church does not have a married clergy, except in some extremely unusuall circunstances of former Protestants becoming Catholic.
Possibly it might be demanded by Rome that all future vocations to this new Anglican "rite" or whatever is created for them, be celibate. Bishops could come from this group.
But I hope that these traditionalist Anglicans don't expect their "bishops" to be acknowledged as true Bishops by Rome in any way, shape, or form.

Since they are not true bishops, thet can not be granted a legitimacy they don't have.

Vox Cantoris said...

Look at the difference between the two paragraphs. What we have seen for weeks, the "bishop against bishop" and "cardinal against cardinal" and the attacks from within on our Holy Father, Benedict XVI and then the contrast with the Traditional Anglican Communion: "We have not sought to design something for ourselves. We have asked for the guidance of the Holy See."

What humility!

We have even seen this from Bishop Fellay, a tone of humility and reconciliation that can only come from the LORD, just like the TAC.

It is the prideful, wretched CATHOLICS inside the Church that are the problem!

Anonymous said...

While it is true that the largest segment of the Catholic Church, the "Roman Catholic",does not commonly have married clergy, this is not as common with other segments of the Catholic Church. Legitimate married clergy in other "Rites" is not that uncommon.

Jay said...

This is a difficult decision for married, Anglican clergy to return to one true Church, they have usually no skills to get the job and they have families. But they still convert. There are two main charities that offer help to those converts, St Barnabas Society and Pastoral Provision - Society for Episcopalian laity and clergy converts. There is no need to be harsh on these converts, the face most often difficult time before crossing the Tiber.

Richard Freeman said...

The sincerity of these Anglican conversions is questionable in my opinion. They all suddenly jump ship to Rome as soon as women receive simulated ordinations. But why? Does the ordination of women suddenly make them accept Papal Primacy, the indissolubility of marriage and all other Catholic teachings heretofore not accepted, poof, like magic? Odd if you ask me.

dcs said...

Legitimate married clergy in other "Rites" is not that uncommon.

Yes, but not married bishops.

Anonymous said...

While I pray for this to one day happen, this letter seems to say to me: "We want it all. Just make us Catholic, save our souls and let us keep doing exactly what we're doing now."

Not sure I see the mutual benefit in that.

Jay said...

Conversion story of Dwight Longenecker and his critical view of Anglicanism - full of form but lack of substance. Interesting to read.
http://www.dwightlongenecker.com/Content/Pages/Articles/HomeAway.asp

Pascendi said...

I wish to agree strongly with the words expressed by Vox Cantoris.

The Church will be able to accommodate these Anglicans as long as they adhere to the Faith (and certainly they seem to have far greater faith than most "CATHOLICS"). I also think that the issue of their hierarchical structure can be accommodated, given that the Church has had married bishops... this is a legality and not a dogma of the faith.

Issues of actually actually having powers of Orders obviously would have to follow the decisions of Leo XIII on the nullity of Anglican orders.

Flabellum said...

These TAC bishops have all stated that they are content not to continue in episcopal office if the Catholic Church deems that necessary as part of the process of coming into full communion. Where there are questions of marital discipline they have also indicated their willingness to submit to Roman jurisdiction. They have also indicated their willingness to subscribe to the teaching outlined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and that they would make the profession of faith required of every individual convert.

purposefully naive said...

There is absolutely no need to be suspicious of these men who have submitted themselves to the will of the Holy Father. Granted, married "bishops" is an impossibility and they do not have valid orders, yet they have come to the Holy Father in a spirit of submission. I imagine that many of them have acted in good faith throughout their years of service to their ecclesial community (not a church per se), and have come to understand that the Catholic Church is the true Church. While one may point out that a crazy decision to ordain women may be only a sign of a deeper reality, that is, that the Anglican "church" is not a true church with valid orders and sacraments, as well as a flawed theology, it is, nonetheless, a wake-up call to that deeper reality. However they come to the understanding of their "church's" objective standing, thanks be to God that they have come to that understanding! I wouldn't worry about the Holy Father examining motives or fine-tuning theological bents. We have seen how he turned a call for an universal indult into a regularizing of the Tridentine Form of the Mass, going way beyond expectations, and quieting down both sides of the spectrum. He is certainly a genius guided carefully by the Holy Spirit.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Richard Freeman. I remember an old Scots priest saying he never trusted Episcopalian (As Anglicans are called in Scotland) converts. He said when a Presbyterian converted it was because he believed the Catholic Church to be the one true Church but when an Episcopalian converted it was because he was unhappy about something in the Episcopal Church.

Daniel said...

I am confused with the first post (anonymous). The first and great obstacle for receiving these clergy in NOT their marital status... that is the least concern... The first problem, the greatest of all is that they DON'T have valid orders. Their orders are not valid. Period. So, they need to receive catholic formation and, if it is the case, re-ordination from scratch.

Anonymous said...

"if the Catholic Church deems that necessary as part of the process of coming into full communion."

Of course they will deem it necessary. Nothing else and no other options.

Rob Watkins said...

On the question of the validity of Anglican orders, in fact many of them do have valid orders. Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae was written over 100 years ago and no longer applies. Since that time Anglicans and Old Catholics have been in communion and Anglicans have received ordinations from the Old Catholics. Moreover, the irony is that the post-conciliar ordination rite has departed from Tradition much more dramatically than had the Anglican one attacked in 1896 by Leo XIII. It would seem then that the existence of the modern Catholic rite, which we all affirm to be valid, renders Leo XIII's argument against the significantly more venerable Anglican one invalid.

Anonymous said...

The writer of the first comment here has a point but does not follow it through on the matter of a juridical structue. A few of their 'bishops' are unmarried, such as all of those active in Canada. In fact, I expect that their Canadian leader might become their next primate.

It would be possible, nevertheless, to keep all their dioceses. Why? Because dioceses can be temporarily put under apostolic administrators who are simple priests (some apostolic administrators are titular bishops too, such as Bishop Rifan of the Campos structure). These would eventually be succeeded by unmarried bishops. Rome does this all the time but typically for shorter periods (although there are recent cases of it being done for years).

Hence they can be admitted as a ritual church even if most of their bishops are not admitted as bishops. The apostolic adminisrators would have all the juridical powers of bishops but obviously not their sacramental power. So they would just have their few bishops circulating to ordain and confirm at the invitation of the apostolic administrators. Not a problem.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On Richard Freeman's comments:

No, you are mistaken. They broke from Anglicanism starting in 1976 and have been moving towards Rome ever since. Furthermore, many Anglicans were close to Rome on most things long before 1976. This has, in fact, been an ongoing thing for over a century. There are Anglicans who agree with us on everything--even papal primacy--for some time, but just want to keep their traditions. It's more complicated.

P.K.T.P.

Paul Haley said...

Whatever the merits of this proposed union with the Catholic Church, the pope has instituted a dialog with the TAC as part of his attempt to unify all believers in the catholic faith. He knows the problems and he knows how to address them. Can we do anything less than support his efforts Methinks not. The same could be said, I think, with respect to the SSPX, that is, we need to support the efforts at reunification and let the Pope worry about the details.

Anonymous said...

Richard Freeman,

I cannot speak for others, but I am in the slow process of being received into the Catholic Church. Not to make it too personal, but it is a legitimate question about motivations. I think you misunderstand Anglo-Catholicism deeply. (I grew up Episcopalian in the US, which is not quite the same, but similar.) From the earliest age, you learn about your Christian heritage that comes from the Petrine church. These are mostly not protestants who have beefs with some aspect of Catholic theology and rearrange the liturgy. They are “Anglo-Catholic” for a reason. Basically, you see yourself as having been separated from Rome via your membership in a flock that severed its Roman ties.

However, and this is critically important, we all seek reunification in some way. We pray for the “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” every Sunday. The only question is how to achieve reunification with our fellow Anglicans. For years such folks have hoped in the process begun by Paul VI and Anglicans to find common ground and refuse the ties. That held promise for years, and they would be patient—all the while often adhering to more Catholic practices than their happy clappy Catholic parish neighbors down the street. The process of reunification requires people on both sides who want to push the churches together.

Eventually, it becomes clear that this process has reached the end of the road. At some point, they had to face reality that their hope for eventual reunification is specious. At that point, they look for a different way to steer whatever boat they are on towards that “one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church” for which they pray every Sunday. This is what is going on.

Extend them a little charity--this is a tough road. They have the same questions of themselves that you are raising. Their vision is for catholic unity, but it is regrettable that an instigator for figuring out the best road to get there is women bishops.

Anonymous said...

More on Mr. Freeman's comments:

The idea that the TAC people are only reacting to women's ordination was a lie concocted by the the liberals in the Church in England, particularly those advising the late Cardinal Heenan. They want to keep the TAC out because they don't want there to be a place for Anglicans to go as the C. of E. collapses--not a place that will be attractive to High Church ritualists, anyway.

P.K.T.P.

dcs said...

Leo XIII's Apostolicae Curae was written over 100 years ago and no longer applies.

It most certainly applies to those whose orders have their origin in Matthew Parker. In fact the CDF commentary on the Profession of Faith explictly states that Leo XIII's declaration in Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican orders must be held definitively. It may not apply to those whose orders originated elsewhere (such as from the Old Catholics of Utrect or the PNCC).

Pater, OSB said...

Keep in mind the 'archbishop' speaking here, Hepworth, is a fallen away Catholic priest who has been married perhaps twice.

I do pray for corporate reunion, just as I do with the SSPX - but it is often the individual cases that could prove the greatest obstacles.

Ut unum sint.

brian said...

But this is the trick, AC is too be held definitavely, but as the definitive statemetn of how things were about 100 years ago, not as a definitive statement of how things would be 100 years in the future. Leo argued that because of the wording of the rite, the line of apostolic succession and holy orders was lost. But this wording was eventually changed, too late to do any good for the Anglicans.

However, many Anglicans accepted AC, and went about 'restoring' their orders with the help of the 'dutch touch' and even, I've heard, some Orthodox bishops. In this case, with a valid bishop and the corrected formula, it would seem the orders are regained.

So, the question of whether a particular Anglican has valid orders is more complicated now -- some do and some don't.

JP said...

The sincerity of these Anglican conversions is questionable in my opinion. They all suddenly jump ship to Rome as soon as women receive simulated ordinations. But why? Does the ordination of women suddenly make them accept Papal Primacy, the indissolubility of marriage and all other Catholic teachings heretofore not accepted, poof, like magic? Odd if you ask me

No more odd than all the Anglicans who were part of the Oxford Movement jumping ship from the CoE to Rome in large part over the issue of Baptismal Regeneration, e.g., Newman and Manning.

I must admit though I have always been bothered by admitting the married Anglican clergy to the priesthood although there are married priests in the Eastern Rites. First, there were many Tractarians who gave up their Anglican clergy status to become Catholic and were not offered the priesthood forcing them to find another way to make a living and secondly from what I've seen wives of protestant ministers tend to expect a higher status within a congregation because of their husband's position - something I don't see going down well with your average Catholic.

antonio said...

Well said your eminence, and may God Bless you.

Anonymous said...

Many here are not reading between the lines of Abp. Hepworth's statement. And some overstate his humility. First, he makes it clear that the TAC applied for acceptance as a uniate church. This is the correct structure; it is the right one. They have twenty dioceses or so in fourteen countries. Then we get this nonsense that it wouldn't be appropriate since the TAC is not an 'ancient' uniate church. So what? Who cares? The essence of a uniate church is not its antiquity but its continuity. There is nothing all that ancient about the Ukrainians Byzantine. They were evangelised in 980, at which point they were CATHOLIC, then broke together with Constantinople in 1054, and then rejoioned in 1595. People put too much on their claims of ancientness. Some Eastern Christians think that, by wearing a long white beard under a black hat, everyone will imagine them to be older than Moses himself. The truth is that most of them are petty kinglets governing tiny bands of people out East somewhere, people who eat too much garlic. All this pomp and ceremony for the Bulgarians Byzantine. You could fit their entire congregation into a gymnasium.

The wrong jurisdiction--the real danger--is the personal prelature structure. If offered to them, the TAC should request a reconsideration. It is not arrogant to reject a major mistake. Hepworth also mentioned the apostolic administration structure. It's at least ten trillion times better than the personal prelature and yet still not the right fit. An a.a. is a junior diocese. It would not be appropriate to reduce these people's twenty dioceses into one junior and provisional diocese.

Hepworth hints at a new structure, not envisioned in the Code. That could be some new type of an ordinariate, really it would be the sui juris ritual church but lacking that title, so that no petty little patriarchlets from the East object. Most of them have to spray-paint their crownlets gold.

Frankly, the right structure is the ritual church. As I've said before, those of the TAC's 'bishops' who are ineligible to serve as Catholic bishops would rule their dioceses as apostolic administrators instead. It's done all the time. No problemo.

On Hepworth's humility, some here gawk and gasp at his humility. How silly they are, and how ignorant. Those who know the facts would react differently. The TAC is humble because, as the old joke goes, it has much to be humble about. If Rome does not take it in and soon, it will disappear from the face of the earth, and its own priests openly admit this. The TAC 'parishes' almost all worship in funeral chapels (how appropriate!), hospital chapels, school chapels, military chapels, private homes, hotel chapels, broomclosets, and callboxes. For example, their sixty or so parishes in Canada have a grand total of eight churches they can call their own, and you can't swing a cat in either of their co-cathedrals. They are doing no better in the U.S.A. In England, they have a grand total of just two churches. At least three-quarters of their members are in India, and they worship mostly in public parks, I imagine. No roof over their heads? Of course they have: they have umbrellas.

The situation of these people is NOT that of the S.S.P.X.

The ****REAL**** reason Rome does not want to give them a ritual church is that this could grow about 10,000% in the future when huge GAFCON Anglican churches latch onto it. And they don't want that because the communist liberals in our Church want to keep the Anglicans Anglican. Heaven forbid that they should become Catholic! How unœcumenical that would be!

As for how suitable these TAC people are as Catholics, I can only say that they are considerably more Catholic than are those who go to that pathetic singalong Novus Ord joke every Sunday. So if we keep them out, we'll have to throw out the Fr. Feelgoods in their peace chasubles too.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:18,

Are you Jansenistic, by any chance?

Stanislaw Wojtiech, Stanislawów, Ukraine said...

The marriage of original Anglican pastors, who were born into that Protestant communion, should be no problem. Only of those, like the TAC-primate, who were ordained Roman or Eastern Catholic priests and then defected to the Anglicans for several reasons. They cannot be admitted in marriage and in office. The Anglican leaders are not sacramental bishops and must be re-ordained and re-consecrated by a valid Pontifical, I insist on the Pontificále Románum 1948, not the Pauline Anglicanized one from 18 June, 1968, with all its problems.

The TAC cannot be a sui juris particular church, as the Church in England always belonged to the Latin Rite Church, had its proper uses (Sarum Use and others), but was never a proper Patriarchate in itself.

It could be established as a Personal Prelature or worldwide Apostolic Administration within the Latin Church. Of course some orthodox Christian, Anglican uses, such as evensong, can be conserved. Even the "Tridentine" (authentic Roman Rite) Mass in Elizabethan and authorized English translation would be no problem, although this would not restore the English Catholic realm. I think a return to Medieval English customs from Church, such as the Sarum Use, but also other things (rood screen!), would be great for an orthodox Catholic Liturgical Movement.

Again, these measures may be harsh, and the 100,000s of TAC members may not be willing to "submit" to the Holy See in cases like pro-life, contraception (allowed by the Anglican community by the 1931 Lambeth Conference, in 1931 already (!) before any effective contraceptive pill was available!).

But I hope these English and other Christians return to our mother the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic and Roman Church.

Adrienne said...

The actual statistics of The Holocaust I believe are not reported accurately in many if not all places - I wonder where we could get the truth about the actual demographic numbers. Although I grieve deeply for Jews who suffered during this time, I also have deep compassion for the many, many Catholics, Poles, Protestants, and others, too, who were victims. It is not ALL about Jews.

Bishop Williamson is indeed a 'horse of a different color' yet, it is always scandal that sells newspapers (especially here in Buffalo, NY, where The TLM both indult & otherwise is a popular target by both news and local clergy) and not truth.

I always get a chuckle when even I, myself refer to 'complete truth' that is to say, the news only reports selected out takes from interviews as to support a particular bias. It's like being 'a little bit pregnant.'

There is always someone who enters the church to either destroy it or to seek personal haven for the wrong or mistaken reasons. Blogs are great - yet, write your comments and send them to your Diocese and secular news. The are the bias that does not report 'the complete truth' and needs to be notified of our true faithfulness to the church. They negatively impact public sentiment, as you well know. It's items like Bishop W. that furthers scandals and puts a bad light on Tradition. We must go out to the the CATHOLIC & SECULAR PRESS and speak up ≤b≥THERE≤/b≥ all the more. IN NOMINE DOMINI.

Anonymous said...

Very well said P.K.T.P.

As a TAC priest we know that we are working with a limited amount of time. I would estimate that there are only about 50 or so parishes with their own buildings in the USA. There are many more parishes and missions that are renting space from other church, have "Store Front" Churches or meet in a private home or a funeral chapel.

We are also struggling to maintain our identity. We can not longer identify with the so called "Mainstreem Anglican Communion" and many of us have been forced out of our former parishes. We hold to a belief system that is consistent with the Catechism of the Catholic Church. All of our Bishops have signed a copy of this stating that this is the best and most complete statement of the true faith.

We wish to maintain our identity just as many of the Eastern Rites wish to do, while being united the the See of Peter. To be forced into the Novus Ordo RC church would be to lose our identity which is why many of us have not "converted" individually.

I pray that our Holy Father Benedict XVI will hear our plea and united us with our brothers in the Roman Catholic Church.

ARB+

Anonymous said...

Caritas says :"Let us pray that Fellay expells Williamson (this will free the SSPX from all its crackhead followers)".

I also hope and pray that he does it and I also pray and hope that Williamson begins 'ordaining' as many 'bishops' that Bishop Carlos da Costa and Archbishop Pierre Martin Ngô-dinh-Thuc did 'ordained' Nothng would make me so happy !

Jamie

Anonymous said...

Mr. Wojtiech writes:

"The TAC cannot be a sui juris particular church, as the Church in England always belonged to the Latin Rite Church, had its proper uses (Sarum Use and others), but was never a proper Patriarchate in itself."

On this part, I simply don't agree. The essence of a ritual church sui juris is not a patriarchate, and most of them have no patriarchate and no patriarch, such as the Romanians, Bulgarians, and so forth.

I cannot understand why Mr. Wojtiech suggests the personal prelature structure. Since I have no reason to believe that he hates the TAC people, I can only assume that he has been reading this in the popular press and on blogs such as this one. The idea needs to be stamped out once and for all. A p.p. does NOT include a laity and puts the laity under the local Roman ordinaries. It also, under Canon 297, requires the permission of the local Roman ordinary to establish any new parish or apostolate in his see. That would be an absolute disaster. It is a formula made in hell itself. The TAC, in my view, should respectfully request that that horrible structure not be granted to them. I have a request from this blog. Would people please stop suggesting this? I request that people STOP mentioning this extremely dangerous structure. If we keep mentioning it, it could build up a context of acceptability for it, making it easier for Rome to proffer it to the TAC. Let us not contribute to such as dangerous process. I beg everyone here: please never mention the p.p. here again except to argue that it is a bad idea.

I do not make the same request in regard to the 'personal' apostolic administration structure. It would at least preserve autonomy for these people under the Pope. It would be barely acceptable but not appropriate. Essentially, a p.a.a. (which is what the Campos has, so there is a precedent) is a diocese under the Pope, having its own clergy and its own lay subjects, who are those registered in its parishes and missions. It exists in the same territory of the local Roman ordinaries, like a military ordinariate. It can be international. It can cover several countries or only one or even only one diocese (as the Campos one does).

But it would mean reducing the 20 TAC dioceses to one de facto international diocese. Not appropriate. Really, it would be very insulting to the TAC bishops, although not remotely as insulting as a p.p. and not damaging to autonomy (as the p.p. is)

The ritual church sui juris is perfectly appropriate. However, it might be rejected on the grounds that, since these people are Latin Catholic returnees who need the cohesion afforded by the papacy, what is needed is a structure which gives the Pope a more direct hand in governance or superintendance. It is true that the Pope directly controls episcopal appointmenets in some ritual churches, such as the Slovak Byzantine Church, the Albanian Byzantine Church, the Italo-Albanian Byzantine Church, and even the larger Romanian Byzantine Church. But these churches do not have patriarchs, and most do not have major archbishops (the Romanians do, I believe).

So I suggest that H.H. create a new structure, a de facto 'personal' primacy. The primate would have no primatial territory corresponding to the patriarchal territory of a patriach, but he would enjoy more supervisory power over his provinces and dioceses than do other primates. Other than the Pope, as Patriarch of Italy, modern primacies are either purely honorary or else have very limited powers over metropolitans (the one in Hungary).

Before proceeding further, let me note that I use the term 'personal' in the non-canonical sense. I use it here to mean a particular church (diocese or its equivalent) existing in a given territory for those attached to a rite "or some other similar quality". These 'personal' structures, under Canon 372.2, can be any particular church, such as an apostolic administration, a diocese, an archdiocese, an abbacy nullius, etcetera. The possibilities are listed in Canon 368. But I don't want confusion between these and the personal prelature structure because the latter is a complete disaster in this situation and should never even be mentioned or alluded to. The p.p., given to Opus Dei, was inserted into the Code mainly to assure a better distribution of priests for some apostolate. It does NOT include lay subjects.

In order to avoid massive confusion, let me refer to the new structures as 'ritual'. So we shall now call the Campos structure a 'ritual apostolic administration', or r.a.a.

I suggest that each of the TAC dioceses be erected as a ritual diocese (r.d.); that each of their archdioceses, whether metropolitan or not, be erected as a ritual archdiocese (r.a.). Their smaller churches, such as those in Ireland, the Congo, Kenya, and so forth, which currently have no bihsops, would each be erected as a ritual apostolic administrations (r.a.a.). In some cases, (e.g. Botswana) they would not be particular churches at all but simply regional vicariates in a ritual diocese (viz. here, that of South Africa). England, which is currently not yet a diocese, would be erected as an r.d.

The ritual dioceses of India, and perhaps those of the U.S.A., would each be associated in an ecclesiastical province of the Primacy. The term Anglican is to be dropped nd replaced by 'Anglian' = English. The new structure is to be the Anglian Primacy. Other ritual particular churches (mostly dioceses) would be 'exempt': directly subject to the Primate. In rare cases, single missions would be missios sui juris directly subject to the Primate or to some ritual diocese (New Zealand is a current example).

The Primate would have much more authority over his primacy than do metropolitan archdioceses over their suffragan dioceses. He would have the authority to set up a court to hear cases, and he would have a ritual rôle and be 'Chief of his Rite' as the Archbishop of Milan is Chief of the Ambrosian Rite. He would be able to establish liturgical and disciplinary norms for the entire primacy, always subject to review and approval by the Holy See, of course.

However, while the general synod of the Primacy would recommend new primates, the Pope would not merely confirm recognition of their choices. Since these people are Latin Catholics, the Pope would appoint the Primate. The Pope would also appoint all their residential bishops, perhaps at the recommendation of their local churches and that of the Primate.

I think it unlikely that Rome will accept married TAC bishops as Catholic bishops. No problemo. They have several unmarried bishops, and one of them, Wilkinson of Canada, is among their top leaders. He is always front and centre in negotiations with Rome. As a Canadian, he is also superior to the others in intelligence and manners. He could be their next primate under Rome (although I don't mean to be serious here: it's up to the Pope alone). Where their bishops are currently married, those men would be allowed to administer the new ritual dioceses as simple priests having a positional title of apostolic administrator and a personal title of monsignor. Once they retire, they'd be replaced by unmarried men as bishops.

Rome would allow the present married men to be grandfathered in as priests but, in future, only unmarried men would be allowed in the seminaries of the Primacy, and they would not be allowed to marry after ordination to the diaconate. Some married priests from the Anglican Communion would be allowed to transfer to the new Primacy in the future, just as they can currently transfer to the Latin Church.

Comments?

Comments!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Wojtiech writes:

"Again, these measures may be harsh, and the 100,000s of TAC members may not be willing to "submit" to the Holy See in cases like pro-life, contraception (allowed by the Anglican community by the 1931 [he means 1930, not 1931]Lambeth Conference, in 1931 already (!) before any effective contraceptive pill was available!)."


Mr. W. obviously does not know these people as well as I do. I know their chaps through the Monarchist League of Canada. We used to meet in their basement. I know their local choirmaster (and he knows more about Gregorian Chant, I'd say, than any of our people here). Their crosses in their cathedral here all have the corpus on them, just like Anglo-Catholic Anglicans in England have.

They are 100% opposed both to abortion and artificial contraception. Not all Anglicans accepted the decisions of the Lambeth Conference of 1930, and these people are among them. I have this straight from one of their local priests here, who is now retired.

Frankly, these people are more Catholic than most of ours are. That's thanks to Vatican II. They do not disagree with us on even one point of doctrine, and they are considerably more Catholic than are Cardinals Kasper and Daneels, although I realise that that is saying very little.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear P.K.T.P.,

I've been following this story on different blogs, and I must say that your input (on several occasions) is a very welcome addition. Please keep commenting, providing further light on the subject!

As a long-suffering Anglo-Catholic, I am praying fervently that the Holy Father will see fit to provide us with some solution to our dilemma. Even the dogs eat the scraps that fall from their master's table.

ANJ

Anonymous said...

Dear Jamie:

The fear you seem to threaten the Holy Father with will not work. There are lots of episcopi vacantes out there, such as those in the C.M.R.I. and S.S.P.V. One more will not make a difference one way or the other. Also, Williamson is not completely stark-raving. He won't appoint a thousand new bishops, only one or two to replace him.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I think I can speak for those of us that are die-hard, Traditionalist, Conservative, Anglo-Catholic (being of the ex-"cradle episcopalian" stock)......

With regard to your comments on avoiding the "personal parish" or "personal prelature" like the plague, this makes the most sense of any of your multiple pompous ramblings. One need only look at the outcome of this "fix" in the U.S. to understand......with all due respect to these few parishes, it's mostly an oddity in Texas and the Northeast......works well with a charismatic priest leading the charge, but otherwise......pratically no support from those on the Roman side of the Tiber who claim to pray for unity.

With regard to all your verbosity about the TAC bishops ("bishops"?), I'd be willing to bet a hundred bucks, that most Anglo-Catholics give a far greater damn about Traditional, Reverent worship, conducted utilizing solid hymn singing and liturgical music, and led by a priest who actually prays the Mass like he means and believes it, and can preach the Gospel with some "fire-in-the-belly".

For those of you uncertain about the our liturgy:
The Sarum usage far predates the Tridentine liturgy. But, if you are convinced that the universe begins and ends in Trent, there are plenty of English translations in the Edwardian (Elizabethan?) style out there.......from back when folks weren't afraid to show the Almighty some respect, reverence, and humility. I suppose that I can't ask why you won't let go of the Latin.....since we won't let go of our "Archaic" English usage.

Finally, I think it bears saying that I must surely not be the only Anglo-Catholic who is near unto the breaking point, with so many arrogant, pompous Romans, and their ongoing nit-picking of any who might dare to gain admittance, never mind acceptance, to their exclusive club. We wouldn't be wasting our time, if we hadn't already bought in to your legitimacy. Perhaps you should, as the Orthodox are want to say, "Come and see"..........

For permitting the rant, I thank you. For your prayers, I beg you.
May our Lady, the Theotokos pray for us. May our Lord, Jesus Christ, son of the living God, have mercy upon us all.