Rorate Caeli

Liturgy, structure, and other matters of
the new global Anglican Catholic structure

Very interesting answers in this lengthy interview granted by the leader of the Traditional Anglican Communion, Primate John Hepworth, to The Australian (some of these points were reiterated by him in his brief intervention at the Forward in Faith UK conference this Saturday).

Ordinariates around the world:
Inquirer: In place of conventional dioceses, the new arrangements envisage "personal ordinariates". Are they akin to the military ordinariates for dispersed groups of personnel in the various branches of the armed forces?

John Hepworth: Yes, and they are at the heart of what the Pope proposes. They are similar to dioceses but are groupings of people rather than a territory. Under this arrangement the ordinary (who may be a priest or a bishop) will be the shepherd of the Anglican people within the Catholic communion in his area. There will probably be a considerable number of these groupings around the world.
Liturgy:
Inquirer: Have decisions been made yet about the liturgy you'll use?

JH: An international group is working at the moment on the liturgical books for the new Anglican structure. I anticipate something that combines glimpses of pre-Reformation English worship, the glorious liturgical language of the Reformation period and contemporary understanding of the way Christians should approach God will eventually be approved.
Married Priests:
Inquirer: How do the Pope's proposals mesh the Latin celibate discipline for all clergy with Anglicanism's longstanding acceptance of married priests and bishops?

JH: Bishops in the new Anglican structure will be unmarried. This is out of respect for the tradition of Eastern and Western Christianity. But 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. It is anticipated that Anglican bishops who are married when they joined the new structure will still be able to serve as priestly ordinaries, exercising some of the responsibilities of bishops.
The Eastern Orthodox:
Inquirer: How will the Orthodox react to the new arrangements? Will they be viewing the next six months as a test of Rome's ecumenical bona fides?

JH: Already there are stories circulating that the Patriarch of Moscow has urged his ecumenical negotiators in the Vatican to hurry in order that the Anglicans do not get too far ahead. They're probably apocryphal, but we do know that the Russian Orthodox Church is very close to achieving unity with Rome. It is the largest of the Orthodox churches of the East. We also know that the Orthodox are watching the Anglican process very closely to try to assess the extent to which Rome is serious about tolerating many different traditions of Christianity within the scope of the Catholic Church. I have had conversations with members of the Greek Orthodox Church and the Coptic Church about the parallels between their conversations with Rome and ours. Christian unity throughout the world is at a very similar moment. Conversation and co-operation are beginning to evolve into forms of organic unity that still protect diverse Christian traditions of worship and spirituality.

_______________
Tip: Mr. Peter K. T. Perkins

65 comments:

Jean said...

Interesting indeed, and what is more, tantalizing. This Pope is energizing Christendom in ways principled yet innovative, and unprecedented. But then, isn't the daily conversion represented by true Christian charity always innovative and unprecedented, and radical in the eyes of the world? I'm willing to be dazzled by grace in my lifetime. Ad multos annos, Benedict XVI.

Rob said...

-but we do know that the Russian Orthodox Church is very close to achieving unity with Rome.-

Hmnmmm. Just from my own reading of Russian Orthodoxy, and certainly from the internet Orthodox, I do not see how any one could think this.

Still, I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

John (Ad Orientem) said...

Just saw your post on the interview with TAC +John Hepworth. I was asked by Fr. J. (one of yours) last night on my blog about the snip on the Eastern Orthodox. I am not sure who his sources are but if they think union is near they are way off base. I think this might be attributable to a combination of enthusiasm and wishful thinking in the wake of this week's good news.

But he needs to remember that the reason the TAC's situation is working so quickly and smoothly is that there were no theological points of difference. They submitted to Rome entirely and without reservation on matters of doctrine leaving only disciplinary issues to be resolved. Such is not the case with us. The outstanding theological issues remain and I have seen no substantive progress despite all of the photo ops and pleasant exchanges.

Sorry to throw cold water on that part. But a reality check is needed here.

In ICXC
John

New Catholic said...

No enthusiasm regarding this matter from me, John.

NC

John (Ad Orientem) said...

NC,
I was referring to John Hepworth who I can forgive for feeling a little warm and fuzzy right now. He has had a really good week. But whoever is telling him that "the Orthodox are next" has no clue what is going on, on our side of the fence.

There were near riots in Cyprus recently over the Catholic-Orthodox meetings there. And there are some really ugly rumors being circulated by the more rabidly anti-Catholic elements alleging apostasy on the part of many of our hierarchs. The dear, soon to be ex, Archbishop needs to get new sources for information on things Orthodox.

In ICXC
John

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

Has anybody written about whether the Anglicans are going to abjure their errors and make a Catholic profession of Faith before entering the Church? Or about the need for the Anglican "priests" to be ordained? A purely canonical agreement is worthless in God's eyes.

Anonymous said...

Dear John:

We don't care about the R.O.C. right now. This is not the subject of the day. Stop trying to divert the topic.

I agree with you, by the way, that the Orthodox are not even remotely close to reunion with the One True Church.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

What is really interesting about Hepworth's comments is not the aside about the Orthodox but his response re the liturgy. I had no idea that there was an international committee working on it. The good news is that they won't be stuck with the Anglican Use of 1983 that includes that truly bad Offertory from the N.O.M.

P.K.T.P.

David Werling said...

Is Dad selling the farm out from under us, or is this nothing to worry about?

I'm really at a loss here. I don't know what to think of this.

Anonymous said...

To what degree (if any) would Catholic-"Anglican" parishes offer Latin Masses (even if just Novus Ordo Latin Masses)?

Thank you.

Tim

Anonymous said...

Along with the "freeing" of the TLM has come "warnings" from many dioceses that they will not tolerate liturgical "snobbery" among Traditional Catholics.

TLM Catholics are expected to pretend that the TLM isn't superior in any way to the Novus Ordo...sure.

Given that "conservative" Anglicans supposedly are liturgical "snobs" — that makes them okay in my book — how will Latin Church bishops react when Catholic "Anglicans" (and Catholics who have been beaten down by the Novus Ordo and would bolt in a second to a TAC parish) extol superior liturgies that said parishes may offer?

Tim

John McFarland said...

So Mr. Hepworth is a divorced and remarried apostate Catholic priest who believes that union with Moscow is imminent?

For the liturgy, Mr. Hepworth anticipates "something that combines glimpses of pre-Reformation English worship, the glorious liturgical language of the Reformation period and contemporary understanding of the way Christians should approach God." Too bad Bishop Bugnini isn't available to help in the exercise. He was second to no man in his sensitivity to the contemporary understanding of the way Christians should approach God.

Mr. Perkins, since you're the one who seems to know the most about these right-wing Anglo-Modernists, it seems to me it's your job to give us skeptics some reason for not treating all this as a joke in dubious taste.

Anonymous said...

"An international group is working at the moment on the liturgical books for the new Anglican structure. I anticipate something that combines glimpses of pre-Reformation English worship, the glorious liturgical language of the Reformation period and contemporary understanding of the way Christians should approach God will eventually be approved."

Are Anglicans who intend to convert to Catholicism involved in the above process? (Protestants helped to develop the Novus Ordo.)

"...contemporary understanding of the way Christians should approach God..."

That doesn't sound good.

Tim

Anonymous said...

The amount of Protestants who will join the Church remains to be seen...some are certainly headed our way.

What has amazed me in recent days is that in the name of ecumenism, our Churchmen watered down the Faith, shipwrecked the Traditional Mass and wreckovated parishes.

But in the end, just about the only Protestants who will flock into the Church are those who desire reverent, traditional liturgical practices, beautiful sacred church architecture and a strong sense of Catholic identity.

Why was that not recognized by our Churchmen decades ago?

Or, and the following is omnious, was it?

Tim

Br. Stephen, O.Cist said...

Here's my take on Day Two of the FIF Assembly, including on Archbishop Hepworth's speech:

http://subtuum.blogspot.com/2009/10/forward-in-faith-assembly-day-two-as.html

As I've said in several posts on my blog and in other places, the Anglicans who are looking at this offer are a liturgical crazy quilt ranging from people who use the pre '55 Roman Missal in traditional English, to those who use the various editions of the Book of Common Prayer, to those (and this is the largest number in England) who use Novus Ordo in what we'd think of as a Reform-of-the-Reform style.

There will be much ink and ether devoted to the liturgical issues raised by the new apostolic constitution in the coming months.

Jacob said...

Check out this post by Ruth Gledhill.

She mentions the current synod in Rome on Africa and some murmurings on clerical celibacy among the bishops as reported to her by an unnamed source.

I have my own thoughts on Ruth's reliability, but I would be interested in second opinions from the group here on if this is likely and what measures the Holy Father may have in mind or may need to formulate to deal with restive strict-Roman/Latin Rite clergy.

Anonymous said...

Tim:

One of my sources says that the TAC and other Anglicans are NOT in involved in this liturgical project and that it is a work entirely of the Holy See. But Hepworth's statement at least seems to suggest the opposite. So I'm not sure on this.

While I don't like the idea of others setting their liturgy, it is true that they'd never agree on anything if asked to do it themselves. After all, they're English, and Englishmen never agree with one another on anything, and as a matter of principle.

The one good thing is that the A.U. Bood of Divine Worship is not being foisted on them. One of my sources said that the model being used by the C.D.W. is the 'English Missal'. This is essentially the T.L.M. in liturgical (and Victorian) English.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Bro. Anthony:

My understand is that all the Anglicans will have to swear a profession of faith in order to be 'received' into the Church. I imagine that they will swear it together orally and then sign a document. Yes, it is clear from Vatican statements that they need to be ordained as Catholic priests, except for those among them who already were and later left the Church. I have not heard yet whether they will be ordained conditionally or absolutely or if this will be decided on a case-by-case basis. But they definitely will receive Catholic Holy Orders.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. McFarland:

I admit that the case of Archbishop (we use the title as a polite convention and not to suggest orders) Hepworth is more than troubling. And he is not the only one. His case is actually worse than you have painted it. He was ordained deacon by the regular Anglicans. Then he defected to the Catholic Church, where he was ordained priest. So he is a real priest, at least. Then he defected to the TAC Anglicans and married. So he married *after* ordination to the sacred priesthood. Then he was consecrated bishop in the TAC, probably validly (they no doubt included Old Catholic co-consecrators). Then he divorced and remarried, all without an annulment. It's quite a mess. Now he wants to become a Catholic again. So we have this: Anglican to Catholic to TAC to Catholic again, and with Holy Orders from three different churches!

No, most of them do not have this sort of record at all. When these negotiations began, he said publicly on a number of occasions that, having made an arrangement with Rome, he expected that he would have to retire and not function as a cleric of any rank. He accepted that completely. However, the Pope has now given him hope that he can serve as a personal ordinary, probably for Eastern Australia, as a married priest. Once source told me that, to do this, he will need an annulment and he's likely to apply for one.

Frankly, it would be better for him simply to retire and leave the field to others. But I stress that his case is his, not that of the TAC per se.

P.K.T.P.

P.S. I know of a Canadian TAC priest who is also divorced but he's not remarried. Some of these things will have to 'get sorted'.

Gregory the Eremite said...

Tim quoted and wrote:

""...contemporary understanding of the way Christians should approach God..."

That doesn't sound good."

On the other hand, since the true contemporary understanding of "the way Christians should approach God" is that being charted by the holy father, perhaps this is to be applauded rather than feared...

laicus said...

Surely Hepworth has misunderstood one aspect of the Vatican announcement? On married priests, he rightly says that those who are already under Anglican orders "will be able to serve as priests in the new structure, whether married or not, after satisfying certain requirements". But then he adds: "The truly radical element is that married men will be able to be ordained priests in the Anglican structure indefinitely into the future".

I see no warrant in the Vatican announcement for this last statement. Indeed, the indication seems quite to the contrary, for the Vatican announcement states that "The seminarians in the Ordinariate are to be prepared alongside other Catholic seminarians", and I take this to mean in the same seminaries - not that there be separate seminaries for the former Anglicans in the Ordinariate. The most the announcement says about separate formation is that "the Ordinariate may establish a house of formation to address the particular needs of formation in the Anglican patrimony" (something much more limited).

That being so, it is surely unlikely in the extreme that His Holiness envisages future Catholic seminaries as containing both seminarians able to be ordained priests in the new structure, though married, because they "came from Anglicanism", alongside seminarians only able to be ordained priests if unmarried, since they did not come from Anglicanism.

Such a dichotomy would be disastrous were it were intended, but I am sure it is not intended. We shall see when the terms of the Apostolic Constitution become known.

Moretben said...

An international group is working at the moment on the liturgical books for the new Anglican structure. I anticipate something that combines glimpses of pre-Reformation English worship, the glorious liturgical language of the Reformation period and contemporary understanding of the way Christians should approach God will eventually be approved.

Yet another synthetic pick'n'mix. "Glimpses of pre-reformation English Worship", eh? What use are "glimpses" to man or beast? I would suggest that "contemporary understanding of the way Christians should approach God" is more and more concerned with the requirement to recover the fullness of the Tradition.

Anyone who imagines these developments are of interest or significance in respect of Orthodoxy is greatly deluded.

New Catholic said...

Moretben,

I had the same concerns as you as I read that answer about the liturgy... Committee liturgy always terrifies me...

NC

LeonG said...

Bro Anthony

New Vatican does not work this way now. In the post-conciliar era almost anyone can become a neo-catholic - look at Tony Blair - he even received holy communion privately in a very important place that used to be venerated by all Catholics. He has promoted sodomite marriages and increased abortion facilities through legislation in UK while he was Prime Minister. His wife pushes publicly for women priests and bishops. If you note also how Neo-Catechumenal Way and Charismatics with Focolare and every other sectarian element are welcomed under the new church paradigm it is easy to see why Anglicans will be able have married priests; keep their Prayer Book and make themselves at home by abjuring nothing.

No wonder SSPX keeps its distance for the moment. Which genuine Roman Catholic confraternity would want to be part of this pluralistic pick-n'-mix.

As for the Russian Orthodox: it has to be stated with absolute clarity that they have no intention of submitting to any agreement with the new post-conciliar Rome. They love and respect Tradition in such a manner as to make this totally impracticable. In fact amongst many Russian Orthodox there is only contempt for neo-catholicism.

Vox Cantoris said...

Brother Anthony, T.O.S.F. said:
"Has anybody written about whether the Anglicans are going to abjure their errors and make a Catholic profession of Faith before entering the Church? Or about the need for the Anglican "priests" to be ordained? A purely canonical agreement is worthless in God's eyes."

1. For your information, the Bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion signed copies of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church to confirm the belief and acceptance.

2. Did it ever occur to you that married men in the eastern catholic churches such as the Maronite and Ukrainian are ordained? Do you doubt their validity? The apostles decided that circumcision was not necessary for the Gentiles---they did not need to become Jews first; how many adult men would have become Christians if they had to submit to the knife? Not many, so since this is part of their 500 year old tradition (notwithstanding the original cause) and since it is already a practice outide the Roman Rite then what is the problem?

3. "...worthless in God's eyes." Really, do you know what God thinks on this matter? Have you given any consideration to the possibility that the Pope really is guided by the Holy Spirit in these matters and that he is really doing the LORD's work here?

Anonymous said...

Regarding the type of liturgy to be used, it is fascinating to think of a new "Mass" for these Anglicans which in many appearances will be similar to the CATHOLIC Mass celebrated in England prior to the disasterous Protestant Reformation.
I think that elements taken from pre-Reformation English Mass would be a wonderful idea, and would do much to strengthen the cause for re-capturing re-introducing ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS withing the Catholic Church on a far more widespread area.
However, I would hope that elements that sre specifically Protestant be eliminated from the new "Mass" to be developed for the Anglicans.
The pre-Reformation Catholic Mass of English usage returned, absolutely.
The integration of Protestant traditions into the Catholic Church...NO Way!!. I would hope the Pope wound have better sense than that!!

Anonymous said...

From what I read, the Anglican "priests" who convent will have to not only be re-ordained in the tradition of the Roman Catholic Faith, but also swear in writing loyalty to the Roman Catholic Church and it's traditions ( I suppose in the old days we would call this abjuring past errors).
"Bishops" who enter will not be able to function as Bishops if they are married.
"Priests" who enter the Catholic Church married can stay priests, but "priests" who enter the Catholic Church celibate will not be permitted to marry.

I would hope, that any seminarians that come along for this new group will NOT be permitted to marry.

FranzJosf said...

I wouldn't worry too much about the Liturgy just yet. The 'contemporary' business probably means that the people will say the responses instead of only altar boys and that the Miles Coverdale translation of the Roman Canon will be said aloud.

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

P.K.T.P.,

Thank you for your response. One comment, though, I don't see how "conditional" ordination applies here. Anglical orders are null and void as declared by Pope Leo XIII.

Br. Anthony, T.O.S.F. said...

Vox Cantoris said,

"Really, do you know what God thinks on this matter?"

Yes. I do. God said, through his Apostle, that without Faith it is impossible to please God. Therefore, no canonical agreement could ever override this truth.

Anonymous said...

I read one laughable comment posted on another site by a woman (obviously a liberal and quite possibly a nun), whining that with the re-introduction of the English Mass as it may have been pre-Protestant Reformation, we will be insulting members of the Protestant community who honor and esteem the Reformation and the liturgical tradition that came from it. UGH! Nauseating.

First off, when these Anglican "priests" are all absolutely re-trained and re-ordained completely according to Catholic tradition, I would love to attend a Mass celebrated as it might have been in England pre-Protestant Reformation (perhaps around the year 1400). I have heard that the Mass back then was MUCH more elaborate than even the present day Tridentine Latin Mass, and that there were several different "Rites" within the Catholic Church prior to the disasterous Protestant Reformation.

The Celtic Rite (Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and parts of England), died out shortly after the Norman Conquests in 1066 (within 100 years of the Conquest), but we still have some of their Missals, and apparently their Mass was very elaborate.

The Sarum Rite in England was possibly (along with the standard Roman rite of the time), the Mass most frequently celebrated in England prior to the corrupt Henry VIII and the Protestant Reformation. Some small traditionalist Catholic groups both in Britian and the USA celebrate it on occasion. It is probably the true Medieval English Mass (prior to 1400), and it is fascinating to think that this may be the Mass than Medieval people and kings, friars and nuns participated in (12th thru 16th centuries).

The Rites of Lyon, and Paris also died out in GENERAL use prior to the Council of Trent (being surplanted by the then standard Roman Rite).

There were also the Mozarabic Rite, the Rite of Braga (Portugal), and the Ambrosian Rite (Northern Italy, Milan etc.).
I believe there was also a Rite (or an adaption) common in Venice and it's area prior to the 15th-16th centuries when the Roman Rite predominated.

One of the points of whining of this woman's article, was that with a new "Anglican Rite" being developed, as well as the Novus Ordo and the Tridentine Latin Mass, the Church under Benedict XVI is appearing more and more Medieval. This is bad?? I don't think so.
The Middle Ages (5th century-thru 14th century) but more specifically the years 1050-1375 is often called "The Age of Faith".
There is nothing wrong with trying to recapture that spirit both disiplinary, and liturgically.

MINUS THE PROTESTANT LITURGICAL INFLUENCES....OF COURSE!!!

Snow said...

"If the salt lose its savor, wherewith shall the earth be salted?" Matthew 5:13

"In our time more than ever before, the chief strength of the wicked lies in the cowardice and weakness of good men ... All the strength of Satan's reign is due to the easygoing weakness of Catholics." Pope St. Pius X

http://tinyurl.com/kqqqyx

Br. Stephen, O.Cist said...

It might be helpful at this point as everyone is trying to wade through the types of Anglican worship to have a little visual assistance.

I have a post up with videos of the five styles of Anglican worship that the folks working on the nuts and bolts of the new ordinariates will have to deal with. There are certainly more types of Anglican worship than these, but these are the ones most used by groups that might consider taking the Holy Father up on his generous terms for coming home.

Here's the link:

http://subtuum.blogspot.com/2009/10/anglican-worship-show-dont-tell.html

Anonymous said...

THANK YOU BR. STEPHEN FOR THIS MOST OF THE ANGLICAN SERVICES.

I VERY MUCH LIKE THE VIDEO CLIP #2. IT IS SIMILAR TO THE TRIDENTINE LATIN MASS.

THE EVANGELICAL TYPE OF ANGLICAN CLIP IS REPULSIVE. IT REMINDS ME OF THE TYPICAL NOVUS ORDO. ALSO, THIS IS TOO MUCH LIKE PROTESTANT. I HOPE THE POPE WOLD NOT ALLOW FOR THIS VERISON INTO THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

THE LAST CLIP IS OF COURSE THE CHARISMATIC, AND THE WORST OF THE 5 CLIPS. REMINDS ME OF WHAT YOU'D SEE IN SARAH PALINS CHURCH.

I HOPE THE VATICAN, IN CREATING THIS NEW ANGLICAN RITE, USES ELEMENTS ONLY FROM CLIPS 1 AND 2....AND NOTHING FROM THE OTHERS.

Irenaeus of New York said...

The ROC are not even close. I dont forsee this happening in our lifetimes. Everything else is wishful thinking. The anti Romans are in the vast majority.

Anonymous said...

Br. Anthony wrote:

Thank you for your response. One comment, though, I don't see how "conditional" ordination applies here. Anglical orders are null and void as declared by Pope Leo XIII.


Again, most of the TAC ministers were ordained with the assistance of Old Catholic bishops. I don't know about the FiF clerics. I suspect less so. Think of Graham Leonard.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Br. Anthony:

I'm not sure what will be done about Anglican styles of worship. The Pope is apparently preparing ONE liturgical form at the moment, aimed at the TAC. Frankly, I think that the TAC and a few other small groups will come in first. I don't expect the dithering FiF to come in all at once. A few of them will come in with the TAC but most will wait outside for some time. I don't think that either FiF in England or in the U.S.A. will cross the Tiber until well after (years after) the TAC does.

It is truly nauseating to think that some of these people in FiF use the Novus Ordo junk Mass. The TAC does NOT use it.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I agrre with some here that liturgy by cmte. is a real worry. Look what happened in 1982 with the Anglican Use Liturgy: they got it wrong and included that sickeing 'Blessed are You [sick] Lord God of all Creation' thingy from the N.O.M. On the other side, I suspect that Benedict XVI will do a better job of this than did John Paul II, esp. if he keeps mostly to the English Missal.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

One point I have not seen discussed, maybe because it is not not on the top of the agenda, but I am curious how it will "fit into" the practicing liturgy of Catholic Anglicans, is the Second Vatican Council and its' declarations on Latin and Chant. I understand that the Anglicans currently use beautiful hymns and that the language is hieractic English. Part of entering the Catholic Church is absorbing our history and practices. Latin is the universal language of the Church. And SC from the Second Vat Council states it must be retained in the liturgy, even allowing space for the vernacular. What is Anglican thought on this? At some point I think it has to be addressed, no?? Any thoughts? If the Church is taking Anglicans and some of their practices and such, how do the Anglicans take on ours?

Anonymous said...

Not much use debating this man's speculation: let's wait for a statement from the Vatican.

I for one hope and pray the Holy Father requires priestly celibacy of the Anglicans in toto: that was the English tradition before the Anglican apostasy; there is no reason not to return to it, when returning to the true Church.

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Br. Stephen, O.Cist said...

There has been some discussion here of Archbishop Hepworth's phrase "contemporary understanding of the way Christians should approach God."

I'm not sure how many things are included in that, but one certainly is the case of Anglo-Catholics who use the Novus Ordo (see clip #3 in my earlier post), who comprised the majority of his audience in London. These congregations that don't use the Anglican liturgical books but do feel very strongly about how they use Roman books will present a most interesting case as will the small number of Anglo-Catholics who make occasional use of the Extraordinary Form.

Pray for the folks tasked with working on the liturgical provisions of the apostolic constitution.

Louis E. said...

Meanwhile,A.N. Wilson opines on the Op-Ed pages of today's NY Times that he expects to see a Pope ordain women to the priesthood within 20 years!
He sees this opening from Rome as helping the Anglicans dissolve into nothingness in a totally multiculti Britain,but trusts that Rome can never resist what he thinks progress.

Br. Stephen, O.Cist said...

"I am curious how it will "fit into" the practicing liturgy of Catholic Anglicans, is the Second Vatican Council and its' declarations on Latin and Chant."

The quick answer to that one, sadly, is that the average parish of the kind that's looking at the new ordinariates already uses far more Latin and chant than the average Catholic parish.

FranzJosf said...

Two summers ago, I was an acolyte at a Cof E confirmation at St. Gabriel's, Warwich Square, in London, which priest has now retired. It was the weirdest amalgamation and made no sense. The visiting 'bishop' wore pontifical dalmatic and fiddle-back chas., but the supposedly anglo-catholic priest had installed a facing-the-people altar and was using the Novus Ordo Missal. A complete mess, not to mention that he was a womanish worrier. People like he is aren't really Catholic; they just have a certain 'so and so' smells and bells attitude toward the forms of worship, but they are more interested in their boyish fellowship than they are in the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ.

Anonymous said...

FranzJozef:

Why all this negativity. We can't judge the lot of them from a few chance experiences. There will be a huge adjustment, spiritually and psychologically. Most of the TAC people are very much like us but that is not to say that all of them are. For example, their parish at Halifax, Canada, would seem to include Altar boyesses, whereas most of their other parishes wouldn't dream of it. I've also seen pictures on their websites of deacons wearing black calottes at Mass, as if they were abbots.

On the other hand, I have also seen a great deal of liturgical impropriety in Catholic Masses, even sometimes at Traditional Latin Masses.

I think that the Anglicans who cross the Tiber first are more likely to be much like us. Those who follow will be less and less so but will have an established and largely *correct* place to go once they cross over.

I hardly think that any of this is a huge problem. If we wanted to stop them on any grounds you can think of, we'd have to expel about nine-tenths of N.O. Catholics on the same grounds, like, um, not being Catholic?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On Br. Stephen's comments about their liturgical variation: some of the TAC priests even use the Sarum Missal, although not on the the every-Sunday basis, for it requires several Altar servers.

Others use the Anglican Missal, not the American one by that name but the English one (1912 or something). I have a photocopy of it. It is a rather pleasant fusion of deCranmerised Anglican texts and the Roman Mass. It has alternate Canons (including the Roman Canon) but the Roman Offertory is the only one allowed in it.

Others use the English Missal, which is mostly our Traditional Roman Missal (the 1637 edn.) in Victorian English.

Those who use the N.O.M. are the FiF, not the TAC. I'm not sure how many FiFers are coming across (almost all the TAC is) but the Pope apparently plans to saddle all these chaps with one Missal approved by him. I've heard that it will be published shortly before this coming Christmas. I guess they've been working on it for the last two years.


P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Br. Alexis:

It is a pleasure to see you posting here again. According to the Note from the C.D.W. and according to Hepworth, married priests are to be allowed, as expected. But the Pope went further than expected. He is allowing not only those already married but is allowing them to have ordain married men forever into the future. I'm not sure that that is wise but there it is. It is the provision which they are all calling 'revolutionary' over at the FiF meeting.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

One anon. poster asks:

"Latin is the universal language of the Church. And SC from the Second Vat Council states it must be retained in the liturgy, even allowing space for the vernacular. What is Anglican thought on this?"

Those in the TAC agree with this in principle. Many of them are very knowledgeable about Latin and Chant, and some of them actually celebrate in Latin on a regular basis (only a few). Today, the TAC choirmaster assisted at our Traditional Latin Mass. The result was a great improvement in the singing. Not a problem. They are much more latinised than the N.O. crowd: a thousandfold. But, again, I write of the TAC, not FiF and some of the others, and certainly not of the evangelical Anglicans.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I hope that they work this out carefully. If married clergy are allowed indefinitely, couldn't a Catholic who gets married but wants to be a priest just enter a TAC seminary and become a priest? Seems like that would be a lot more momentous than the sensible accommodation of allowing a married Anglican cleric who wants to bring his flock into the Catholic Church to do so.

While it sounds like Hepworth does not know what he is talking about with respect to the Russion Orthodox Church, it is hard to believe he was not front and center in the negotiations regarding the TAC's seminaries and clergy formation.

Even if there is a clause saying that a married Catholic cannot enter an Anglican Use seminary program, there would be a gaping loophole. Just change your membership to an Anglican Use parish and become a bonafide Anglican Use Catholic.

Andrew White said...

"Pre-reformation English worship"
Does that mean the Sarum Rite?
The Sarum Rite in its day was completely celebrated in Latin, Right?

Let the existing married clerics be ordained - fair enough - But not future Anglo-Catholic seminarians.
Celibacy is the best state of life par excellance for Clergy.
In a nutshell - You can devote 100% to Gods work!

What will happen to the laity attached to the TAC who are in irregular marital states? Will they be admitted to receive the Sacraments? I ask this because I know of many divorced/re-married Catholics who join the Episcopal Church for this reason - they want their cake and want to eat it too.

John McFarland said...

Let me try it this way.

If I invited you to join an organization dedicated to the maintenance of the traditional Catholic faith headed up by an apostate divorced and remarried Catholic priest, would you join?

Didn't think so.

Then why do you want that organization to join YOU?

Mother of God, Seat of Wisdom, pray for us.

Jordanes said...

Because its members, like all sinners, belong in the Catholic Church.

Anonymous said...

On the issue of married priests raised here:

This does pose a problem. That's why most of us expected that they would admit their present crop of married priests but not allow future ordinations of married men.

I imagine that Rome will simply not allow Romans to become subjects of Anglican ordinaries except in special circumstances. I imagine a clause like that; otherwise, it's true, any Latin who wanted to be a married priest would simply sign up for the Anglican Use seminary. But it should be easy to bar those who are not former Anglicans and whose fathers are not Anglican Use Angliclans.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland's last comments are unfair because Hepworth does not equal the TAC. True, one must wonder why the TAC put him where he is. In fact, a member of theirs whom I spoke to recently had precisely the same sorts of misgivings.

Once they are under Rome, of course, they will not be able to promote people with his sort of history. Having said that, I'd rather not pass judgement on him and I assume that he and others are sincere in their desire to join the Church.

He has already indicated that, should he be unsuitable for service in the new arrangement, he would be content to, in his own words, 'retire and go fishing'. Let's leave it at that for now. From what I can see, many of their prelates are very respectable and holy men. One example would be Bishop Robert Mercer, now in early retirement.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

I imagine that Rome will simply not allow Romans to become subjects of Anglican ordinaries except in special circumstances. I imagine a clause like that; otherwise, it's true, any Latin who wanted to be a married priest would simply sign up for the Anglican Use seminary.

If I remember right, that sounds like what Cardinal Levada indicated last Tuesday would be the case: Anglican personal ordinariate seminaries would not be admitting any but former Anglicans. But I can't find the quote that I'm trying to remember. I'll try again tomorrow, unless someone else finds it for me.

Anonymous said...

There is further news from Archbishop Hepworth. He delivered it at the FiF meeting. He is imparting information not yet given by Rome, so this is interesting. Apparently, there will be a new structure to co-ordinate the activity of all the new ordinariates. I had wondered about the need for that. This new structure will ensure unity for an Anglican charism in terms of "spirituality, liturgy, theology, and discipline". He mentioned a sort of tsar to deal with this as well. While he did not say so, I expect he means that there will be a new pontifical council for the Anglican Use. He also said that only former Anglicans would be likely to serve as personal ordinaries. So there's no extra work here for Cardinal Mahony (sigh!).

I listened to some of the speeches at the FiF meeting but am very busy with another matter right now and could only take a break to listen to three of them. The FiF leaders made beautiful speeches but what they signify is hard to say. Hepworth's was far more emotional and it did warm the heart. I think that he made his case very well for accepting the Pope's offer.

I expect that, at first, the TAC and a portion of FiF will come over. Many others will come later on: it's inevitable. But most of them will hold out until the last dog is hung in Anglicanism. That does worry me: are they really converting to Catholicism, or are they only escaping the Schorri Bitch and sodomarriage?

The TAC, in that respect, does NOT worry me. They are 99.9% Catholic already and are really only abandonnig (presumably) one single theological error, called the branch theory of the Church. But as for many of these others, I do wonder about their commitment.

Anyway, we do know from experience that God moves in mysterious ways, and some people convert for the wrong reasons and then, under the influence of the Church, come to find a true and heartfelt conversion. Living in the Church is supposed to bring blessings and graces. It is wise, however, to start with the TAC and perhaps not encourage much more.

AS for Akinola and his evangelicals in Nigeria, I'm not sure if he's serious or only playing a head game with Rowam Williams. But we shouldn't need to wait long to find out!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

No way that the African Anglicans join the Catholic Church or even undertake serious negotiations. They have evangelical styles of worship and theology. They run their own shop and want to keep it that way.

As a former Episcopalian, I can say that there is a lot of heartfelt desire for Catholic unity. Anglicans, unlike most protestants, recite the Nicene Creed every Sunday. From our earliest years, our faith calls us to the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church." Note the little "c" in catholic, of course a significant change. However, we grew up believing in and praying for catholicity. The only question was how to get to it--via ecumenical dialogues with Rome, individual conversion once we believed we could in good consience, or perhaps smaller groups coming in.

A purist of course can pound the table about the only way to come is individual conversion. That is how I did it. However, that does not diminish the virtues of being led towards catholicity by one's Anglican bishop and priest together. The way that the Church of England came about makes this an unusual situation--largely just retaining catholic ecclesiology and practice but cutting out the Vatican. There were a few (in my view justifiable) qualms about Renaissance Roman excess, and a few theological problems picked up from Calvin, but by and large, Anglicanism remained catholic without Vatican authority or the Pope appointing the bishops.

laicus said...

From another Hepworth statement it appears that his understanding is that dispensations are likely to be needed, in the individual cases, for married former Anglicans to become seminarians.

Anonymous said...

To the last Anon posting:

Just because they recite the Nicene creed does not mean that they are close to the Catholic faith. The Christian and Dutch Reformed Churches, some of the most Calvinistic and anti-Catholic around, who still profess the article of faith that Eucharistic adoration consitutes idolatry, also recite the Nicene creed each Sunday. Their view of what the small c "catholic" adjective means is some pan-denominational "what unites us is greater than what divides us" concept that apparently applies to protestant ecclesial communities and liberal/pantheist self termed "Catholic" groups, but not all to Papist Roman Catholics.

I don't fault people for getting terribly excited about the news of this reunion. I too am very grateful to the Lord for this development. But what should truly excite is only what is real. Reciting creeds is done by schismatics and heretics too. Put another way, I would be really excited if, in addition to reciting the Nicene Creed, they would whole heartedly recite the Tridentine Creed, for example.

The problem with anyone who is "99.9% Catholic" is that they simply are NOT Catholic. That 0.1% would be the proverbial iota that is deleted or added, and we have Sacred Tradition and the Scriptures to confirm that even that miniscule iota would suffice for an anathema.

Jay said...

"Bishops in the new Anglican structure will be unmarried. This is out of respect for the tradition of Eastern and Western Christianity. But 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. It is anticipated that Anglican bishops who are married when they joined the new structure will still be able to serve as priestly ordinaries, exercising some of the responsibilities of bishops."

I understand that in the future bishops will be unmarried, priest are allowed to marry. So it puzzles me from what 'source' will come in the future these unmarried bishops in the Anglican-Catholic ordinariates? Maybe I am missing something..

Anonymous said...

More nonsense I have rarely seen. Here is the latest gem:

"The problem with anyone who is "99.9% Catholic" is that they simply are NOT Catholic. That 0.1% would be the proverbial iota that is deleted or added, and we have Sacred Tradition and the Scriptures to confirm that even that miniscule iota would suffice for an anathema."

I should have avoided that expression "99%". I knew better when I wrote it. Let me put it another way. The TAC people accept all the dogma Catholics are required to accept by divine and Catholic faith--and a lot more which we think of as Catholic. They have, until now, held on to only one theological error, which is not a dogma. I am presuming that their letter of 2007 means, at least, that they are willing to reconsider that.

Technically, any of us Catholics could agree with their branch theory and we'd still be Catholic, although I think we'd be terribly wrong.

How anxious people are here to kick these good people in the face. They are archconservatives who have experienced precisely the same sort of persecution we have faced, only worse: they've been lilterally booted out and lost all their churches. Their journey to Rome has taken them over a century. Keep in mind that they have not had the advantage of the graces we have had by belonging to the One True Church. Their 'crime' here is only wanting to hold on to a beauty which is part of their culture. It will not drag them to hell, I think. Unkindness is more likely to have that effect. I worry more about those here who are looking for reasons to condemn them as they knock at our door and ask Jesus for a place at the back of the banquet hall.

This is becoming unreal. I am disgusted at some of the comments here. I have come ancestors who were persecuted by Protestants and yet I can welcome them. There is no spirit of charity here. I am confident that, once they are receiving the graces of the Church, the branch theory will be lost and forgotten over time. In fact, they will likely abandon it because it is now obvious that it has borne no good fruits. That is WHY they are knocking at our door. Let's leave it at that.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Some, wanting to be rigorous about the TAC situation, will say that most of them are not real converts because most of them would not be converting except under condition of keeping something which is merely æsthetic.

I must face the facts squarely. That might be true. Ask yourself this: how many of them would convert to the Church if the Pope were to withdraw his offer tomorrow? Only a handfull would.

But since compassion is out and we must stick to logic, I'd point out that these people, not having the advantages brough by divine grace, are still suffering from an invincible ignorance. Yes, in most cases, their intent to be Catholic is imperfect. It is imperfect because it is impaired. But an imperfect intent does not imply a dishonest one. As I see it, they seek union with the See of Peter DESPITE having been influenced only by those who have contemned the Church over the last several centuries.

My conclusion is that the only proper way to conversion is individual conversion. However, if, presumably through no fault of their own, a group which adheres to no heresy wishes to return, it is the prerogative of the Pope, as an act of charity, to receive them. By such reception, they are freed from the influences which have formerly led them astray. So the papal act is medicinal. Heaven forbid that we should heal the spiritually sick! No, some here would set them alight on an auto-da-fé!

Yes, they are not perfect, just as we are not. Their intent in seeking reunion is not perfect but it is honest, and the imperfection is presumably not owing to any evil desire on their part. It follows logically that the Pope can help them overcome their imperfection, AS AN ACT OF CHARITY, and can bring them home.

What did Christ say to St. Peter? Being once converted, confirm your brethren.

Did the Church demand individual conversions for the Ukrainians in 1595? or the Ruthenians in 1696? No. Oh, but they were schismatics, not heretics. Well, the TACers are also schismatics, not heretics. Would all the Ukrainians in 1595 have returned to Rome if the Pope had demanded that they abandon their liturgical culture? You may say that that's different, since that culture was Catholic in the first place. Yes, but the question is whether or not the Ukrainians of 1595 were more attached to their culture or to their Catholic Faith. Would they have returned to Rome on any conditions set by the Pope? Dare we ask? Or should be affirm, instead, that, by making a journey easier, a pope, as loving father, helps to overcome others' handicaps so that their good intent may be realised?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

PKTP,

Well stated.

On the one hand, when I was Episcopalian, I knew there were problems, but the church allowed us to shape our faith and theology. So, I would routinely read the great encyclicals and be guided by Catholic teachings while appreciating the liturgy of the parish. The question of becoming Catholic was purely one of eccesiology.

Such is the circumstance of many in the current situation. The jump is basically a question of ecclesiology, and what is the right method to walk with one's friends back towards the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

For what it is worth, the abysmal Masses of some NO parishes used to give me a chuckle. It was like they were not taking the solemnity of faith seriously, what with the shorts and t-shirts and Marty Haugen. So, while one can certainly get wrapped up in elitism regarding liturgy, there is a lot in modern Catholic culture that makes a lot of Anglo-Catholics not take it seriously.

On the other hand, traditional Catholicism can sometimes go hand in hand with an off-putting "it's my way or the highway"/more Catholic than the Pope atmosphere. Real, effective evangelism requires an abundance of concern and a welcoming embrace that Pope Benedict XVI so well embodies.

Anonymous said...

ANGLICAN ORDINARIATES AND THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS

1. Question:

Will reconciled Anglican-Catholic priests in Anglican ordiniariates have the right to celebrate the T.L.M., without needing permission from the local Latin bishop?

Answer: Affirmative, and they won't need permission from their own ordinary either.

Unless prevented by a general provision in law encoded in the coming apostolic constitution, they will be priests of the Latin Church and therefore have a fundamental right to celebrate both the N.O. and the T.L.M. Particular law will likely require them to offer their own Masses for their own people but, this duty having been fulfilled in accordance with need, they would have the right mentioned here as long as they celebrate no more than three Masses on Sundays and other holydays of obligation, and two Masses on other days.

Parish priests and rectors in the new ordinariates will have the right to celebrate the T.L.M. themselves or to invite other priests to do so at the sacred places they control (if any). These other priests could be their own or priests of the local Latin see. The local Latin ordinary could, in practice, have some power to obstruct his active priests from doing so (e.g. by not allowing them to binate or trinate and then assigning them to celebrate the N.O. somewhere) but RETIRED priests of the Latin see cannot be prevented from accepting such offers. They have an inalienable right to celebrate Mass once per diem, and it can be the N.O. or T.L.M., and they can never be *required* to celebrate either.

2. Could the new Anglican ordinaries invite the S.S.P.X to offer Mass in its churches? I don't see why not, since the Bishop of Tarbes et Lourdes and the Patriarch of Venice have done this in Europe. If Latin bishops can do it, why not Anglican-Catholic ordinaries?

Be nice, Mr. McFarland!

Would such Masses, at Catholic venues, fulfil the Sunday obligation? Answer: all Society Masses fulfil that obligation. The problem is not that Rome won't admit this but that, until now, she has refused to admit it PUBLICLY.

According to Rome, the S.S.P.X is Catholic and not schismatic. The consecrations of 1988 were a schismatic act but not one sufficient to cause schism.

Of course, not being the local ordinary, the Anglican-Catholic ordinary will not be able to grant faculties to Society priests in his structure. However, he could allow them to use his property to offer Mass, and he could allow any Latin priest to do so, including a retired one who cannot be touched by the local Roman ordinary.


3. What power would the local bishops have to stop Anglican ordinaries from doing such thing?

Answer: the same power they have over Eastern Rite bishops in Western countries: MONEY! The Anglican ordinaries have few sacred places of their own and will want access to Latin churches for their Masses. They need permission from the local bishops for this.

Still, all of this does erode the power of the local bishops over the Traditional Latin Mass.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Question:

What other effect will these Anglican ordinariates have on the Church?

They will supply yet more options for those running running running away from the N.O.M. to save their souls. Most of the TAC Masses will be VERY CLOSE to the T.L.M. except in liturgical English. The TAC choirmaster here attended our T.L.M. on Sunday. He is very knowledgeable about liturgy and, in particular, chant. He said that our Mass was textually very similar to theirs, the main difference being language. But they don't use the goofball wording of the Novus Ordo. Their English is beautiful and actually respect God and our Lady, whereas the N.O. insults both.

Consider my situation in Victoria. When Father was away this summer, our Mass was cancelled briefly. We had one option and only one: return to the Ukrainian Byzantine Divine Litury. There is no S.S.P.X Mass here, no other Latin Mass, nothing else. But when the TAC reconciles, we shall have a second option. Also, if we were ever expelled from our N.O. parish church, we could ask their ordinary for our Mass in his church, which is properly disposed for our Mass. Similarly, should they ever lose their church here in Victoria, they could have their Mass in our church.

I'm not sure how much more access we shall have to Latin Masses owing to all of this. But I am sure that our reliance on the Novus Ordo clown Mass will diminish. That is good in itself--unless you actually like to see women in what looks like bathrobes at the Altar with Father.

P.K.T.P.