Rorate Caeli
CLARIFICATION
BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE HOLY SEE PRESS OFFICE,
FR. FEDERICO LOMBARDI, S.I.,
ON SPECULATIONS ABOUT THE CELIBACY ISSUE
IN THE ANNOUNCED APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
REGARDING PERSONAL ORDINARIATES
FOR ANGLICAN ENTERING INTO FULL COMMUNION
WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
There has been widespread speculation, based on supposedly knowledgeable remarks by an Italian correspondent, Andrea Tornielli, that the delay in publication of the Apostolic Constitution regarding Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church, announced on October 20, 2009, by Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is due to more than "technical" reasons. According to this speculation, there is a serious substantial issue at the basis of the delay, namely, disagreement about whether celibacy will be the norm for the future clergy of the Provision.

Cardinal Levada offered the following comments on this speculation:

"Had I been asked I would happily have clarified any doubt about my remarks at the press conference. There is no substance to such speculation. No one at the Vatican has mentioned any such issue to me. The delay is purely technical in the sense of ensuring consistency in canonical language and references. The translation issues are secondary; the decision not to delay publication in order to wait for the ‘official’ Latin text to be published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis was made some time ago.
The drafts prepared by the working group, and submitted for study and approval through the usual process followed by the Congregation, have all included the following statement, currently Article VI of the Constitution:
§1 Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfill the requisites established by canon law and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 42 and in the Statement "In June" are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1.
§2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.
This article is to be understood as consistent with the current practice of the Church, in which married former Anglican ministers may be admitted to priestly ministry in the Catholic Church on a case by case basis. With regard to future seminarians, it was considered purely speculative whether there might be some cases in which a dispensation from the celibacy rule might be petitioned. For this reason, objective criteria about any such possibilities (e.g. married seminarians already in preparation) are to be developed jointly by the Personal Ordinariate and the Episcopal Conference, and submitted for approval of the Holy See."
Cardinal Levada said he anticipates the technical work on the Constitution and Norms will be completed by the end of the first week of November.

58 comments:

Anonymous said...

I read that apparently, the Pope himself was not in the least happy that the issue of celibacy was rather vague. He also recieved many complaints from Bishops that this issue might cause difficulties for the disipline of celibacy in the Latin Church (i.e. malcontents and dissidents aggitating for married priests in the Roman Rite).
Therefore this clarification.

And according to what I read, there will be very little allowance for married clergy in the new Anglican group in the Church. Those who are already married can serve. THose who are celibate must stay celibate.
If there are any seminarians, they must be celibate...except on any rare occasion when they are already married when they apply as seminarians. THen these cases will be handled individually.

So, no general allowance for a married clergy for the Anglicans.
And no door opening for the idea of married priests in the Latin Roman Rite.

All this confusion could have been avoided had Levada et al stated such plainly and clearly two weeks ago.

**Apparently the Pope wanted the announcement to wait until the Apostolic Constitution was ready (the logical thing to do)...but Levada and company pushed ahead anyway.
Hopefully now he's in hot water with the Pope.

beng said...

With regard to future seminarians, it was considered purely speculative whether there might be some cases in which a dispensation from the celibacy rule might be petitioned. For this reason, objective criteria about any such possibilities (e.g. married seminarians already in preparation) are to be developed jointly by the Personal Ordinariate and the Episcopal Conference, and submitted for approval of the Holy See."

What does this mean?


If I understand correctly this mean that ordinarily all future Anglican seminarians must be celibate (just like what we currently have in the western rite seminarians). But if there's a married person who wants to enter seminary [and later be ordained] he must ask for a dispensation to the Personal Ordinariate and Episcopal Conference.

Am I getting this right?


I have a question: in our regular western rite seminarian, can a married person even ask for a dispensation to enter the seminary [and later be ordained]? I don't think he can.


Also, it's seem the holy See is moving to give Episcopal conference "some" kind of authority by having it decide to give dispensation or not (along with the Personal Ordinariate).

Woody said...

It would appear that the provision for the case by case study of the possibility of candidature of married men for holy orders tracks the regime currently in place for such men in the United States (and perhaps Canada? Peter, I am sure, knows the situation there) in the Byzantine Catholic Church, albeit that the celibacy requirement for the ByzCaths in the US is an ad hoc rule imposed by Rome in the 1920s due to Latin opposition.

I have heard it said, also, that seminary rectors are concerned about the demoralizing effects that married men studying alongside the celibate would have on the latter. Again there may be some small precedent from the Byzantines in this area, but they seem to have so few vocations right now that any reports would be purely anecdotal.

Finally, there is the always problematic issue of who may actually be the subject of the ordinary's jurisdiction, and I hear that the constitution will make it clear that only actual ex-Anglicans need apply. Of course, any Catholic can assist at Mass at any Catholic rite, so this is a little bit of a legalistic issue (possibly affecting baptisms, marriages and funerals), but further comfort may be taken in that the constitution may allow leeway for the pastor of the ordinariate parish to have some kind of accompanying (or "cumulative") jurisdiction with the local Latin rite diocese, and thus be able to admit others than former Anglicans to membership in the parish of the ordinariate if that situation pertains.

One certainly hopes that this will be the case because as the Anglican Usage history makes clear, no such parish (or maybe just a few) can be large enough to stand on its own with only ex-Anglicans as members. There just aren't that many, who, at least, want to continue to preserve their Anglican patrimony. I have known a number of ex-Anglican clergy and laymen in both the Roman and Antiochian Orthodox communions who, having made the break, wanted nothing more to do with the former usages, and just wanted to blend in totally with their new Roman or Eastern (as opposed to Western Rite of the AOC) liturgical grouping.

The immediately above is not even to mention the most important aspect, of course, which is pastoral concern for souls who seek the comfort and closeness to God that the reverence of a Romanized Anglican liturgy and practice will bring.

New Catholic said...

The Pope was fully aware of everything. The rumor that he was not "pleased" with the fact that the news conference had to happen when it happened is not at all believable.

NC

Tabbard said...

"And no door opening for the idea of married priests in the Latin Roman Rite."

That's naive. The door has already been opened by the very fact that such speculation took place to begin with. Whether anything will come through that opened door is another question.

But the very fact of even HAVING the discussion is something that would have been unimaginable even in the rather recent past.

That in the past few weeks the possibility was even imagined, that we even saw fear (on the one hand) and excitement (on the other) among Catholics both liberal and conservative...sorta means the cat's out of the bag.

If anyone expected them to allow, right away, married men to become Anglican Use Catholic priests indefinitely, that was naive.

But the fact is, this following so shortly on the tails of the sex scandal...has blown the issue wide open, and will only give momentum to those pushing for change.

poeta said...

Happy at least to see the press office addressing rampant speculation instead of letting it continue to snowball.

Anonymous said...

Tabbard,

You apparently believe that gossip somehow amounts to reality. No door is opened because un-informed people are talking about a door opening. Un-informed people have been talking about that for decades now.

~Bonifacius

Anonymous said...

Is the TAC leader John Hepworth out of the loop or something? Didn't he say in an interview that,

"The truly radical element is that married men will be able to be ordained priests in the Anglican structure indefinitely into the future."

Sounds like someone gave him faulty info.

Jean said...

"He also recieved many complaints from Bishops that this issue might cause difficulties for the disipline of celibacy in the Latin Church"

Not quite believable...how "many" western bishops are that overly concerned about losing celibacy? Not that "many". If anything, the larger number of them complained that the same exception wasn't being granted to them. No, I think the loss of celibacy wasn't a major article of complaint.

Not some of the younger bishops may have expressed concern, and if they are of such number now as to be counted "many", so much the better for the church. But I would still say they would be wrong in this instance, and urge tolerance.

Is the door being opened to "married clergy" in the Roman church? I think not.

Anonymous said...

On the first comment, I don't read the situation quite the same way.

First of all, the Cardinal is making clear that a norm for Eastern Rite married priests applies here as well; namely, that they must be married first and then ordained. They cannot be ordained first and then contract marriage.

On the matter of admitting married men to the seminary in the future, the norms are to be developed by the new Ordinary with the approval of the Episcopal Conference(s) concerned. Such rules might be quite lax, especially given the fact that many episcopal conferences are stacked with liberals.

However, the stipulation that each case is to be decided individually is a control on this process: there is to be no automatic entry for married men as long as they meet all the other criteria which apply to all applicants.

What is really happening here is that Rome is transferring this problem to the episcopal conferences. That could be dangerous, since the latter don't have a good record for protecting the disciplines of the Latin Church.

What is missing here is a firm restriction stipulating that only married men who were formerly Anglican or Baptized or Confirmed in an Anglican Ordinariate, or whose fathers were Baptized or Confirmed Anglican or Baptized or Confirmed in an Angliclan Ordinariate, are normally eligible to be received as candidates in any seminaries of the Anglican ordinariates. Something like that.

The absense of such a restriction from Rome is problematical. On the other hand, there is nothing to stop Rome from enacting such restrictions in the future if problems arise.

I agree with the first poster that there is to be no general admission of married men under this constitution. However, that does not mean that the restrictions will be particularly restrictive. That is being left to the episcopal conferences, at least for the time being.

This seems to me to be less permissive than what Archbishop Hepworth had suggested. On the other hand, it need not be very restrictive. My understanding is that married Anglican ministers who want to become Catholic priests in Canada can presently do so with great ease. In fact, there is one in my City and he has several children.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Woody comments on the 1929 rule regarding the Eastern churches. Some canonists have suggested that this rule was ultra vires in the first place, since the Eastern churches cannot be legally restricted in any way by Latin ordinaries. The Pope can only restrict them when acting as Pope.

In my local Eparchy, a very good priest--the very one who served in the local Ukrainian parish--was married when he entered seminary. He was the first married Ukrainian priest to be ordained within Canada, presumably in violation o the 1929 rule, for which there was no attempt at enforcement.

However, we must keep in mind that the situation with the Eastern churches will be different than that of the Anglican ordinariates. Anglican ordinariates are structures of the Latin Church and their subjects are members of the Latin Catholic Church. Period. So they are integrated into the Latin Church, even though they are exempt from the rule of Latin ordinaries as such. But the Pope rules them as their proper Latin Patriarch (even if he no longer uses the title).

What I don't like about this constitution is the role of the episcopal conferences. I'd like to see them abolished. Having their functions enlarged is not good.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On Woody's comments about the social effects in seminary:

Eastern Catholics attend only their own seminaries.

Anglican-Catholics will have a right to their own seminaries but can also study in other Latin seminaries.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Woody's comments on subjects:

No, I really doubt that former Presbyterians or Lutherans will be permitted to become subjects of these new ordinariates, except for those who have married Anglican-Catholics or Anglicans. These structures are being erected as an EXCEPTION to preserve and respect an Anglican patrimony. That is why there is no grant of a sui juris church here and no grant of dioceses. The new ordinariates will be equivalent to dioceses in law but not have the title of dioceses or of apostolic administrations (which are 'junior' and 'provisional' dioceses intended to become dioceses one day. Hence the Campos structure will presumably eventually become the 'ritual' Diocese of St. John-Mary Vianney.)

The difference here in title of the structure suggests an exception for a specific group of people having a distinct identity and not just anyone who wants to hop along.

I note the following, however:

1. Any Catholic--even a Maronite--can go to the parishes of the Ordinariate, even exclusively, to fulfil the Sunday obligation and the obligation to confess, and can repair to one of its priests for Extreme Unction. End of story on that.

2. For the other Sacraments and for burial, it is always possible for special reasons to petition for exception. Both one's own Ordinary and the new Personal Ordinary would have to agree. In the case of a Latin Catholic who has attended only at the Personal Ordinariate (except when circumstances forced or enjoioned otherwise) for, say, forty years, would likely be given an exception.

These days, any Catholic can register in any Catholic parish of any Rite, and there is a canonical distinction between a parishioner and a 'parish member'. I was for years a 'parish member' at a Byzantine Ukrainian church and had a right, as a result, to vote in parish council elections and even stand for office in the parish council.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On Woody's last point, of blending in:

In Canada, the TAC has about sixty parishes served by about forty ministers. But they only have nine or ten of their own parish churches. The other parishes worship in funeral home chapels, military chapels, hospital chapels, care home chapels, prison chapels, university chapels, rented halls, and the churches of various (usually Protestant) denominations--and even in house chapels.

Some of these venues don't have 'Communion Service' but only 'Morning Prayer'. Under their rules, this fulfils the Sunday obligation, which is not understood canonically as a strict obligation to begin with. I am very much wondering what will happen re the obligation to attend Sunday Mass and to confess at least once a year. I'm told that, in some Eastern Catholic churches, you can fulfil the former by attending what we call the Divine Office. This needs to be clarified.

The situation for the TAC is the same in most countries, India being a huge exception. There is a humorous story about India which I must tell here. I don't know all the details but, apparently, to the wild amazement of former Anglicans there, some court ruled that the TAC church was the true successor to the old Anglican Church (before it was dissolved) and therefore nabbed all its property! Hilarious! Some judge handed them all the buildings, much to the outrage of various other Anglican groups who wanted them. It's the sort of thing that would give the Schorri Bitch in the U.S.A. a treble heart attack.

Anyway, I expect that, outside India and African hut churches (constructed by locals on the spot), the new Anglican ordinaries will be going hat in hand to the Roman bishops begging use of their churches for Mass. The norm for the new Masses of the ordinariaties will be to have them in those N.O. churches, many of which look like crematoria or huge inverted teacups or glass jars balanced precariously on their edges. The ordinaries, though, will be able to ask for access to the more traditional Roman churches on the grounds that they worship versus solem orientem. So they'll often be packed in with us trads. Most Roman ordinaries will likely given them access at poorer times, such as 7.00 a.m. and 12.00 p.m. Liberal Anglican bishops will be nastier, and offer them access to modernist monstrosities at 5.00 a.m. or 8.00 p.m.

P.K.T.P.

antonio said...

It could be a dangerous move to allow married anglicans to become priests and enter the latin rite. I could be a dangerous seed playing into the hands of pro married priests lobbies and confusion confusion. I am personally against any form of married priests(including eastern rite) because , as St.Paul says, man cannot serve two masters; either flesh or God.I remember years ago when a fresh'convert' to the catholic church(a CE pastor) came to our church and introduced, after'celebrating' Mass, his..wife!? Luckily I have since only attended the True Mass at SSPX.

Anonymous said...

Tabbard wrote:

"But the fact is, this following so shortly on the tails of the sex scandal...has blown the issue wide open, and will only give momentum to those pushing for change."

Interesting point. Imagine this scenario: married Anglican-Catholic priest become quite common, just as sodomite Latin priests have become quite common. Now the Pope can say that there is only one way to save celibacy and that is to remove all future sexual inverts from the future priesthood. Bursar, order 12,000 polygraph machines, please, and have them delivered to our seminaries.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Someone quoted Archbishop John Hepworth and then commented:

"The truly radical element is that married men will be able to be ordained priests in the Anglican structure indefinitely into the future."

Sounds like someone gave him faulty info.


No, Hepworth's comment is true. It's just that it's incomplete. Exactly how restrictive the rule is to be remains to be seen. But Rome has opened the door to future married men entering the seminaries.

P.K.T.P.

laicus said...

P.K.T.P.

"Anglican-Catholics will have a right to their own seminaries...", you say.

Surely not as a norm? "The seminarians in the Ordinariate are to be prepared alongside other Catholic seminarians" (CDF statement of 20 October).

This is not negated by the subordinate clause which says that "the Ordinariate may establish a house of formation to address the particular needs of formation in the Anglican patrimony".

Nicholas said...

P.K.T.P.,

Eastern Catholics certainly have their own seminaries, but in some contexts they also mix with Latins. At St. Josaphat Ukrainian Catholic Seminary in DC, the students take classes at CUA, while receiving their liturgical and spiritual formation in their own house:

http://sjucs.org/mission.html

Jordanes said...

It could be a dangerous move to allow married anglicans to become priests and enter the latin rite. I could be a dangerous seed playing into the hands of pro married priests lobbies and confusion confusion.

Dangerous move or not, it is one that the Church made about 30 years ago, with the Pastoral Provision.

Anonymous said...

Laicus:

I wrote that they will have the *right* to their own seminaries and that is what that subordinate clause says.

Nicholas:

Thanks for the correction. In fact, the Ukrainian priest whom I knew did receive instruction in both our seminary and theirs. I had forgotten that. Most of them, from what I know, go exclusively to Eastern seminaries, though, even if this means travelling thousands of miles. In Canada, they will go all the way from B.C. to Ottawa, where there is a Ukrainian seminary.

P.K.T.P.

Br. Stephen, O.Cist said...

I think the key phrase in the section of the apostolic constitution released today is "married seminarians already in preparation." This means that we should read the earlier phrase "future seminarians" in the sense that there are now no Anglican ordinariate seminarians but that those who are currently studying for the Anglican priesthood and join the ordinariate will be ordinariate seminarians in the future. In other words, if you're married and in seminary now, you may get a dispensation but the permission will not extend into the future indefinitely.

Anonymous said...

"Is the TAC leader John Hepworth out of the loop or something? Didn't he say in an interview that,

"The truly radical element is that married men will be able to be ordained priests in the Anglican structure indefinitely into the future."

Sounds like someone gave him faulty info."

___________________________________

Hepworth is out of the loop. He's the man who said that the Anglican "bishops"(even the married ones) who convert will be able to function as "bishops". WRONG! Perhaps a celibate one might be, but that is pure speculation.
He also said that the opening to married priests/seminarians in an opportunity for the whole Catholic Church. WRONG!
Today, the Vatican just squashed this ppiece of hopeful euphoria.

Let's face it. Hepworth was originally a dissident Catholic priest, who left the Catholic priesthood and Church, went to the Anglican Church and got married. He then gathered together those against women priests/bishops and gay clergy in the Anglican communion, got himself consecrated an Anglican "bishop", and then proceeded with talks to re-integrate with Rome.

He might be a "conservative" when it comes to Anglicanism, but to leave the Catholic priesthood and Church to marry and join another Church proves he is a "liberal" Catholic. And thus has a radical agenda to push.

With this opening for Anglican married "priests" to return to Rome...don't be too surprised if the former hero of the EWTN crowd Catholics, the infamous Fr. Alberto Cutie (who left the Catholic priesthood to marry and became an Episcopal "priest", makes noises to return to the Catholic Church. That would be hysterical!

antonio said...

Then the pastral provision was wrong among all other 'provisions'. Now it is exactly what happens with immigrants: allow them in and let they retain their culture and beleifs; result? they will never assimiliate(multiculturalism).Unfortunately the truth is that someone wants a 'multicultural' church, all united under the same banner, but with all their differences. It will never work! One Truth, one Faith, one God. Who ever decides to come over cannot say' can I bring my exceptions along,my food, my requirements'...and so on. No you either embrace fully our ways or you do not.




church

Acreator said...

"I have a question: in our regular western rite seminarian, can a married person even ask for a dispensation to enter the seminary [and later be ordained]? I don't think he can."

In the Scandinavian countries there are some Catholic married priests. Most of them are converted priests from the Lutheran Church, accepted at Catholic seminars on case-to-case basis.

Anonymous said...

"I am personally against any form of married priests(including eastern rite) because , as St.Paul says, man cannot serve two masters;"

Hey Antonio,

On the basis of St Paul's (not God's) opinion, you should not get married at all. That's right - St Paul was only giving his personal viewpoint on the matter, not God's.

Jordanes said...

More precisely, it was St. Paul's opinion that first century A.D. Christians in Corinth would be better off not getting married.

Athelstane said...

Hepworth is out of the loop. He's the man who said that the Anglican "bishops"(even the married ones) who convert will be able to function as "bishops". WRONG! Perhaps a celibate one might be, but that is pure speculation.

Not quite. You do not have to be a bishop to function as an ordinary. And I think what he meant to say was "ordinary."

Now, I can't speak to Hepworth's own situation, which is uniquely problematic in many ways, but as I read what we know of the constitution so far, you could have an (otherwise not impeded) Anglican bishop convert, be ordained as a Catholic priest, and be placed in charge of an ordinariate, albeit as a priest (maybe even made a monsignor), not a bishop.

So what Hepworth seems to be guilty of is sloppy language. But we shall see when the constitution is released.

Anonymous said...

Dear Antonio:

We already have a multi-ritual church. There are 22 Eastern Catholic churches. The Church has never demanded a rigid uniformity in matters of worship. Even after 1054, the Italo-Albanian Byzantine Catholics retained their Byzantine Rite under Roman jurisdiction.

In the late Middle Ages, there was a plethora of local Uses of the Roman Mass as well. This was recognised and accepted in "Quo Primum Tempore", 1570, as long as they were of at least 200 years duration.

We are returning to the norm, not departing from it.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Br. Stephen writes:

"In other words, if you're married and in seminary now, you may get a dispensation but the permission will not extend into the future indefinitely."

No, not quite, I think, Brother. It think that it means that those who are already in preparation (in seminary) can proceed to the priesthood as a group, whereas those married men who seek to enter seminary after reunion will have to apply for dispensations on a case-by-case basis. That also makes sense, since that's how married Anglican ministers presently can apply to become Catholic priests.

I've noticed that His Eminence does not mention here the matter of Anglican ministers who seek to convert through the ordinariates ini the future. I suppose they will go through the process presently in place as if they were seeking incardination in a Roman diocese.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Some Anon. wrote:

"Hepworth is out of the loop. He's the man who said that the Anglican "bishops"(even the married ones) who convert will be able to function as "bishops". WRONG"

No, he's not out of the loop. Would you give us a direct quotation? What he said was that priests would be able to serve as ordinaries in these structures, including those married men who were formerly designed as Anglican bishops.

There is nothing new in having simple priests rule structures which are equivalent in law to dioceses. At this very moment, a simple priest in prefect apostolic for the Marshall Islands, for example.

I expect that the more exalted of their married bishops will rule personal ordinariates as simple priests and having been appointed domestic prelates, and being therefore enttiled as monsignori.

In French usage, domestic prelates and bishops alike take the ordinary title of monseigneur. It's a more European way of using a lower courtesy title, just as a Baron will style himself 'Lord' on special occasions, and one holding a doctorate will prefer the title Mr. except at convocations and special occasions.

If they wanted to, the new Anglican-Use bishops could adopt the style of 'monsignor' publicly to elevate their fellows who are married a bit. This might help smooth the transition. It will be difficult for their leader in India, the married Metropolitan Archbishop Samuel Prakash, to be reduced to just 'Fr. Prakash'.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

In regard to TAC seminaries, I note that they have none so far in Canada, the U.S.A., or the U.K. I don't know about Australia and assume that they might have one in India. Frankly, they don't have the cash they need to open houses of formation at the present. At the moment, I believe that they work with other outcast ('continuer') Anglican groups to train their ministers.

For the shorter term, therefore, I expect that they will rely on Roman seminaries.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

What "the Schorri Bitch" is?

Jordanes said...

That is Mr. Perkins, um, colorful reference to Dr. Katherine Jefferts Schori, a former Catholic who left the Faith of Jesus and joined the Episcopalians, eventually becoming one of their bishopesses. She is the 26th (and perhaps last) Presiding Bishop, and first Presiding Bishopess, of the Episcopalian sect, am American offshoot of the Anglican religion. She has played a principal role in the ongoing and accelerating demolition of Episcopalianism and Anglicanism.

laicus said...

P.K.T.P.,

I don't think the subordinate clause's saying that "the Ordinariate may establish a house of formation to address the particular needs of formation in the Anglican patrimony" is the same thing as saying that they "will have a right to their own seminaries" (in the sense of seminaries for general formation).

It seems to me that if the statement of 20 October had meant THAT, it would have said so. The "particular needs of formation in the Anglican patrimony" is surely something narrower than general formation, as the word "particular" indicates.

However, let us wait for the Constitution etc., and we shall both of us see.

Anonymous said...

"That is Mr. Perkins, um, colorful reference to Dr. Katherine Jefferts Schori, a former Catholic who left the Faith of Jesus and joined the Episcopalians, eventually becoming one of their bishopesses. She is the 26th (and perhaps last) Presiding Bishop, and first Presiding Bishopess, of the Episcopalian sect, am American offshoot of the Anglican religion. She has played a principal role in the ongoing and accelerating demolition of Episcopalianism and Anglicanism."

Reads like a wikipedia article!

Anonymous said...

Dear Jordanes:

The better form is 'bishopette', not bishopess. The former makes a better connexion with usherette, which suggests immaturity, as well as absurdity. She's the hag who takes all the fine old Anglican buildings away from the decent folk over there so that it can be defiled by buggerers doing their thing at the chancel step.

The groom may now kiss his groommate.

Also, let's not call her a doctor. It's only one of those D.D.s anyway, and they're not worth the paper they're written on.

P.K.T.P.

antonio said...

Anonimous,
I have no knowledge of God's point of view(directly); I only rely on the apostoles and Saints point of view,and of course, Our Lord.

Jordanes said...

Reads like a wikipedia article!

Nah, it's more accurate and has slightly better grammar and spelling than a Wikipedia article.

Mr. Perkins, thanks for the levity . . . but more seriously, really even Jefferts Schori for all her sins and heresies still ought to be shown common courtesy.

Anonymous said...

"If they wanted to, the new Anglican-Use bishops could adopt the style of 'monsignor' publicly to elevate their fellows who are married a bit. This might help smooth the transition. It will be difficult for their leader in India, the married Metropolitan Archbishop Samuel Prakash, to be reduced to just 'Fr. Prakash'."
___________________________________
Considering that this Fr. Prakash isn't in the true sense a "bishop" at all, it should be no insult or demeaning point in his life to be referred to as "Fr. Prakash".

Anglican "Bishops" and "Archbishops" of whatever they would like to call themselves, are not really bishops at. They are as much a bishop as I am.

Anglican priestly orders, and the rite of consecrating bishops etc. is invalid. Pope Leo XIII defined it so, and it has been held as binding in the Catholic Church up to the present time.
It's not going to change....especially now with the Anglicans pechant for female "bishops" and gay/lesbian/bisexual "bishops" being appointed.

Anonymous said...

"Bishopess" LOL!!!!

Jefferts-Schorri will indeed possibly be the last (if not next to last) presiding "Bishop" of the Episcopalian group in the USA.

IN 1965, there were 3.5 million Episcopalians in the USA, and about 175,000 in the greater Philadelphia area called their "Diocese of Pennsylvania".
Today, there are less than 44,000 Episcopalians in this "diocese", and their churches are closing as quickly as the Vatican II Catholic parishes are. Two just closed last week. And the celebrated Center City Philadelphia parishes of St. Stephen's Episcopal Church, and the Episcopal Church of the Advocate both have, on average only 10 people come to their "eucharists", every Sunday.
They are kept open and not put for sale simply because they are historic.

In the USA, there are about 1.7 Episcopalians left, of which less than 700,000 attend their services.

In England, there are 35 million Anglicans, of which about 900,000 attend services regularly.

Both branches of this group represent a dead Church. We as Catholic should cheer the demise of one branch of Protestantism, and hope another (Lutheranism which is likewise practically extinct in Europe), goes down the same road.

Anonymous said...

Also, let's not call her a doctor. It's only one of those D.D.s anyway, and they're not worth the paper they're written on.

You are mistaken. Her earned doctorate (at least as cited by Wikipedia) is a Ph.D. in oceanography from Oregon State: she was later awarded an honoris causa D.D.

I am no apologist for her or her sophomoric theological opinions, but one should have one's facts straight when making a criticism.

Anonymous said...

Dear Jordanes:

No offence intended but Shorri is so bad that I refuse to show her common courtesy. It is sometimes proper not to do so, as when the very gentlemanly Governor Rex Hunt of the Falkland Islands refused to shake hands with the Argentine officer who had been appointed to displace him. This woman has thrown a huge number of people out of the churches they grew up in so as to commit the abomination of desolation in the sanctuary, by which I mean to celebrate one of the four sins crying out to heaven for justice right at the place where people were Baptized (validly, as it turns out), married (validly) and so forth. It is as if she had placed a whore on the Altar (even though their tables only represent altars), as the French Revolutionaries did at N.D. de Paris. She deserves absolutely zero respect, just as if she were an abortionist. Showing her no respect is a way of signalling to others that she represents pure evil, but I only mean that it signals what she *represent*: I don't meant to judge what she is. That's for God alone to decide. We need to make it clear, that's all. The rest is, yes, a bit of levity.

P.K.T.P.

John McFarland said...

Am I the only one who finds this whole exercise more than a bit odd?

First we get a sort of official leak announcing that there will be an offer to the Anglicans to come back in, based on an Apostolic Constitution that isn't finished yet.

Now we get from the Vatican Press Office a denial of a rumor that the delay in the release of the AC is more than technical, and has to do with differences regarding celibacy.

I guess someone in the Vatican got scared that the announcement might be read (as it surely could be read, in the English version at any rate) that the New Anglican "provision" would have a married clergy. Or perhaps, to offer a more cynical interpretation, the original announcement was a trial balloon that drew too much adverse reaction. The cynical interpretation has the virtue of explaining the original announcement, which otherwise looks rather dopey. (Why announce an Apostolic Constitution that isn't ready yet, and in particular why get into the nuts and bolts?)

Be that as it may, I take some comfort that the FVCA (full and visible communion Anglicans) will not start off with a married clergy.

But of course:

1. There was a time (viz., the first 1930 years of the Church's existence) in which no married man who intended to keep living with his wife would have been licitly made a deacon in the West.

2. Annulments are also given on a case by case basis (no snickering, please). It doesn't take much imagination to spin out a scenario in which clerical celibacy among the FVCA becomes de facto and perhaps eventually de jure a personal option, and serves as the template for the same result in the Church as a whole.

Br. Stephen, O.Cist said...

Friends,

Obviously, having the press conference before the text of the apostolic constitution could be released was less than ideal, but we should ask ourselves whether the Vatican was ever unclear. Anglicans, particularly Archbishop Hepworth of the Traditional Anglican Communion, said that there would be ongoing dispensations and this was picked up in places like America, Commonweal, and the New York Times and, in some places used as an argument for a married priesthood in the entire church, but did anyone from the Holy See ever imply that there would be an ongoing provision for married clergy?

Here’s what Fr. Stetson, Delegate for the Pastoral Provision, said to Zenit earlier in the week after the speculation began:

“The specifics have not yet been made known on this question. At the very least I would assume that the seminarians would have to be both married and studying in an Anglican seminary at the time they sought to enter into full communion, and then continue studying for the priesthood in a Catholic seminary. They would have to be dispensed from the norm of celibacy on a case-by-case basis by the Holy See. Future seminarians would have to be celibate.”

I’d read the ample Romanitas in the Vatican press statement as an attempt to allow those who’ve stated that there will be ongoing dispensations to back down gracefully.

Anonymous said...

Someone wrote of the Schorri Woman:

"I am no apologist for her or her sophomoric theological opinions, but one should have one's facts straight when making a criticism."

Fair enough. I apologise for jumping to a conclusion. Her doctroate is legitiamte.

Having said this, I disfavour showing her any courtesty or respect, so I won't be using the title Dr. for her, or even Ms., for that matter. Just 'Schorri' will do.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

There is some confusion over this issue of celibacy. I urge bloggers here to read Cardinal Levada's text carefully. For example, Br. Stephen, O. Cist., the Cardinal does not say that the norms for admitting married men to the priesthood in the ordinariate need be *identical to* those currently in place when such men petition to become Latin priests. Note the terms carefully. He says that the norms to be developed are to be *consistent with* those currently in place. *Consistent with* does not mean 'identical to'.

The norms to be devised must be grounded in "objective criteria approved by the Holy See". In other words, Brother, these norms have not been devised yet; they do not exist yet. He mentions the case of already-existing married seminarians only as an example. Nowhere does he suggest that, in future, married me may not be admitted to seminary to proceed to priestly ordinaration.

This is only an example which I raise but the morms might stipulate that married men may enter seminary and be ordained deacon and then, after having served a trial period under certain conditions, they could be ordained priest. We just don't know yet. But if the episcopal conferences are to be involved in this, there might be trouble. Some here have worried that the criteria could be too lax. Another possibility, however, is the opposite: liberal episcopal conferences may keep married men out in order to keep Anglicans out of the Catholic Church. Remember, our pink fruitcakes in the Catholic Church love the goings-on in the Protestant denominations. They want those denominations to grow so that they can exert influence on the Catholic Church. The hope is to put pressure on Rome to admit sodomarriage and the like. So they want to keep ultra-conservative Anglicans away from the Catholic Church: divide and conquer.

On the other side, and in support of Br. Stephen, I must admit that Cardinal Levada's statement does not seem to support this remark on 24th October of Archbishop Hepworth:

"Priests who come from Anglicanism will be able to serve as priests in the new structure, whether married or not, after satisfying certain requirements. The truly radical element is that married men will be able to be ordained priests in the Anglican structure indefinitely into the future."

Well, if this is to be on a case-by-case basis, I'm not sure how it's "radical", although the criteria might be much more lax than those currently in place for married Anglican ministers being ordained as priests.

I suppose that I share Mr. McFarland's view that Hepworth's first statement looks much like a trial balloon.

At any rate, most of the TAC will come across at once, regardless of this matter. But the new announcement of a 'restriction' might be designed to deter Forward in Faith and others.

P.K.T.P.

John McFarland said...

Mr. Perkins,

If I were you, I would show a little more respect for the "pink fruitcakes." On my reckoning, they either run the Church or have the veto over those who do. Indeed, I wouldn't rule out that their lack of interest in het competition is a significant factor in the rather limited interest in a married clergy in the Church -- although the Anglican experience would suggest that they needn't be worried.

Br. Stephen, O.Cist said...

PKTP,

The document would seem to admit your reading, but it takes a good bit of finesse to do so.

My reading is that the norms are yet to be devised, but those norms are norms within the parameters set in the constitution, i.e. norms for handling the case of current married seminarians who enter the ordinariates. These cases require new norms because they are not current Anglican ministers and so are not a case that is covered in the current norms of the Pastoral Provision. Does that make sense?

This seems to be the same reading as that of the Anglican Use pastor of Our Lady of the Atonement and of the the US Delegate for the Pastoral Provision.

You also have to keep in mind Archbishop Hepworth's position. Many of his people will settle for nothing less than a church. The less this looks like a church the more difficult a position he's in trying to hold his people together. I don't envy him.

Anonymous said...

Br. Stephen:

As it happens, I spoke to the local TAC choirmaster again today, as he is helping with our Chant now on a regualar basis, and I must say that he knows more about the subject than our very dedicated choristers. He said that, in the local TAC church, about 99% of the people would be crossing the Tiber under the new provisions. The TAC has made up its mind. At least 90% of them worldwide will likely come and, for those who do not, other Anglicans will join them in 2010 in the new structures. I think that's true regardless of Cardinal Levada's comments on this. I am in constant communication with some of their priests and two of their very involved laics and I think they'll come along. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

My reading of Cardinal Levada's comments is that he and the other liberals whom he represents (and on both sides of the Tiber) are doing their utmost to keep most conservative Anglicans from escaping the leotards, the pumpkins on the Altar at Hallowe'en, the open celebration of sexual licence and perversion, the potted plants, and so forth. There is a new alliance emerging and they want to keep their opponents divided. They don't want a lot of archconsevative Anglicans coming home to Rome and turning into clones of Mr. McFarland, which I think could very well happen in a number of cases (esp. in the TAC).

Levada can't keep these people out but he hopes to DELAY their entry and slow its rate. Liberals such as he are afraid of sudden conservative movements. One good push through the dry rot of the N.O. structure and they'd lose face as it collapsed.

I suspect that, by the time 'norms' are devised for married Anglicans to enter seminaries, the liberal apparatchiks will be going and gone. Re is over 75; Hummes, who is most evil of them in my view, is over 75; Kasper, a lightweight with a big mouth adn a broad smile, is over 75; Daneels is over 76; Cardinal Baloney of Los Angeles is approaching 74. The men who will approve the norms in the end are not this crop of loons.

Levada has been told to dampen the enthusiasm so that the liberals can continue 'œcumenising' (i.e. talking rot) and not be accused of poaching Anglicans or of fishing in the Anglican Lake.

But events are overtaking Levada already. Ten days ago, the Swedish Lutherans voted to allow sodomarriage. Liberals are fanatics and can never have enough. Despite strong opposition from conservatives over this, just two days ago, they voted to force sodomarriage on all Swedish Lutheran parishes. The result? Many of them (and one Estonian Lutheran bishop) are already packing their ph, um, I mean bags.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

PKTP:

The conservative lutherans from Latvia and Estonia are maintaining contacts with the SSPX.

The SSPX have conducted Ignatian Retreat for the lutheran pastors a few times in the last few years.

At least one time a lutheran "bishop" (superintendent) took part in the retreat.

See for example http://www.montfort.org.br/index.php?secao=imprensa&subsecao=igreja&artigo=20061209&lang=eng

http://www.sspxasia.com/Countries/World/NewsArchive.htm

John McFarland said...

Mr. Perkins,

Apropos of your mentioning the age of the current curial dramatis personae, do you have any sense of what the rising generation of ecclesiastics are like?

I myself don't have any strong proof that any of them under the age of 60 exist, and I mean that quite seriously.

Quite apart from any spiritual considerations, given the precipitous dropoff in numbers and brains in the NO clergy, I wonder if they have anyone who can do the intellectual equivalent of crossing the room without walking up the inside of his soutane. They may have to keep the current talent around until they drop in their tracks.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland asks the question about the next generation of prelates.

One error made by some traditionalists (I do not include Mr. McFarland here: quite the opposite) is to think that the next generation will be more conservative. This is the idea that younger bishops are rebels against the rebels and can hardly wait to enact a conservative counter-revolution. In fact, the younger prelates are often even more liberal than are the old liberal lions.

But there nevertheless is a crucial difference which makes the old liberal lions much worse. The older bishops must defend Vatican II and all the abuses because they implemented them; in fact, they made their careers doing so. Many of them were not all that liberal by inclination. Some were conservatives by nature. Keep in mind that the revolution was implemented by men who were trained under the previous system by orthodox priests. But they are the men who surrendered the Faith and they were rewarded for doing so.

One thing I have learned over the past years (much to my chagrin) is that most men would rather be tortured to death than to admit to error. One would hope that such pride would have less of a place among prelates of Holy Church. Sadly, with this liberals, the opposite is the case.

The next generation of prelates is, if anything, more liberal by inclination than the last one. This is not surprising, since they were trained in the pink palaces of the New World Church. However, the next crop is less dangerous for the simple reason that its members did not destroy the Faith or implement NewChurch. They merely continued doing what was already in play. Hence they are at least amenable to a reversal.

A fortiori, as the collapse of NewChurch becomes harder and harder to ignore, the new crop of bishops will need someone to blame. They don't want to be blamed for what the old lions did. As a result, these rather liberal younger bishops will suddenly morph into 'conservatives', by which I mean neo-conservatives. They really have no choice, unless that choice be to repudiate pride. Fat chance of that. That only comes to a prepared soul who are prayed and mortified for years, whereas our new generations of clergy mostly don't even know what mortification entails.

It is true that the old lions are tending to stay on and on and on. But this Pope is replacing them gradually and most of them are now retired. Their influence is now waning fast. At present, for instance, only 3% of the diocesan bishops were consecrated bishop under Paul VI (about 109 in all). True, they are a much higher per centage of cardinals and senior archbishops. But their day is almost done now. There is hope fo the future. However, it will take a miracle to reverse this mess in our time.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

A MESSAGE TO DITHERERS IN FORWARD-IN-FAITH, ENGLAND & WALES


Ladies and Gentlemen:

We are now seeing a rearguard action of the liberals against Romeward Anglicans. Cardinal Levada, who is well-known to be a liberal and was formerly Archbishop of San Francisco, has been entrusted with negotiating with incoming Anglicans, most of whom are socially archconservative. He has also been charged with interpreting Church doctrine for the Society of St. Pius X. Has anyone else noticed this? Is there something wrong with this picture? I'm adjusting the set but his liberal face keeps coming into focus. How can we make it go away? How can we replace it with the face of, say, Cardinal Cañizares Llovera or Cardinal Burke? I want a refund! They've sold me a defective product!

Now the TAC Anglicans are one thing, says one liberal to another. Let's face it: they're as fanatical on their side as we are on ours. They left all that lovely money behind decades ago, and nothing will stop them from joining the Pope now.

But this Forward-in-Faith group in the Church of England is another matter altogether. It is dithering: should we or shouldn't we? Perhaps we could keep the £25,000 a year and access to all these lovely old churches and these great holdings where we live, and perhaps we could merely ignore the bishopettes who are coming. Should we exchange this for only £8,000 a year as Catholic priests, having nowhere to live and no such access?

As this dithering continues, along comes Levada. Levada says, Oh, by the way, remember how you heard that married men could be admitted to Catholic seminaries and ordained priest ('priested', as they say) indefinitely into the future? Well, guess what? It won't be quite like that. Each one will have to apply individually and the criteria for acceptance of this have yet to be determined. They could be almost anything, really. Not to worry, we liberals will be only to happy to draw them up. (Hmm. First, only left-handed applicants will be accepted ....)

So, what is the effect of this? To ask the question is to answer it. He's the buddy of Kasper and Hummes and Re and he's trying to make it harder for FiF to leave the C. of E. With any luck, FiFers will stay Anglican and can die of old age before anything else comes their way to disturb their peace.

Well, FiFers, you had better wake up and smell the coffee. God is sending you a message from Sweden. Hello, hello? Are any of you intelligent enough to read the writing on the wall?

About ten days ago, the Lutheran State Church in Sweden, by a narrow vote, accepted sodomarriages. Please note that these are not 'blessings'. They already have those. These are full marriages in which there are two brides or two grooms. Do you get it? Liberals, who are intolerant fanatics who only preach tolerance but never practice it, waited ONLY ONE WEEK to enact Stage Two. Just two days ago, they made it MANDATORY to offer ALL their parish churches for these sodomarriages. If the parish priest refuses to witness these travesties, he must invite another to take his place. How long do you think it will take before they rule that all new ministers in the Swedish Church will have to witness these abominations? It won't take long, and only the wilfully blind refuse to see it.

What has come and is now being completed in Sweden will come to every single parish of the Church of England. That is the future of the C. of E. Just cast your eyes across the North Sea and face the truth. Lying to oneself is even worse than lying to others.

So those in Forward-in-Faith need to get honest with themselves. Perhaps some of them would like to reconsider the issue of sexual inversion. Perhaps the liberals are right: it's a gift from God which demands to be celebrated. It's wonderful! If you reach a different conclusion, however, then you need to ask yourself why you're a Christian in the first place. At least the liberals are honest about their beliefs.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

Cardinal Levada, who is well-known to be a liberal and was formerly Archbishop of San Francisco, has been entrusted with negotiating with incoming Anglicans, most of whom are socially archconservative. He has also been charged with interpreting Church doctrine for the Society of St. Pius X. Has anyone else noticed this?

He is the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

Anonymous said...

Yes, Jordanes, I was aware of who (and what) Levada is, that he was appointed Prefect in 2005 and that he has past his 73rd birthday. Like Cardinals Schönborn of Vienna and Ouellet of Québec, he is also a former student and close collaborator of His Holiness.

He will turn 75 in 2011 and, by then, he will have served six years as Prefect. I'm hoping that a more, um, conservative prelate will be appointed to replace him at the appropriate juncture. Frankly, I can't see what Bishop Fellay hopes to get from Cardinal Levada. Can you?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"I can't see what Bishop Fellay hopes to get from Cardinal Levada."

Mr. Perkins: Did you ever think that that's the point? What, besides the fact that they both call themselves "Catholic", do they have in common?

Delphina

Anonymous said...

What the Queen can do.

Queen Elizabeth II is routinely considered to be at least liturgically in the Low Church, more Protestant part, of the Church of England. That is what various symbolic gestures are meant to suggest, at any rate. It is also thought, however, that Her Majesty does not approve of women's ordination. I'd rather not explain why this is thought to be the case. Let us just call it a working assumption.

The Queen Mother, R.I.P., and the Prince of Wales and heir apparent are thought, on the other side, to favour the High Church party of Anglicanism.

Now I don't expect Her Majesty to leave the Church of England over this issue of women's ordination. As for the Prince, well, he'd jeopardise his claim to the throne were he to accept papal supremacy. Constittuional experts now say that all of Her Majesty's realms would have to agree to any change in the laws of succession, and there are about sixteen of them. So it would appear that the current rules will remain in place.

The royal influence is being raised here for another reason though. If Forward-in-Faith wishes to cross the Tiber into the new ordinariates, it will want to take its property with it. That presents a problem. Courts will likely rule that the disposition of the property belongs to the State Church of England. And the liberals, who only pretend with cloying insistence to have charity in their black hearts, will take away all the buildings. This will make the liberals look bad (to any decent folk who might be left) because it will be seen as a 'dog in the manger' gesture, since the overwhelming majorities in most of these parishes might vote to depart. What will the C. of E. do? Will it take the buildings and then have to sell them off when the parishioners stop coming and/or stop contributing to their upkeep? Will it use the proceeds from such sales to advance the liberal agenda?

I'm wondering if, given this situation, H.M. might at least contact the Archdruid and other Anglican bishops confidentially and ask them to allow these people to go and not kick them out of their parish churches for the high crime of seeking union with the Successor of St. Peter.

P.K.T.P.