20th October 2009
I have spent this evening speaking to bishops, priests and lay people of the Traditional Anglican Communion in England, Africa, Australia, India, Canada, the United States and South America. We are profoundly moved by the generosity of the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI. He offers in this Apostolic Constitution the means for “former Anglicans to enter into the fullness of communion with the Catholic Church”. He hopes that we can “find in this canonical structure the opportunity to preserve those Anglican traditions precious to us and consistent with the Catholic faith”. He then warmly states “we are happy that these men and women bring with them their particular contributions to our common life of faith”.
May I firstly state that this is an act of great goodness on the part of the Holy Father. He has dedicated his pontificate to the cause of unity. It more than matches the dreams we dared to include in our petition of two years ago. It more than matches our prayers. In those two years, we have become very conscious of the prayers of our friends in the Catholic Church. Perhaps their prayers dared to ask even more than ours.
While we await the full text of the Apostolic Constitution, we are also moved by the pastoral nature of the Notes issued today by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. My fellow bishops have indeed signed the Catechism of the Catholic Church and made a statement about the ministry of the Bishop of Rome, reflecting the words of Pope John Paul II in his letter “Ut Unum Sint”.
Other Anglican groups have indicated to the Holy See a similar desire and a similar acceptance of Catholic faith. As Cardinal Levada has indicated, this response to Anglican petitions is to be of a global character. It will now be for these groups to forge a close cooperation, even where they transcend the existing boundaries of the Anglican Communion.
Fortunately, the Statement issued by the Archbishop of Canterbury reflects the understanding that we have gained from him that he does not stand in our way, and understands the decisions that we have reached. Both his reaction and our petition are fruits of a century of prayer for Christian unity, a cause that many times must have seemed forlorn. We now express our gratitude to Archbishop Williams, and have regularly assured him of our prayers. The See of Augustine remains a focus of our pilgrim way, as it was in ages of faith in the past.
I have made a commitment to the Traditional Anglican Communion that the response of the Holy See will be taken to each of our National Synods. They have already endorsed our pathway. Now the Holy See challenges us to seek in the specific structures that are now available the “full, visible unity, especially Eucharistic communion”, for which we have long prayed and about which we have long dreamed. That process will begin at once.
In the Anglican Office of Morning Prayer, the great Hymn of Thanksgiving, the Te Deum, is part of the daily Order. It is with heartfelt thanks to Almighty God, the Lord and Source of all peace and unity, that the hymn is on our lips today. This is a moment of grace, perhaps even a moment of history, not because the past is undone, but because the past is transformed.
Archbishop John Hepworth
Primate
91 comments:
"... preserve those Anglican traditions precious to us and consistent with the Catholic faith"
We should rejoice in the certainty that balloon masses will not be listed among such traditions.
These Traditional Anglo-Catholics (soon to be Traditional Catholics) will be a leaven in the Novus Ordo wasteland.
Deo Gratias!
What a truly progressive and wonderful Holy Father we have; he is shepherd to all souls!
Ave Maria!
I can hardly wait for the Pope to consecrate an ex-Anglican and assign him to an undisciplined Catholic diocese where he gets to make the cradle Catholics behave like adults. Let’s see how their love of ecumenism manifests itself then.
Egad, I just noticed that the Trad Anglicans have signed the CCC! The Catechism of Vatican II, which poses such a grave danger to the Faith! Oh my, this is certainly bad news to be utterly deplored!!!
Yes, when the ecclesiastical descendants of Henry VIII determine to submit to the Roman Pontiff, that is indeed an occasion for rending our garments and weeping.
Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! St. Thomas a Becket, whose shrine was destroyed by the most Satanic King, Henry VIII of eternal infamy, the Saint has triumphed, the King has fallen.
The TAC will now enter the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, extra ecclesia nulla salus, as one international entity under one unmarried bishop. It's other unmarried bishops will become auxiliary bishops superintending (but not ruling) regional parts of it. Other personal ordinariates, particuarly for the Forward in Faith group in England, are coming. GAFCON will follow eventually.
Peter Karl T. Perkins
I suggest the following liturgical solution for the new structures.
Rome will approve the following, the latter items as short-term expedients until commissions have settled liturgies:
1. The English Missal (T.L.M. in Victorian English); the Anglican Missal (very Anglo-Catholic, with Roman Cannon and Offertory and all Cranmerian heresies removed); Sarun Use (pre-Reformation Mass in much of England); Anglican Use (approved by Rome in 1983 for what are now ten communities in the U.S.A.; T.L.M.; N.O.M. (yes, I know).
2. Current pryerbook Eucharistic Liturgies but with any existing approved Roman Offertory and Eucharistic Prayer substituted.
As for 2., the new TAC personal ordinary would then disallow all the Novus Ordo options in regard to Canon and Offertory; and he would institute a commission to perfect a liturgy for his structure.
Other incoming Anglicans would have their own solutions for their own folk.
P.K.T.P.
Mornac:
These new people will not have their clergy assigned to Roman dioceses. We shall have to solve our own problems. In the case of people such as Mahony, I inmagine a solution which involves kerosene, but it would be best to let the courts or retirement remove him.
P.K.T.P.
Will cradle Catholics be permitted to join ex-Anglican parishes in the Ordinariate, in preference to their local, liberal, Catholic parish?
Ernie:
No, but this will have little effect. You can fulfil your Sunday obligation and go to confession to any Catholic priest. Ditto for Extreme Unction. For Baptism, Marriages, Ordinarations, and funerals, you'd need permission from your local Roman ordinary. Most will give it. There's hardly any point now in denying it. So you'd remain technically in the Roman parish but de facto you could be part of the new structure.
P.K.T.P.
I wonder how many bishops the TAC will really need as it has always seemed to me that the various Traditional Anglican groups had far more bishops than were necessary. I wonder how many of them really have candidates for bishop that are celibate as well.
Greg Hessel in Arlington Diocese.
Deo gratias! What splendid, splendid news.
Let us thank Almighty God for His mercy, for the increase of the faith, and for our heroic pope.
Viva Cristo Rey!
Of course this man knows, I am sure that when he enters into the Roman Catholic Church in full communion, he will (if he is married), have to relinquish this post of "Archbishop", and be ordained as a priest.
Cardinal Levada made perfectly clear this morning that because of the time honored tradition of the Catholic Church, and for ecumenical sensitivity (to the Orthodox), married men can not and will not be bishops in any new Ordinate created for these former Anglicans.
Just so they know, there's no hope of married Bishops in their new organization....or in the Catholic Church.
"I can hardly wait for the Pope to consecrate an ex-Anglican and assign him to an undisciplined Catholic diocese where he gets to make the cradle Catholics behave like adults. Let’s see how their love of ecumenism manifests itself then."
Of course, the ex-Anglican will be a celibate priest.
Also, the ex-Anglican priests, even if they do become Bishops of dioceses in this new organization, will stay in their organization....they are not considered regular Catholic priests and bishops who can be appointed to any diocese.
Just like an Eastern Rite Bishop is not plucked from his particular Eastern Rite Church (Rutherians, Ukranians, Maronite), to be the bishop of let's say...Los Angeles...neither could an ex-Anglican priest hope to be appointed to a Catholic diocese as Bishop.
To our Anglican brethren:
Welcome back!
"The TAC will now enter the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, extra ecclesia nulla salus, as one international entity under one unmarried bishop. It's other unmarried bishops will become auxiliary bishops superintending (but not ruling) regional parts of it. Other personal ordinariates, particuarly for the Forward in Faith group in England, are coming. GAFCON will follow eventually."
This would be fine. Alleluia is right.
Just so the ones (Bishops etc.) who are married know that there's no hope for them staying bishops.
Please, no more comments on married clergy and celibacy in this post!
Today is a day of joy and celebration. Disciplinary details will be handed down by the Holy Father - does anyone doubt that the Vicar of Christ is fully in charge of this process?
NC
Laudetur Jesus Christus!
To settle the question raised, this from the comments section at the "Stand Firm in Faith" Anglican blog, from a member of TAC. It affirms what I thought I had heard some time back:
As our Continuing Church, the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) has said from the beginning of our application, all of our worldwide bishops agreed to give up their role immediately at the discretion of the Pope, if our application was favourably received.
what percentage of England/Anglicans are coming over to Rome?
How bout some numbers?
how many church's will swing over to Roman Catholic?
thank you,
A very quick note to extend my congratulations to Pope Benedict on a wise and very pastoral response to these lost sheep in need of a spiritual home. I would also in passing note the almost heroic attitude of the TAC primate who offered to resign and become a layman if that is what was required to be received into the Roman Church (and it almost certainly will be required).
With reference to Mr. Perkins comment that other Anglican bodies including GAFCON will come into communion with Rome, I must make a small correction. I believe he is correct that many Anglo-Catholic bodies will look very seriously at Rome now. However GAFCON will not be among them.
GAFCON is totally dominated by the low church Protestant Evangelical wing of the Anglican Communion. While certainly conservative by Protestant standards they are in no way catholic (small "c") in their theology. Few if any in GAFCON would give Rome a 2nd glance.
In ICXC
John
As I've been shouting the whole day...
...Y E S !!!
Welcome dear converted brethren.
May you always love the Church very dearly.
I can't wait for some of the Anglican communities in North Carolina to swim the Tiber.
I look forward to assisting at a Sarum Rite or Anglican Use Catholic Mass!
Welcome.
Welcome home TAC!
Laudetur Jesus Christus!
Excellent news.
Does anyone know the number of TAC priests worldwide?
I've tried to discover the statistic, and I can't seem to locate it.
Thanks!
~ Belloc
God Bless these Anglicans. They will offer allot to the Anglican Use parishes, and the Catholic Church as a whole. But more importantly, they now have a permanent home. God Bless them all!!. Welcome Home!!.
Parry Anyone!!. Maybe a little John Rutter music is now in order.
Dear Mr. Hessel:
The TAC will be coming aboard for one of these international dioceses (that is what a personal ordinariate amounts to) very very soon. I'd say early in the new year. This means one diocesan bishop (the personal ordinary) plus a few auxiliary bishops. The TAC currently has about 25 diocesan bishops and another fifteen auxiliaries. However, most of these are married and will therefore have to function as priests. I predict that all its active unmarried bishops will receive episcopal consecration, except for those who are under variuos impediments. It likely means the one ordinary (perhaps Wilkinson) plus, say, three to seven auxiliaries. The auxiliaires will be able to superintend 'vicariates' or deaneries or archdeaconries, just as they do in dioceses today. Priests will also be able to do so. This means that some of their more prominent bishops can function as priests and as vicars forane or deans. For example, their important metropolitan in India, Archbishop Samuel Prakash, who is married, will be able to serve as a priest and domestic prelate (title of monsignor) and superintend India. But he will not govern it as a bishop would; he will superintend it as a vicar forane or dean would.
This is the ultimate solution. And it is the model for the S.S.P.X (eventually) and also for the approved traditionalist movement. That is because it is a de facto diocese. It is just what I have been proposing as against the insanely dangerous notion of the personal prelature. Today is a great day indeed.
P.K.T.P.
Dear John:
The Pope is Benedict XVI. There is no such person as 'Pope Benedict', except as an affective use in the liturgy. the real Pope Benedict was Benedict I and he is long dead. Not to be picky but let's not write like journalist here. Unlike them, we have at least some love for correctitude and truth.
I don't agree with you at all about GAFCON. They won't come in in the near term but many of them will think again over time. Keep in mind that we have our own tribe of home-grown lunatics who are just like them and just as unCatholic. I am referring to the charismoronics and neo-catatonics. They are those people who raise their hands as if begging to ask a question, when, in fact, they are supposedly praying.
Groups such as ACNA will also give this some thought. Some will come across; others will not. But, over time, many will. At any rate, GAFCON will not be staying with the pink pagans in the Canterbury Communion. It is THAT idea they won't give a 2nd glance to.
This will help assure something very pure, something very holy: the annihiliation (or reduction to irrelevancy) of the Canterburian Communion, the international 'Anglican Church'. It has no future. Within twenty years, here in Canada, it will be sharing churches with other atheist groups, such as the United Church of Canada.
P.K.T.P.
Ben Joyce:
I've heard that about 800 Church of England priests are attached to its three 'flying bishops' of Ebbsfleet and Richborough and one other.
The TAC? I've given some numbers on another thread but I don't know the numbers of its priests for India, and four-fifths of its members are there. It has about 400,000 supporters.
P.K.T.P.
The Pope is Benedict XVI. There is no such person as 'Pope Benedict', except as an affective use in the liturgy. the real Pope Benedict was Benedict I and he is long dead. Not to be picky but let's not write like journalist here. Unlike them, we have at least some love for correctitude and truth.
Yawn. Would you ever moaning about this? I'm a stickler too -- a newspaper copy editor -- but this is a bit much.
The following relevant text is excerpted for this happy occasion from the Papal Encyclical Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XI:
Let Our separated children, therefore, draw nigh to the Apostolic See, set up in the City which Peter and Paul, Princes of the Apostles, consecrated by their blood; to the See which is "the root and womb whence issues the Church of God" (Cyp. Ep. 48 ad Cornelium, 3); and let them come, not with any intention nor hope that "the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (I Tim. 3:15), will cast aside the integrity of the Faith and tolerate their errors, but to submit themselves to its teaching and government. Would that the happy lot, denied to so many of Our Predecessors, might at last be Ours, to embrace with fatherly affection those children whose unhappy separation from Us We now deplore. Would that God our Savior, "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (I Tim. 2:4), might hear Our humble prayer and vouchsafe to recall to the unity of the Church all that are gone astray.
To this all-important end, We implore, and We desire that others should implore, the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of Divine Grace, Help of Christians, victorious over all heresies, that She may entreat for Us the speedy coming of that longed for day, when all men shall hear the voice of Her Divine Son, and shall be "careful to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:3).
Pius XI, Pont. Max
Encyclical Letter
Mortalium Animos
6 January 1928
What about those of us Anglican converts who already trod the Roman road? My Catholic parish is - in almost every way - not so Catholic as my old Anglican one, except for the fact it is in communion with the Holy Father (which is of course a necessary condition of being Catholic). But since there will now be what are essentially real "Anglo- Catholic" parishes, would we be able to join this new "ordinariate" I wonder (and make no mistake there are lots of former Anglicans struggling in "low-church" Catholic parishes)? If not, that seems to me to make this news rather more depressing than anything else.
Christopher,
That would be a question you could present to the ordinary of the forthcoming ordinariate that your region will depend on. My guess is that he will be more than sympathetic to your situation and use his authority to re-situate you within his jurisdiction. Catholics have never been forbidden to make lateral moves when they have worthy reasons.
Christopher,
I feel your pain...
We will really have to wait and see this new canonical reality. This new structure will still be a part of our Latin Church; therefore the position of the lay faithful who are already in the Latin Church is still unclear.
Other details will have to be learned as they become available. One hopes there will be some consideration of the situation of Anglican/Protestant converts already in the Church.
NC
"...would we be able to join this new "ordinariate" I wonder (and make no mistake there are lots of former Anglicans struggling in "low-church" Catholic parishes)?"
I don't see you you wouldn't be allowed to. Just as ordinary Catholics are allowed to join personal parishes, and I think quite a lot of regular Catholics "struggling in 'low-church parishes' might be interested as well. It won't be a "use" designed to be static and aging, destined to be outlasted, as many liberal bishops tried at first to paint personal parishes which adhere to tradition. They can't stop people from joining, or even simply attending them, and won't. This is indeed a great day for true ecumenism. You are welcome, indeed!!
This is massive.
"and let them come, not with any intention nor hope that "the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (I Tim. 3:15), will cast aside the integrity of the Faith and tolerate their errors, but to submit themselves to its teaching and government."
How unfortunate that it sounds liek the present Pope is doing just about the opposite. Allowing them to keep their errors (in the liturgy), and their traditions.
As impressive as some Anglican services may be compared to the Vatican II Novus Ordo, don't forget that the roots of it all are Protestant. And that is NOT something that the Catholic Church should accomodate.
I would like to point out something that Fr. Z draws attention to, and that is that this is probably an inexorable move towards non-territorial prelatures. The fact is that the diocesan church is a very old institution, foundational even, but still, only one method of church governance. Orders have their own prelates, the military, now we have personal prelatures without territorial boundries: Opus Dei, Campos was supposed to be worked out that way, and now we have the TAC/Forward in Faith prelature. Who could possibly be next?
I say this in all honest frankness: the world's diocesan bishops have been the cause of most of the problems of the last forty years. Is it any wonder that the time has come to find alternatives for church organization which bypass them? This is indeed a historic metamorphosis for the Catholic church as a functional institution. We are seeing breadth of vision and greatness of spirit in action. Watch this space...there's more to come.
Jean, it is NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT a prelature, personal or otherwise. It is a personal ordinariate: or-din-Air-ee-et. Say it. Think it. Memorise it. And get that nonsense from the media out of your head. They can't get the word 'prelature' out of their mindless heads because they are mentally retarded buffoons.
A personal prelature would have been a disaster because it is NOT what the church calls a 'particular church'; that is, it is not a diocese or its equivalent. A personal ordinariate IS equivalent to a diocese for its subjects.
With a personal prelature, you need the permission of the local Roman nutcase bishop to set up a parish. Every single time Opus Dei wants a parish or mission in a diocese, it needs permission from the local Roman ordinary. That is not this. Thank God! Alleluia!
Not to be too prideful but Fr. Z. is just now discovering what I have been arguing for since 1997, both for the T.L.M. and for the TAC. Fr. Z. still can't get it straight. For example, he recently suggested that these people would get the Anglican Use liturgy. That is definitely not the case. They hate the A.U. Liturgy approved in 1983 by Rome--and rightly so. I suspect that they will get, for the time being, there current liturgies but with the Roman Canon substituting for whatever they use.
Z. is right that this will be a model for the rest of us and that is GREAT news. I'm glad that others are slowly and gradually coming to realise this. There will be no personal prelatures--no traps!--for us. The way forward is this new personal ordinariate structure.
The Campos structure IS equivalent to a diocese. It is an 'ritual' apostolic administration. That is goooood. It is very good.
Military ordinariates are also good, very good.
The new personal ordinariates are good, they are good, they are good indeed.
Opus Dei has a personal prelature, which is baaaad, very bad--bad, at least, for it. It originally asked for a structure which would have been a particular church but this was rejected by Rome. They took what they could get. I don't like Opus Dei very much, so I am happy that they failed to get the right structure.
Once again, let us STOP comparing this new structure to the Opus Dopus personal prelature. No matter what it takes, I will bang this distinction into people's heads until they surrender. I will NEVER allow those morons in the media to fudge this crucial distinction. In the end, however, it doesn't matter if people can't get it straight. Under this new structure, the incoming Anglican ordinaries will not need permission from the local Roman ordinaries to establish parishes or apostolates. Period. That's what counts. Sir Humphrey Appleby said that truth is irrelevant: only appearances count. But he was wrong and we shall soon see how wrong!
P.K.T.P.
Someone wrote this nonsense:
"As impressive as some Anglican services may be compared to the Vatican II Novus Ordo, don't forget that the roots of it all are Protestant. And that is NOT something that the Catholic Church should accomodate."
I suggest that contributors get their facts straight before they shoot off at the keyboard. This is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. Some of these very Anglo-Catholic TAC people use a prayerbook liturgy which is PURGED of Cranmerisms (e.g. the Anglican Missal); some use the pre-Reformation Sarun Use; some use the T.L.M. but in liturgical English (known as 'the English Missal').
It is true that, even once deCranmerised, the prayerbook serivce, precious as it is as literature and art, at least connotes a 'High Protestantism' which militates against Catholic Latinity. But only a few scholars will notice or appreciate this, and that effect will diminish over time.
Their liturgies are a thousand times more Catholic in spirit than is the Novus Ordo. Think before you type. Now is the time to put behind us the rack and the horrible punishments suffered by our ancestors for so-called 'treason'. What did the holy English and Welsh (and Scots!) martyrs die for? It was not precisely this day but it was in the hope of their return and their salvation. It's time to wake up and get Catholic again. These people can help us to clean out the stables. Swine like Mahony and Daneels and Kasper have made quite a mess in there. We'll need a firehose and all the help we can get. In the case of Hummes, only a flamethrower can remove the stench. He has wondered recently why the per centage of Catholics in his native Brazil is now under 70% and falling fast. Try looking in a mirror, you commie bastard!
P.K.T.P.
Mornac:
There should be no problem for you. Even Eastern Rite and Latin Rite Catholics can switch rites. It used to be very difficult to do but they will willing if there is a compelling reason. Having been brought up Anglican definitely qualifies for pastoral reasons. Even if they say no, it would only affect you (and even then not definitely) for the Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, Matrimony, and Holy Orders,a d for funerals (Canon 1177 ff.). Even in such cases, you can usually get permission for the right to be transferred.
Every Catholic has a right to fulfil his obligation at any Catholic Mass of any rite or use (Canon 1248.1). No offence to New Catholic here, but we shall not have to wait for clarifications on such matter. The Code is crystal clear and these qq. have been addressed and answered years and years ago. The parallel will be with the Eastern churches, even though there are legal differences in terms of the subjectship of the faithful.
P.K.T.P.
Benedict XVI has now found a solution with wide-ranging implications. They are huge. Hard to imagine. This includes and yet goes way beyond the TAC.
P.K.T.P.
To add to Mornac's question:
You can fulfil your Sunday obligation "whenever Mass is celebrated in a Catholic rite". Period. End of Story. Every Sunday. I fulfilled mine every Sunday for years at the Ukrainian Byzantine Rite, when there was no Latin Mass of any stripe or from any source in my area or city.
For Confession, look to Canon 969.1 and then refer back to Canon 134.1. It will make you realise, once again, why a personal prelature would have been a disaster. But we have a personal ordinariate here and it will be equivalent in law to a diocese, so its ordinaries can grant faculties for their priests to hear confessions in certain territories FOR ALL CATHOLICS, just as Ukrainian Byzantine priests can for us. Solved.
Ditto for Extreme Unction.
You're covered, even if they won't let you switch structures. De facto, you can go every Sunday (or any time) to Mass at a new Anglican-Catholic parish, get confession there, and so forth. Relax. Be happy.
P.K.T.P.
From a 2 year old baby Catholic convert from the ELCA, let me say Deo Gratias! Deo Gratias! Welcome!
I have read both liberal and conservative commentaries that agree upon one thing:
The TAC has inflated in membership greatly.
Does the TAC possess 400,000 to 500,000 members?
Tim
The TAC aside, does the following notion make sense?
The Holy Father would not have undertaken the action announced today unless he were certain that a subtantial amount of Anglicans/Episcopalians were headed into the Church.
The Holy Father must have long ago received solid information (perhaps secret polls and studies were conducted by Rome among Anglicans) that a good amount of Protestants were ready to join the Church.
After all, despite Rowan Williams' spin today, the ecumenical movement as we've know it was destroyed today.
Tim
Rowan Williams approved and signed a joint Catholic-Anglican statement that declared in part...
"Today’s announcement of the Apostolic Constitution is a response by Pope Benedict XVI to a number of requests over the past few years to the Holy See from groups of Anglicans who wish to enter into full visible communion with the Roman Catholic Church, and are willing to declare that they share a common Catholic faith and accept the Petrine ministry as willed by Christ for his Church."
"Petrine ministry as will by Christ..."
By accepting that as a legitimate reason for Anglicans to bolt their religious communities in favor of Rome, didn't Rowan Williams in some sense acknowledge that the Papacy was established by Jesus Christ?
If so, then when will Roman Williams convert to the True Church?
Tim
Mr. Perkins wrote:
The Pope is Benedict XVI. There is no such person as 'Pope Benedict', except as an affective use in the liturgy. the real Pope Benedict was Benedict I and he is long dead. Not to be picky but let's not write like journalist here.
This is simply insane: do you really imagine that someone thinks the writer is discussing Benedict XV, or Benedict V, in this context?
"After all, despite Rowan Williams' spin today, the ecumenical movement as we've know it was destroyed today."
Yes and just a few days before the SSPX sit down with the CDF to discuss such things as false ecumenism! Deo Gratias!
Glad to see "mentally retarded" thrown around on this site again, discussing bishops and journalists . . . never mind how offensive that phrase is thought to be even in a clinical setting in the real world.
Dear Susan:
All right. I withdraw the term from bishops. Really, it best applies to journalists.
Why is it that they just use the wrong structure and the wrong number over and over and over again. They are unteachable. The reason? They have no knowledge of their subject but they do have the wrong term embedded in those old notes they never correct or throw away.
I give up. I suppose I should not get so angry with them. After all, their misreportage will not change the reality in this case. The new ordinaries will have the same powers as a bishop and not the lesser power of a personal prelate. Period. End of story. Doesn't matter is the morons in the press don't get it.
P.K.T.P.
I think that we on this list might start to consider what implications this apostolic constituion might have not for the S.S.P.X but, say, for those of us who attend regularised Traditional Latin Masses. I wonder if His Holiness could be approached. I've heard that the F.S.S.P. superior-general, for instance, had a meeting this summer with Benedict XVI in which they discussed a 'cura animarum' for the Fraternity. Interesting.
P.K.T.P.
Pope Benedict XVI, The Great, has wasted no time.
I do not think it is anyone's place to "welcome back ..." anyone. The Anglican people inherited the schism, just the way the Catholic Church in the USA inherited the dreadful liturgy and the Novus Bogus deposited by the adherents of the " ... spirit of Vatican2."
A good effect will be that we will be exposed to their culture and in some instances this new returned branch of our Church will provide a blessed relief from the present vulgarities imposed upon us by Vatican2.
Long live Benedict XVI, The Great.
What I love about the reactions to this was the press conference of Archbishop Nichols and that pagan druid, Rowan Williams. It would appear that the Pope went over their heads and jettisoned their useless and fruitless œcumenical endeavours. How many people today look forward hopefully to A.R.C.I.C. discussions?
The question now is how many Anglican groups will join the Catholic Church, on the one side, and how many will simply go independent of both Rome and Canterbury and either join other evangelical nutcases or go it alone?
In any case, the future of the Canterbury Communion does not look very bright this evening. The sad part is that many good Anglicans around the world will lose the beautiful churches they grew up in. The reason is that the liberals who will keep the property cannot keep it for long with rapidly shrinking membership and the loss of the more heavily-contributing evangelicans.
I must say that I do feel real compassion for old Anglicans who will feel left out in the cold. Let's do our best to welcome them.
P.K.T.P.
Normally, I would complain about Matthew's use of 'the Great' for Benedict XVI. I'll let it pass tonight. Tonight, at least, he is great, even if not Great with the capital letter. I'm off to buy some Dom Perignon to celebrate this!
P.K.T.P.
PKTP,
On your model, I am encouraged by your optimism and hope the this structure will be given to all traditional orders.
Until that time, can we somehow get the actual Campos priests to my city (Calgary or any city for that matter), so that we can have all the sacraments without hindrance? Is it practical to get our existing priests or to sponsor seminarians to come under the Campos Bishop's authority but remain in our parishes? Could the FSSP priests move over so to speak, even temporarily,to gain the freedom to administer all the sacraments without hindrance?
Also, according to your naming convention (if that is the correct term) should not 'Fr. Z' then be written as Father Zuldorf(sp)?
Thank you for all your good work re:the TAC and FSSPX.
Jerry, TOSF
Egad, I just noticed that the Trad Anglicans have signed the CCC! The Catechism of Vatican II, which poses such a grave danger to the Faith! Oh my, this is certainly bad news to be utterly deplored!!!
Well there was wasn't a Trent Catechism available, so what were they supposed to do? The CCC isn't that bad, just unclear in places and waxing a rather incomprehensible.
Tim writes:
Rowan Williams approved and signed a joint Catholic-Anglican statement that declared in part...
"Today’s announcement of the Apostolic Constitution is a response by Pope Benedict XVI to a number of requests over the past few years to the Holy See from groups of Anglicans who wish to enter into full visible communion with the Roman Catholic Church, and are willing to declare that they share a common Catholic faith and accept the Petrine ministry as willed by Christ for his Church."
"Petrine ministry as will by Christ..."
By accepting that as a legitimate reason for Anglicans to bolt their religious communities in favor of Rome, didn't Rowan Williams in some sense acknowledge that the Papacy was established by Jesus Christ?
If so, then when will Roman Williams convert to the True Church?
Williams merely acknowledges that the TAC 'are willing to declare that they ... accept the Petrine ministry as willed by Christ for his Church'. Williams does not accept the TAC's declaration as legitimate. He's a sad case.
"If so, then when will Roman Williams convert to the True Church?"
I don't see any reason for Archbishop Rowan Williams to convert to the True Church when he is able to serve an Anglican eucharist on the high altar of Santa Sabina's in Rome.
A joyous welcome to those who will be coming to join us!
One point. If the clerics of their communities subscribe to the Catechism, that means they accept Humanae Vitae. I therefore hope they will teach, positively teach, Humanae Vitae to their flocks. Sadly, the English hierarchy seldom if ever mention it.
" Some of these very Anglo-Catholic TAC people use a prayerbook liturgy which is PURGED of Cranmerisms (e.g. the Anglican Missal); some use the pre-Reformation Sarun Use; some use the T.L.M. but in liturgical English (known as 'the English Missal')."
I think it's worth exclaiming at this point, "Do you realize...SARUM LIVES once again in the Roman Catholic Church!" I believe that's worth a big fat HA-LLE-LU-JA!!!!...and we can thank the Anglicans (and Pope Benedict XVI for it!!!!
Jean,
Yes, Sarum is back. A few of their priests use it for sure. I have corresponded with one of them. I understand that it is unpractical because it requires several ministers of the Altar. So it won't be back on a regular basis. But it is back.
P.K.T.P.
wheat4paradise said...
"Williams merely acknowledges that the TAC 'are willing to declare that they ... accept the Petrine ministry as willed by Christ for his Church'. Williams does not accept the TAC's declaration as legitimate. He's a sad case."
Yes, but please consider the following:
1. The joint statement declared that the "Apostolic Constitution is further recognition of the substantial overlap in faith, doctrine and spirituality between the Catholic Church and the Anglican tradition.
"Without the dialogues of the past forty years, this recognition would not have been possible, nor would hopes for full visible unity have been nurtured.
"In this sense, this Apostolic Constitution is one consequence of ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion."
2. By his having approved and signed the joint statement, Rowan Williams acknowledged that acceptance of the Petrine Ministry, which is willed by Jesus Christ, is one goal of Catholic-Anglican ecumenical dialogue.
3. Rowan Williams declared that he is committed to maintaining ecumenical dialogue with Rome.
4. Yesterday's events made it clear that acceptance of the Petrine Ministry is, in reality, the ultimate goal of ecumenical dialogue with Rome.
5. Rowan Williams understands that.
6. Therefore, by having declared that he's determined to maintain ecumenical dialogue with Rome, he has, at least in some sense, acknowledged his acceptance of the Petrine Ministy as willed by Jesus Christ.
7. As an Anglican "Archbishop" and spiritual shepherd, it's his solemn duty to protect Anglicans from the embracement of false teachings and heresies.
8. The Petrine Ministry is either a false teaching invented by men or a divine ministry instituted by Jesus Christ.
9. Rowan Williams neither warned nor condemned Anglicans who intend to embrace the Petrine Ministry.
10. Therefore, the only logical conclusion that one may make is that Rowan Williams believes that the Petrine Ministry is not an heretical invention but has been willed by Jesus Christ.
Tim
Dear Jerry:
Rome made a surprising decision re the Campos structrue a few years ago. Apparently, you and I can be members of it where we live. Its priests can also minister to us. However, this must all be approved by the local bishop. The Campos only has full independence within a small territory in Brazil. That was the problem: the structure is ideal but the territory was tiny.
Could the F.S.S.P. minister throught the new personal ordinariates? No, because the new personal ordinaries would only have authority to grant faculties for their own liturgy, not ours.
It is not rude to call Fr. Zuhlsdorf 'Fr. Z.' It is a common convention to write Mr. P. or Mrs. S. or Dr. W. This is not a case of someone imposing an overfamiliarity. If we called him 'Fr. John', however, that would be rude and totally wrong.
When strangers express affection, my first reaction is to wonder what they are up to. I can't stand this first-name nonsense which is spreading like a disease. To call the Pope 'Benedict' is in exactly the same vein. The Pope is not our buddy; he is our spiritual lord. Let's keep it that way.
P.K.T.P.
"I don't see any reason for Archbishop Rowan Williams to convert to the True Church when he is able to serve an Anglican eucharist on the high altar of Santa Sabina's in Rome.
21 October, 2009 04:43"
Speaking of that issue, here is an interesting post (and comments) from The New Liturgical Movement (December 5, 2006) that dealt with the above issue.
P.S. I got a kick out of the following comment...
"I am delighted that Rowan Williams celebrated at Santa Sabina.
"These events are important. Pope Paul VI gave his ring to Archbishop Ramsay - an important symbolic gesture."
Tim
I have read several references here to Father Zuhlsdorf.
On his blog yesterday, he stated the following:
Anglicans desiring unity will have “ordinariates”
CATEGORY: SESSIUNCULA — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 7:47 am
"Keep in mind that the Holy Father has from time to time expressed openness to discussing different ecclesial structures and even the role of Peter.
He also let go of the title Patriarch of the West."
1. That is a good thing?
2. Funny...but the traditional Anglicans (and various Protestants) who seek unity with the Holy Father are the very Protestants who cherish the Pope's role as the Patriarch of the West.
The very people of the West who wish to enter into unity with the Holy Father plead with him to act precisely as the Patriarch of the West.
Why on earth did the Holy Father let go of that tremendously important title?
Incredible.
Tim
"Cardinal Levada made perfectly clear this morning that because of the time honored tradition of the Catholic Church, and for ecumenical sensitivity (to the Orthodox), married men can not and will not be bishops in any new Ordinate created for these former Anglicans."
You're in for a shock, oh "pious" one!
You need to do a bit of theological and canonical study on this subject. I suggest as a first text, "Celibacy: Gift or Law?" by H-J Vogels.
This is the best news I've heard all week. Welcome back!
"Why on earth did the Holy Father let go of that tremendously important title? "
Because the Holy Father is the Universal Patriarch, not only of the West.
I have only one concern in all of this. And that is the issue of priestly celibacy.
The Pope said that these Anglican seminarians (if there are any), would go to seminary with the Catholic seminarians. That means therefore, that these Anglican seminarians will be formed in Roman Catholicism, and assist at Catholic Mass....not at Anglican services. I doubt if a Catholic seminary which might have 40-50 students ( of course not the 250-300 students they had in pre-Vatican II days), would make accomodation for the perhaps 2-3 Anglican "rite" seminarians in the student body and have Anglican services just for them.
Also, with 100% of the Catholic seminarians being celibate, and of course likewise as priests, it would be a horrible mistake and error to now allow married Anglican seminarians to enroll in Catholic seminary.
Pope Benedict XVI is making a huge mistake if he does not state that the married Anglican clergy can be for the generation just making the move to the Church.....but all future seminarians enrolling for the Anglican "rite" or "Ordinariate", must be celibate.
Otherwise, we have the pressure and "wars" aggitating for married Roman Catholic priests as well.
If the Pope were to allow for married Roman Catholic priests, I (and I know millions of other Catholics), would quit the Church in a heartbeat, because that would just about turn us into Protestants. After all, that's what the Novus Ordo basically is anyway.
__________________________________
"These people can help us to clean out the stables. Swine like Mahony and Daneels and Kasper have made quite a mess in there. We'll need a firehose and all the help we can get. In the case of Hummes, only a flamethrower can remove the stench. He has wondered recently why the per centage of Catholics in his native Brazil is now under 70% and falling fast. Try looking in a mirror, you commie bastard!"
As regards this comment, these people were all appointed by JP II.
He instigated the mess.
But Benedict XVI has done in nearly 5 years, nothing to clean up the mess. He allows these "people" to use nice language, to stay on, past 75!!
Benedict XVI was so quick to help these Anglicans....it would be good if he helped his own Roman Catholic Church by removing these people swiftly.
Mahoney, O'Malley, Levada, Re, Kasper, Sodano, Hummes, Gracias, Rosales, etc. etc.
He might be about to though. I read about rumors in Rome, and the next batch of new Cardinals will be more in thinking with the SSPX, (or sympathetic), than open to the "Spirit of Vatican II" crowd. If that is true, there will be alot of liberals crying.
Which I think is what Cardinal Kasper was doing yesterday when this Anglican news broke...because we know he was 100% against it. He's for endless dialog and mutual confirmation, not in favor of "conversion" or "return".
When strangers express affection,
Such as calling a man they've never met "Pope" -- "Papa," "daddy"?
No more comments on this ridiculous tangent.
That means therefore, that these Anglican seminarians will be formed in Roman Catholicism, and assist at Catholic Mass....not at Anglican services. I doubt if a Catholic seminary which might have 40-50 students ( of course not the 250-300 students they had in pre-Vatican II days), would make accomodation for the perhaps 2-3 Anglican "rite" seminarians in the student body and have Anglican services just for them.
Seminarians of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church are allowed to marry. Where I live, they study together with Latin seminarians. They have their own chapel where they have Byzantine services. Sometimes they borrow Latin churches.
If there were no Orthodox Churches they probably would be totally latinized.
I am sure that when he enters into the Roman Catholic Church in full communion, he will (if he is married), have to relinquish this post of "Archbishop", and be ordained as a priest.
According to Wikipedia, John Hepworth is already validly oradined, because he was a Roman Catholic priest before he left the Church for Anglicanism in 1976.
(maybe he was scared out by the spirit of the Council?)
"According to Wikipedia, John Hepworth is already validly oradined"
True. But I doubt he will be given permission to exercise these orders since he married after his ordination - and not once, but twice at that.
Naturally, he knows that and that makes his push for bringing the TAC into communion with Rome all the more laudable. How many 'Anglo-catholic' leaders will be quite content to continue the ole dressing-up game, having their cake and eating it too as ecclestiacal leaders and family men all at once? We shall soon see.
Tim, that is good food for thought. Let us hope and pray that you are right.
Someone has already mentioned the following article from February of this year:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=14963
In the comments section Patrick from Australia says this: Archbishop Hepworth, for the record, is a former Catholic priest (Archdiocese of Adelaide, Australia) and formerly a priest of the Anglican Diocese of Ballarat [Australia], before joining the TAC. He has been married, divorced and remarried.
Zakhur, I was being sarcastic. :-)
I just received a wonderful vision: The Personal Ordinary-elect of the new Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham is receiving his episcopal ordination in St. Peter's in Rome, and is given the titular archbishopric of - wait for it - Canterbury!!!
I thought that in times past, married men becoming priests (and their wives) were instructed that they must live in celebacy if the man wished to be ordained. Of course, enforcement was nill, but at least the church assigned culpability and defended the discipline.
It seems to me that these structures are only one leg of a two-legged problem. Liberals can corrupt any order if they can gain power within them, just as they did to all our previously traditional major orders, and then we would be right back where we started from. Even the Holy Ghost Fathers were corrupted right under Archbishop Lefebvre's own leadership.
We have to get control of the critical educational institutions, the other leg of the problem, to have hope of a meaningful and longer-lasting reform of the church. That's why I hope Papa soon turns more of his attention to the seminaries, colleges, and Catholic schools, with the objectives of infusing more tradition-loving instructors and improving the screening of candidates.
Would you trust a single oncologist more than a married oncologist?
The problem is that at least two Oecumenical Councils stated that the priests shouldn't marry - both in East and West. (one of them was 2nd Nicene probably, but I don't remember, you can look through Denziger)
Nevertheless, the Byzantine tradition is totally different.
They do not consider being a parish priest (who can be married) an "individual vocation", as it is the case with monastic life, and priest-monks.
They put a great emphasis on monastic life - they choose bishops from among the monks, and it is common for their clergy to spend some time (even a few years) in a monastery.
There are no pan-Eastern monastic "orders" in Western sense. There are no "active orders".
Which means that introduction of married clergy in the West would lead to total destruction of Western spirituality and ecclesiastical order.
Peter:
If the Holy Father felt that married clergy were such a threat to ecclesial order, I doubt he would have instigated this. He knows that married clergy are a part of the picture.
If parish priests in the West were given the option of marriage or celibacy and religious orders retained celibacy (which they would), I cannot but see that as an opportunity to celebrate the charism of celibacy and highlight it.
There are married Catholic priests in the East, part of an ancient tradition. This, again, does not seem to bother the Pope, who clearly values the Eastern churches.
The Pope also ran the CDF for two decades and has a clue as to how well mandatory celibacy has worked on the ground.
If the Holy Father felt that married clergy were such a threat to ecclesial order, I doubt he would have instigated this.
That's why he doesn't instigate this. What we know now is that it will PROBABLY be merely tolerated on a tiny scale among the Anglicans for some time.
It may, of course, have great impact for the liberals as a precedent. But we don't know much yet, maybe the Anglican priests will be obliged to separate from their wives?
"If parish priests in the West were given the option of marriage or celibacy and religious orders retained celibacy (which they would), I cannot but see that as an opportunity to celebrate the charism of celibacy and highlight it."
???
How exactly is getting rid of something an opportunity to "highlight and celebrate" it?
The Church cannot highlight and celebrate celibacy more than by insisting that it be obligatory for all clergy.
Anyway, that the current Eastern discipline is an ancient tradition is demonstrably false. Originally, virtually all priests in both east and west were married when they were ordained - but they were required to cease from marital relations with their wives upon ordination (which is why the wife had to give consent to the ordination of her husband). This practice was not completely universal, but it seems it was present in the more important sees. The Easterners later relaxed this discipline, allowing their priests to continue marital relations, but the West, at various regional councils, committed itself to trusting that God would give whomever He called to the priesthood the strength to live in perfect chastity. And so it continues to this day, and ever shall do.
Remember what the Church's response was to the rampant sexual promiscuity of the early Middle Ages and later, in the Rennaissance? It was not to give in to the world's demands, but rather to enforce the ancient discipline. And both times, it ushered in a great age of growth in the Church. Now enough of this silly discussion.
Amen, Mr. Ertner.
As the blog owner has already said:
No more comments on married clergy and celibacy in this post!
Please don't even bother posting them. They will be deleted.
Personal attacks also are not acceptable here.
"Because the Holy Father is the Universal Patriarch, not only of the West."
But the title that he dropped was Traditional, honored by the Church for centuries and highlighted the important role of patriarchs.
The Eastern Orthodox were upset at the dropping of said title.
The only Protestants interested in joining the Church en masse are Protestants who cherish the Pope's important role as Patriarch of the West.
Therefore, the untraditional act of distancing himself from the title of Patriarch of the West appeased neither the Eastern Orthodox nor the only types of Protestants that the Church could possibly attract.
Reality check: The traditional "Patriarch of the West" title was dropped for ecumenical purposes...and is another unnecessary ecumenical novelty that failed to appease non-Catholics.
Sadly, the only thing accomplished was that the Church sacrificed another bit of Her Holy Tradition to the useless ecumenical movement.
Tim
Because the Holy Father is the Universal Patriarch, not only of the West.
No, he is not the universal Patriarch, in fact that title was rejected by Pope St. Gregory the Great. The Pope is the Patriarch of the West whether that is one of his formal titles or not.
Some conservative commentators have claimed that Catholic-Anglican/Episcopal ecumenical relations are now pretty much dead in the water.
Conversely, other conservatives such as Cardinal George and any number of Churchmen have insisted that ecumenical relations between Catholics-Anglicans/Episcopalians have not been altered one bit by yesterday's events.
Conservative "A" insists that Rowan Williams and the Anglican un-Communion were humiliated by Rome.
Conservative "B" insists that Rome and our bishops hold the Anglican un-Communion in high regard.
What are we to believe?
Tim
Contray to what their fellow conservatives have declared, many conservatives have downplayed yesterday news.
There are conservatives who insist that few Anglicans/Episcopalians will join the Church.
It is also claimed by various conservatives that the TAC has inflated greatly the size of its group.
Recall that a great many conservatives predicted in 2007 a tremendous increase in the amount of TLMs offered throughout the Latin Church.
With few exceptions, bishops and priests have consigned Summorum Pontificum to dead-letter status.
Summorum Pontificum fizzled.
Is yesterday's news little more than hype as well?
Tim
From yesterday's joint statement:
"Without the dialogues of the past forty years, this recognition would not have been possible, nor would hopes for full visible unity have been nurtured.
In this sense, this Apostolic Constitution is one consequence of ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion."
That is true. But not in the sense meant by the joint statement.
Thanks to waste-of-time Catholic-Anglican ecumenism during the past few decades, serious-minded "Catholics" who belonged to the Anglican un-Communion forced the issue when they asked Rome to change the course of ecumenism.
They wanted Rome to stop the nonsense by creating a proposal that would accept Anglicans by the thousands into the Church.
Archbishop Nichols and Rowan Williams were right, but not in the way that they had intended.
Tim
Pope Benedict XVI did so yesterday.
To add to a previous message that I posted:
Certain conservatives (Fr. Rutler, for example) have portrayed yesterday news as a tremendous blow to Catholic-Anglican un-Communion ecumenism.
Archbishop Nichols made it clear yesterday via his joint statement that it's full-steam ahead regarding Catholic-Anglican un-Communion ecumenism.
He made it clear (as did Cardinal George) that the Church will not weaken one bit Her very positive ecumenical relationship (that's how Archbishop Nichols and Cardinal George view ecumenism) with the Anglican un-Communion.
Archbishop Nichols declared:
"The on-going official dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion provides the basis for our continuing cooperation.
"The Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) and International Anglican Roman Catholic Commission for Unity and Mission (IARCCUM) agreements make clear the path we will follow together.
"With God’s grace and prayer we are determined that our on-going mutual commitment and consultation on these and other matters should continue to be strengthened.
"Locally, in the spirit of IARCCUM, we look forward to building on the pattern of shared meetings between the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales and the Church of England’s House of Bishops with a focus on our common mission.
"Joint days of reflection and prayer were begun in Leeds in 2006 and continued in Lambeth in 2008, and further meetings are in preparation.
"This close cooperation will continue as we grow together in unity and mission, in witness to the Gospel in our country, and in the Church at large."
Tim
dear brothers & sisters in Christ,
what a gracious and kind letter from the primate!
as a Catholic i look forward to the fellowship and contributions to the Catholic Church from our Anglican brothers & sisters!
Thank the Lord for this day!!!
Post a Comment