Rorate Caeli
__________________

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION
ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF

BENEDICT XVI

Providing for Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans
entering into full communion with the Catholic Church
__________________

In recent times the Holy Spirit has moved groups of Anglicans to petition repeatedly and insistently to be received into full Catholic communion individually as well as corporately. The Apostolic See has responded favorably to such petitions. Indeed, the successor of Peter, mandated by the Lord Jesus to guarantee the unity of the episcopate and to preside over and safeguard the universal communion of all the Churches,[1] could not fail to make available the means necessary to bring this holy desire to realization.

The Church, a people gathered into the unity of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit,[2] was instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ, as “a sacrament – a sign and instrument, that is, of communion with God and of unity among all people.”[3] Every division among the baptized in Jesus Christ wounds that which the Church is and that for which the Church exists; in fact, “such division openly contradicts the will of Christ, scandalizes the world, and damages that most holy cause, the preaching the Gospel to every creature.”[4] Precisely for this reason, before shedding his blood for the salvation of the world, the Lord Jesus prayed to the Father for the unity of his disciples.[5]

It is the Holy Spirit, the principle of unity, which establishes the Church as a communion.[6] He is the principle of the unity of the faithful in the teaching of the Apostles, in the breaking of the bread and in prayer.[7] The Church, however, analogous to the mystery of the Incarnate Word, is not only an invisible spiritual communion, but is also visible;[8] in fact, “the society structured with hierarchical organs and the Mystical Body of Christ, the visible society and the spiritual community, the earthly Church and the Church endowed with heavenly riches, are not to be thought of as two realities. On the contrary, they form one complex reality formed from a two-fold element, human and divine.”[9] The communion of the baptized in the teaching of the Apostles and in the breaking of the eucharistic bread is visibly manifested in the bonds of the profession of the faith in its entirety, of the celebration of all of the sacraments instituted by Christ, and of the governance of the College of Bishops united with its head, the Roman Pontiff.[10]

This single Church of Christ, which we profess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic “subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him. Nevertheless, many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside her visible confines. Since these are gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, they are forces impelling towards Catholic unity.”[11]

In the light of these ecclesiological principles, this Apostolic Constitution provides the general normative structure for regulating the institution and life of Personal Ordinariates for those Anglican faithful who desire to enter into the full communion of the Catholic Church in a corporate manner. This Constitution is completed by Complementary Norms issued by the Apostolic See.

I. §1 Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church are erected by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith within the confines of the territorial boundaries of a particular Conference of Bishops in consultation with that same Conference.

§2 Within the territory of a particular Conference of Bishops, one or more Ordinariates may be erected as needed.

§3 Each Ordinariate possesses public juridic personality by the law itself (ipso iure); it is juridically comparable to a diocese.[12]

§4 The Ordinariate is composed of lay faithful, clerics and members of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, originally belonging to the Anglican Communion and now in full communion with the Catholic Church, or those who receive the Sacraments of Initiation within the jurisdiction of the Ordinariate.

§5 The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith professed by members of the Ordinariate.

II. The Personal Ordinariate is governed according to the norms of universal law and the present Apostolic Constitution and is subject to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the other Dicasteries of the Roman Curia in accordance with their competencies. It is also governed by the Complementary Norms as well as any other specific Norms given for each Ordinariate.

III. Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.

IV. IV. A Personal Ordinariate is entrusted to the pastoral care of an Ordinary appointed by the Roman Pontiff.

V. V. The power (potestas) of the Ordinary is:

a. ordinary: connected by the law itself to the office entrusted to him by the Roman Pontiff, for both the internal forum and external forum;

b. vicarious: exercised in the name of the Roman Pontiff;

c. personal: exercised over all who belong to the Ordinariate;

This power is to be exercised jointly with that of the local Diocesan Bishop, in those cases provided for in the Complementary Norms.

VI. § 1. Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfill the requisites established by canon law[13] and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments[14] may be accepted by the Ordinary as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 42[15] and in the Statement In June[16] are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1.

§ 2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.

§ 3. Incardination of clerics will be regulated according to the norms of canon law.

§ 4. Priests incardinated into an Ordinariate, who constitute the presbyterate of the Ordinariate, are also to cultivate bonds of unity with the presbyterate of the Diocese in which they exercise their ministry. They should promote common pastoral and charitable initiatives and activities, which can be the object of agreements between the Ordinary and the local Diocesan Bishop.

§ 5. Candidates for Holy Orders in an Ordinariate should be prepared alongside other seminarians, especially in the areas of doctrinal and pastoral formation. In order to address the particular needs of seminarians of the Ordinariate and formation in Anglican patrimony, the Ordinary may also establish seminary programs or houses of formation which would relate to existing Catholic faculties of theology.

VII. The Ordinary, with the approval of the Holy See, can erect new Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, with the right to call their members to Holy Orders, according to the norms of canon law. Institutes of Consecrated Life originating in the Anglican Communion and entering into full communion with the Catholic Church may also be placed under his jurisdiction by mutual consent.

VIII. § 1. The Ordinary, according to the norm of law, after having heard the opinion of the Diocesan Bishop of the place, may erect, with the consent of the Holy See, personal parishes for the faithful who belong to the Ordinariate.

§ 2. Pastors of the Ordinariate enjoy all the rights and are held to all the obligations established in the Code of Canon Law and, in cases established by the Complementary Norms, such rights and obligations are to be exercised in mutual pastoral assistance together with the pastors of the local Diocese where the personal parish of the Ordinariate has been established.

IX. Both the lay faithful as well as members of Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, originally part of the Anglican Communion, who wish to enter the Personal Ordinariate, must manifest this desire in writing.

X. § 1. The Ordinary is aided in his governance by a Governing Council with its own statutes approved by the Ordinary and confirmed by the Holy See.[17]

§ 2. The Governing Council, presided over by the Ordinary, is composed of at least six priests. It exercises the functions specified in the Code of Canon Law for the Presbyteral Council and the College of Consultors, as well as those areas specified in the Complementary Norms.

§ 3. The Ordinary is to establish a Finance Council according to the norms established by the Code of Canon Law which will exercise the duties specified therein.[18]

§ 4. In order to provide for the consultation of the faithful, a Pastoral Council is to be constituted in the Ordinariate.[19]

XI. Every five years the Ordinary is required to come to Rome for an ad limina Apostolorum visit and present to the Roman Pontiff, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and in consultation with the Congregation for Bishops and the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples, a report on the status of the Ordinariate.

XII. For judicial cases, the competent tribunal is that of the Diocese in which one of the parties is domiciled, unless the Ordinariate has constituted its own tribunal, in which case the tribunal of second instance is the one designated by the Ordinariate and approved by the Holy See.

XIII. The Decree establishing an Ordinariate will determine the location of the See and, if appropriate, the principal church.

We desire that our dispositions and norms be valid and effective now and in the future, notwithstanding, should it be necessary, the Apostolic Constitutions and ordinances issued by our predecessors, or any other prescriptions, even those requiring special mention or derogation.

Given in Rome, at St. Peter’s, on November 4, 2009, the Memorial of St. Charles Borromeo.



[1] Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 23; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Communionis notio, 12; 13.
[2] Cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 4; Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 2.
[3] Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 1.
[5] Cf. Jn 17:20-21; Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 2.
[6] Cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 13.
[7] Cf. ibid; Acts 2:42.
[8] Cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8; Letter Communionis notio, 4.
[9] Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.
[10] Cf. CIC, can. 205; Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 13; 14; 21; 22; Decree Unitatis redintegratio, 2; 3; 4; 15; 20; Decree Christus Dominus, 4; Decree Ad gentes, 22.
[11] Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 8.
[12] Cf. John Paul II, Ap. Const. Spirituali militium curae, 21 April 1986, I § 1.
[13] Cf. CIC, cann. 1026-1032.
[14] Cf. CIC, cann. 1040-1049.
[15] Cf. AAS 59 (1967) 674.
[16] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Statement of 1 April 1981, in Enchiridion Vaticanum 7, 1213.
[17] Cf. CIC, cann. 495-502.
[18] Cf. CIC, cann. 492-494.
[19] Cf. CIC, can. 511.

120 comments:

rev'd up said...

"Anglicanorum coetibus"

I had named it "Gladius vaginae" - not too far off, eh?

Anonymous said...

Note this:

Section 5, III:

"III. Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared."

This would appear to mean the following:

1. The Ordinariates' priests may use the N.O.M.

2. They may also use the T.L.M.

3. They may use the Anglican Use Liturgy of 1983.

4. Unless and until Rome approves a new Eucharistic Liturgy for them (said to be ready before Christmas), they may NOT use their prayerbook services for Communion; nor may they use the Anglican Missal; nor may they use the English Missal.

5. Arguably, they can use the Sarum Missal, although it's arguable that a right to it has lapsed from desuetude.

Let's hope Rome solves this problem by Christmas. In the mean time, I'd advise local priests who join to use the T.L.M. or Sarum Use and simply refuse to use the N.O.M. or the Anglican Use of 1982.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Now we have this:

"§2. The Governing Council, presided over by the Ordinary, is composed of at least six priests. It exercises the functions specified in the Code of Canon Law for the Presbyteral Council and the College of Consultors, as well as those areas specified in the Complementary Norms."


Six priests? Some of the TAC's smaller national churches, don't even *have* six priests. Examples would be Japan, Central America, New Zealand, Ireland, Mozambique, and some other churches in Central Africa. In those cases, there can certainly still be ordinariates but the governing councils would have to be dominated by priests of the Latin dioceses. I suppose that that is possible. It is another example here of the Pope's desire to intergrate these ordinariates into the Church by connecting them to Latin dioceses.

P.K.T.P.

Joshua said...

PKTP -

I somehow doubt that the TAC et al. will be in communion by Christmas, and their clergy re-ordained properly; that would be a tad quick. Didn't Hepworth say that he expected to make the formal application to Rome at Easter 2010? Remember, all the synods of the TAC's members have to meet, and both their ministers and their laity have to be fully briefed and catechized before making the final Tiber swim...

Joshua said...

Rev'd Up -

How about Anglicanorum coitibus - v. appropriate given the married clergy I would've thought!

Anonymous said...

"The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See."

Can you hear the thunderous applause from Catholic traditionalists, who were rightly concerned that any ambiguity in the writing of this constitition regarding celibacy might open the door to the possibility of married seminarians/priests?

Likewise, can you see the copious tears and hear all the "boo-hoos" from the Anglicans and Catholic liberals who wanted to either protect their heritage of married clergy, or campaign for a general changes allowing married clergy in the entire Catholic Church?

Similarly, can you hear all the whining, complaining, and hissy-fits being thrown by Anglicans and Catholic liberals that Anglicans coming into the Church ARE NOT PERMITTED to maintain as their particular form of worship only their "precious" Anglican Book of Service, but are instead expected to make allowance for the Roman Rite (Tridentine Latin Mass or Novus Ordo as well).

I remember comments posted about how these Anglicans expected to have exclusive use to continue with their Anglican liturgy alone, and to preserve their heritage and "right" to a married clergy.
THIS APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION DASHES ALL THOSE HOPES !!
Boo-hoo-hoo !! Sob, sob !! :>)

Anonymous said...

Joshua:

You are mixing up two items. Rome (not the TAC) is devising a Liturgy for these incoming Anglicans. Supposedly, it will be ready by Christmas. That does not mean that the TAC or others need enter before Christmas. They expect to enter by Lent.

Of course, if any do enter before Christmas, or if Rome does not settle a liturgy for them by Lent, we do have a problem, at least short term.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

More worries on the size of the ordinariates:

As far as I can see, there can be an ordinariate for N.Z. and one for Japan. In the former case, they only have two priests, though, one of whom would become the ordinary. Can the remaining priest alone 'elect' at least three Latin priests to serve in the governing council? What if three don't agree to serve in that capacity?

In situations such as N.Z., there will have to be supplementary norms issued by the Holy See, as there were for the external chapels of the Campos structure. I'm guessing that, notwithstanding the very first Article here, N.Z. will have to be included with Australia.

But what about Japan? I think that it has only one bishop and two or three priests. Hmm.

P.K.T.P.

Br. Stephen, O.Cist said...

I have some very initial thoughts here:

http://subtuum.blogspot.com/2009/11/some-very-initial-thoughts-on-apostolic.html

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous Boo-hoo:

You are wrong, of course.

On the Liturgy, Hepworth has said that Rome is expected soon to finish an Anglican Rite Liturgy for them. So you're dead wrong on that one. Supposedly, it should be published by mid-December, long before any of them enter.

On the marrage question, look at the supplementary norms and then think again. Your conclusion is false. On the other hand, at this point, we just don't know what sort of norms the Apostolic See will permit. What we do know is that they need not be the same as those presently in force to admit married Anglican ministers as Catholic priests. So this is so far an unsettled matter, not one settled in your favour (or against it).

P.K.T.P.

Cooperator said...

Well, as possible name I suggested "Anglici Dominici Gregis" ... Not soo light-years away! :)

Anonymous said...

I do see some major problems with this apostolic constitution. It is not very flexible in regard to the existence of former Anglican groups in some smaller countries, such as New Zealand, Japan, Central America, and so forth.

There will also have to be endless dispensations in regard to the educational requirements. Frankly, the liberals, headed by Levada, have thrown a wrench in the works. On the other side, most of the problems are fixable and likely will be dealt with over time. In fact, the bad aspects of this constitution, I'd argue, are mostly an illusion put there to coddle liberal prelates and œcumenists. They are the crybabies who have to be appeased. So the Pope is appeasing them by tricking them. Not too difficult, since they aren't very smart.

I think that the provisions we see here are meant to please the liberal press and the Canterbury heretics, along with our own heretical liberal prelates. We shall now see the critics pounce in glee. But they will be wrong because what is ultimately important is the juridical and pastoral opportunity opened up here. I think that it is larger than it looks. The Pope is creating a space which will be clarified positively and enlarged over time.

This apostolic constitution is a victory and it will bring in the TAC. But it is not a glorious triumph: traditionalists are not allowed to have those in the Brave New Church. Instead, the liberal prelates have managed to pressure the Pope into making this provision by more than one step.

We all remember Quattuor Abhinc Annos of 1984. It opened the door a crack and led to "Ecclesia Dei" four years later, which, in turn, led to the Campos structure and, finally, to "Summorum Pontificum", 2007. I don't think that the steps will take so long this time but the liberals definitely have demonstrated that they still wield enough power to hamper the Pope on just about anything.

This is a war and we are still not winning it; we are only winning some important battles. Only by spiritual means, and principally the Consecration of Russia, can these liberal agents of Satan be routed and driven out. That will take time.

We all remember that brief victory in January and then the liberal response, the Williamson missile. Now we have yet another victory and yet another liberal torpedo to destroy it. But the liberal weapoons are weaker and weaker. They failed to reverse the Decree of January and they will fail to prevent a TAC reunion with the Holy See. That reunion, in turn, will lead to the entry of more and more traditionalist Anglicans.

P.K.T.P.

Dan Hunter said...

Apparently the TAC at least in America recieve communion in the hand.
Hopefully this will change when they accept the Ordinariate and this Constitution:

http://www.stgregorysdurham.com/photos.php?albumID=20600&

rev'd up said...

As an Anglican priest (overjoyed right now), I am glad that the Bull of Leo XIII was implicitly signified in the text of Anglicanorum coetibus (and explicitly signified in the essay by GIANFRANCO GHIRLANDA, S.J. accompanying today's release). If the Bull had been eviscerated or even questioned it would have created great turmoil among the Roman faithful, in particular those who do not follow these developments closely. As it is, the clergy of the Ordinariates will have impeccable credentials as licit, valid presbyters – no questions asked.

I find one potential hiccup in Article 6, §2.

"Those who have been previously ordained in the Catholic Church and subsequently have become Anglicans, may not exercise sacred ministry in the Ordinariate. Anglican clergy who are in irregular marriage situations may not be accepted for Holy Orders in the Ordinariate."

This paragraph affects quite a few priests in the TAC including Archbishop Hepworth himself. By his own word, I reckon he's tuning-up his fishing tackle! As for his predecessor, ++Louis Falk, he does not have either of these impediments and will likely step into the gap - reunion with the Holy See has been a life's work for him.

However, I see a possible way around this impediment provided for in the text of Anglicanorum coetibus itself:

"§4. Priests incardinated into an Ordinariate, who constitute the presbyterate of the Ordinariate, are also to cultivate bonds of unity with the presbyterate of the Diocese in which they exercise their ministry. They should promote common pastoral and charitable initiatives and activities, which can be the object of agreements between the Ordinary and the local Diocesan Bishop."

It would appear that those individuals previously ordained in the Roman Church could simply be incardinated into a Roman diocese and then placed "on loan" to the Ordinariate.

Paul Haley said...

Since when did the Episcopal Conference, as opposed to the local Ordinary himself, exercise any governance and/or jurisdiction?

§1 Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church are erected by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith within the confines of the territorial boundaries of a particular Conference of Bishops in consultation with that same Conference.

A Personal Ordinariate is entrusted to the pastoral care of an Ordinary appointed by the Roman Pontiff.V. The power (potestas) of the Ordinary is: a. ordinary: connected by the law itself to the office entrusted to him by the Roman Pontiff, for both the internal forum and external forum; b. vicarious: exercised in the name of the Roman Pontiff; c. personal: exercised over all who belong to the Ordinariate; This power is to be exercised jointly with that of the local Diocesan Bishop.

§2. Pastors of the Ordinariate enjoy all the rights and are held to all the obligations established in the Code of Canon Law and, in cases established by the Complementary Norms, such rights and obligations are to be exercised in mutual pastoral assistance together with the pastors of the local Diocese where the personal parish of the Ordinariate has been established.

I may be wrong but it appears that collegiality has reared its ugly head again in the construction of these norms and the College of Bishops exercises power equal to the Holy Father himself. It seems obvious if you read the fine print that the local Ordinary of the existing diocese has veto power over the Personal Ordinariate. In addition, Cardinal Levada as the Head of the CDF will have a central role in the erection of Personal Ordinariates and bishops like Mahony et al will have to approve of any such Ordinariate in his/their diocese. But, as I said, I could be wrong and all these nice words about conferences of bishops and local Ordinaries may be simply diplomatic language to sooth the fractured egos of you-know-who.

Anonymous said...

What about the Sacarament of Confession? What is the Anglican form?

rev'd up said...

"What about the Sacarament of Confession? What is the Anglican form?"

I use the form from the English Ritual with the addition of the Act of Contrition, "O my God, etc." The form is that of the traditional Rituale Romanum in the King's English.

It (minus the Act of Contrition) can also be found in the recently published Book of Common Prayer from Lancelot Andrewe's Press.

http://www.andrewespress.com/bcp.html

dcs said...

Since when did the Episcopal Conference, as opposed to the local Ordinary himself, exercise any governance and/or jurisdiction?

It does not say that the Episcopal Conference exercises any governance and/or jurisdiction. Consultation is not governance - a bishop, according to canon law, "consults" at times with the presbyteral council but it does not follow that that body has any jurisdiction over the bishop - in fact it is the opposite.

Rosenblum said...

Paul Haley:

The local Conference of Bishops must be questioned about the erection of any Personal Ordinariate, but this erection can take place whatever the Conference says.

Anonymous said...

The Constitution and moreover the Complementary Norms are somewhat a revolution, if they are to be extended to the rest of the Latin Church. Compared to the "democratic" Anglican Communion, it is very "Catholic" but when we compare to the present Canon Law for the Latin Church, it is quite appalling.

Indeed as Paul Haley pointed out, the "synodality" is developped : the ex-Anglican Ordinaries will be half-bishops, depending on the diocesan bps, on the episcopal conferences and on top of all having their decisions finally approved by Rome in many cases.

Moreover people should look at the revolutionary juggernaught created by cardinal Levada : the article 12 of the Norms instituting the "Governing council".
A body, half of its members are elected, which is the equivalent of the bishop on all key decisions : the Ordinary will have to get the consent of the Governing council that will governs the ordinariate with him.

Now just wait for the libs all over the world to scream "we want a Governing council in our diocese right now" !
I feel these Norms are going to be extremely popular among Call-to-Action, Wir sind Kirche and all Catholic reformers soon.
With article 12, the total paralysis of the Latin Church would be certain and any orthodox bishop would be held hostage of liberal Governing councils.

This Governing council is truly the most frightening tool for litniks, libs and neo-mods you could have imagined in your worst nightmares.

Let's not get diverted gentle folks with Sarum rite or not Sarum rite when such a horrific pink elephant is there in the middle of the square.

Alsaticus

Dan Hunter said...

Here are some photographs of what the TAC liturgy looks like in America:
http://www.stgregorysdurham.com/photos.php?albumID=20600&#topPhoto

Communion in the hand and standing up, and lay readers.
At least the TAC in North Carolina.

Paul Haley said...

To dcs and Rosenblum,

If the Bishops' Conferences exercise no governance or jurisdiction, then why are they being consulted concerning the erection of Personal Ordinariates which supposedly have autonomy? What possible role would these Conferences have and how would this "consultation" be accomplished? Does it have to be consultation with the entire body or individually? I see problems implementing such a procedure and I do not understand why the likes of Mahony et al are being consulted in the first place?

Of course, I am apparently the lone voice when it comes to trusting those same bishops who for years obstructed the celebration of the TLM and castigated many priests, both SSPX and independents, for keeping the TLM alive until Pope Benedict XVI basically said: Enough! Those same bishops openly described traditional priests as "schismatic and outside the Church". I have it in writing.

Jordanes said...

If the Bishops' Conferences exercise no governance or jurisdiction, then why are they being consulted concerning the erection of Personal Ordinariates which supposedly have autonomy?

Because it's only right that a bishop's conference be informed and consulted for advice regarding the erection of a new ordinariate within their territory. Isn't that what Rome does when considering the erection of new dioceses?

What possible role would these Conferences have and how would this "consultation" be accomplished?

Presumbly Rome would at the very least inform and seek the input of the standing president of the bishops' conference and the bishops of the dioceses whose territory would be included in the ordinariate.

I see problems implementing such a procedure and I do not understand why the likes of Mahony et al are being consulted in the first place?

It would violate a local bishop's right and be disrespectful to his office were he not consulted. Even the likes of Mahony have powers and rights ensured by Church law.

There will, of course, be problems in implementing this constitution. That's the way things go when dealing with human beings.

Of course, I am apparently the lone voice when it comes to trusting those same bishops who for years obstructed the celebration of the TLM and castigated many priests, both SSPX and independents, for keeping the TLM alive . . .

No, you're not the lone voice, Mr. Haley.

dcs said...

If the Bishops' Conferences exercise no governance or jurisdiction, then why are they being consulted concerning the erection of Personal Ordinariates which supposedly have autonomy?

Maybe because they are presumed to have some knowledge of the territory over which their members exercise jurisdiction?

Andrew said...

VIII. §1. The Ordinary, according to the norm of law, after having heard the opinion of the Diocesan Bishop of the place, may erect, with the consent of the Holy See, personal parishes for the faithful who belong to the Ordinariate.

I laughed at this - "having heard the opinion of the Diocesan Bishop".

Here is how the conversation goes:
P.O.: Dear bishop so and so, I would like to form a new personal church in your diocese, governed by me.

Bishop: No, I don't think so - I am the authority here, so why don't you go crawl under a rock.

P.O.: I have now heard your opinion, but I already have approval from Rome to do this, so construction will start next month - across the street from your cathedral.

Paul Haley said...

I think we all know there are going to be problems implementing this structure. We can only hope and pray that the Holy Spirit will deny any veto power to those so inclined.

Anonymous said...

PKTP! Where are you?

wheat4paradise said...

Dan, there are at least the following bright spots in the TAC photo gallery:

* Prayers offered ad orientem.

* Crucifix directly above the altar.

* Tabernacle centered on the altar.

* Recitation of the Last Gospel.

* Image of Our Lady of Perpetual Help.

Frankly, I'd be thrilled to attend Mass at St. Gregory's, compared to my current liturgical fare.

wheat4paradise said...

Forgot to mention:

* Sign of peace AFTER Mass. :-)

Dan Hunter said...

David,

Yes, I thought the same things.
There are some good things.

I just hope and pray that if and when this community comes into the Church, I will be able to recieve God kneeling and on my tongue there.

John McFarland said...

Anonymous 12:40,

Annulments are also issued on a case-by-case basis.

Ever hear of anyone who was refused an annulment, other than a few where one of the parties took an appeal to Rome?

wheat4paradise said...

Dan, I'm right there with you. Communion on the tongue has been effectively banned in my diocese. The bishop has asked all of his priests to "encourage" the faithful to receive in the hand, not on the tongue, to prevent the spread of H1N1. As for kneeling to receive Our Lord ... sigh. In my dreams. However, I have started the habit of genuflecting and dropping one knee to the ground before approaching the priest to receive.

John McFarland said...

Mr. Perkins,

So Rome is going to provide a proper Anglican liturgy for the Anglicans, eh?

John McFarland said...

Mr. Perkins,

So Rome is going to provide a proper Anglican liturgy for the Anglicans, eh?

John McFarland said...

Mr. Haley,

Once you get outside the Vatican City limits, the episcopal conferences run the Church. That's what they were intended to do, and that's what they do.

One of the less recognized scandals of the conciliar Church is the de facto abdication by the Popes of their authority. Their power was not wrested from them by the liberals; they handed it over.

The liberals don't really have any problems with any of this kind of thing. This is all about "full communion" -- a V2 sort of concept -- with the V2 church, defined in the preamble to the Constitution by reference to Acts 2:42 and nine cites of V2 and post-V2 documents. How's that for continuity?

Dan Hunter said...

"...encourage" the faithful to receive in the hand, not on the tongue, to prevent the spread of H1N1."
David,
Thats funny, because most in the medical world believe that the flu virus is spread a lot more effectively via hand to hand contact,rather than from hand to mouth.
I cannot remember the last time a priest touched my tongue with his fingers, giving me the Sacrament, and I reciev on the tongue every time I assist at Mass.

I do not know a single person at all the different TLM's that I assist at who have contracted swine flu.
I am sorry to hear that your pastors are violating canon law as well as several current papal documents that absolutely allow the faithful to recieve on the tongue.
Do you have an Ecclesis Dei, indult, or FSSPX Parish near you?
God bless.

Anonymous said...

Rev'd up said:

"It would appear that those individuals previously ordained in the Roman Church could simply be incardinated into a Roman diocese and then placed "on loan" to the Ordinariate."

Excellent point. Someone here is thinking. Yes, that would work and could be a way around the problem for a number of them, including Hepworth and some others I know about.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dan Hunter asks about Communion in the hand.

Keep in mind that most Anglicans kneel and then receive in the hand. Some of the Anglo-Catholics receive on the tongue. Norms for this will belong to the episcopal conferences and to the Ordinariates themselves. I suspect that the ordinariates will eventually adopt communion on the tongue, although this would not be the preference of their more 'evangelical' parisehs.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Haley wrote,

" It seems obvious if you read the fine print that the local Ordinary of the existing diocese has veto power over the Personal Ordinariate. In addition, Cardinal Levada as the Head of the CDF will have a central role in the erection of Personal Ordinariates and bishops like Mahony et al will have to approve of any such Ordinariate in his/their diocese."

Don't worry, Mr. Haley, you ARE wrong. The endless references to the local bishop and the episcopal conference are meant to emphasise the extent to which the ordinariate must be 'integrated' into the life of the *Latin* Church, for this is not a matter of a new church sui juris.

Read eveything more carefully. The episcopal conference never has anything more than a consultative role. As for the local diocese, it only has cumulative power with the ordinariate in matters of joint apostolic activity. Have a cup of tea and relax. With minor exceptions which are also vincible (e.g. priests of the ordinariate being 'available' to serve in the local diocese), the ordinary has the full power of a diocewan bishop over his people. That is NOT a problem.

Don't feel bad about this. When I read over this for the first time, I had the same initial impression--or at least 'concern'. But it is all part of making things 'look right'.

That is NOT a problem. What IS apparently a problem is the fact that TAC churches in smaller countries apparently can't be attached to those in larger countries (e.g. N.Z. with Australia). I see this as a MAJOR foul-up.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Alsaticus:

I am not very knowledgeable about Anglican governance but I understand that it is far more democratic than ours is. I am sure that the norms regarding the governing council were put there to make things more comfortable for Anglicans, who are used to voting on everything. I agree with you that it is a bad idea but I don't see it spreading to the Latin dioceses.

If you look more closely at the norms, the governing council has only a consultative voice in some major matters, and its membership is determined in part by the ordinary and in part by the clergy of the ordinariate. Note that the clergy of the Latin Church can NOT vote for anyone on this council. The Anglican clergy are mostly ultra-orthodox, so your fears are unfounded. This is not a problem.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Rev'd up's point is superb--very perceptive. To my recollection, a fortiori, it is supported by one or two other passages (possibly in the supplementary norms). I missed the point entirely. Well done, rev'd up. Yes, it is a trap door for some of the problems.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Rev'd up, you are exactly correct but I suspect that you quoted the wrong passage by mistake. That's not surprising in this forest of norms! Here's the one which makes your point, from the supplementary norms:

"§2. Where and when it is deemed suitable, clergy incardinated in a Diocese or in an Institute of Consecrated Life or a Society of Apostolic Life, with the written consent of their respective Diocesan Bishop or their Superior, can collaborate in the pastoral care of the Ordinariate. In such case they are subject to the Ordinary in respect to that which pertains to the pastoral charge or office they receive."

MY ANALYSIS:

Essentially, then, where a TAC priest is not eligible to serve in the ordinariate owing to leaving Catholicism to join the TAC in the past, he can, instead, be incardinated into the local Latin diocese and then, under this norm, he can work in the Ordinariate and be subject to the Ordinary in all that pertains to that Ordinariate. So he'd be brought in through a back door. The justification for this is to respect his past conversion (and possible reception of some Holy Orders) in the Catholic Church.

I really admire you for seeing past a major problem. You are one of those people who 'thinks outside the box'. Yes, this norm was put in there as a trap door, to rescue them from the other, more restrictive norm which you quote, the one which says that those who left the Catholic Church and "subsequently" joined Anglicanism are excluded from incardination in the ordinariates.

What this (and other provisions) tells me is that Rome is trying to make the constitution look more restrictive than it really is. The reason? They are trying to coddle the crybaby liberals, such as the retired Murphy-O'Connor, Kasper, Mahony, and the rest. Again, keep in mind that a liberal is primarily interested in not losing face. To him, appearances are primary.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dan Hunter wrote:

"I just hope and pray that if and when this community comes into the Church, I will be able to recieve God kneeling and on my tongue there."

Trust me, you can, even if others don't. Keep in mind that some of these folk are influenced by N.O. mispractice and, even worse, some are 'evangelical' in churchmanship. That means that those are like our charismoronics. But most of them are not at all like that.

P.K.T.P.

Paul Haley said...

Don't worry, Mr. Haley, you ARE wrong.

Read eveything(sic) more carefully.

Have a cup of tea and relax.

...the ordinary has the full power of a diocewan (sic) bishop over his people. That is NOT a problem.

Don't feel bad about this.

But it is all part of making things 'look right'. That is NOT a problem.

OK, Mr. Perkins, I'll calm down and leave the interpretation of this structure up to those who know better. But I will say this: If I was the head of the SSPX and someone offered such a structure to me, I'd say: "You've got to be kidding, My Lord". The idea that this structure could enhance unity with the SSPX is not believable IMHO. Cheers.

Anonymous said...

Wheat for paradise:

Faithful have the right BOTH to receive on the tongue and whilst kneeling. I have the documentation on both. Local bisops cannot ban either. I speak of the Latin Church. In the Ordinariate, the norms will be set by the ordinary and they will definitely include on tongue and kneeling because the majority in each ordinariate will be Anglo-Catholics. These are misplaced worries.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland writes:

"So Rome is going to provide a proper Anglican liturgy for the Anglicans, eh?"

Yes, I do worry about what Rome will cook up for them. I am receiving contrary inforamtion from my sources about whether or not the TAC is being consulted. What I do know is that Rome is 'composing' a liturgy for them that combines deCranmerised Anglican elements and Roman elements.

What worries me to death is that such abominations as the Novus Ordo Offertory might be included. They might even be made mandatory in the new Liturgy being composed. We need to pray on that.

The more Anglo-Catholic members of the TAC will, of course, have a right simply to offer the Traditional Latin Mass. But their members will mostly want something in the vernacular, so they'll also have to offer whatever is available.

Yes, Mr. McFarland, Rome is preparing to release a Liturgy for them. I won't pre-judge it. Let's at least see what's in it before condemning it. Would that be all right with you?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Haley:

This situation is entirely different from that of the S.S.P.X, mainly because Anglicans, being Erastians, have decentralised jurisdictions to begin with. This structure will not be offered to the S.S.P.X in exactly this form but an INTERNATINAL one not connected to the episcopal conferences would be a very workable possibility. The major problem with this apostolic constitution is the limitation of ordinariates to the territories of episcopal conferences.

And stop marking my typos with sic. This is too exciting for me to go back over every word a proofread

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Perkins:

If you're still there, could you weigh in on the apparent exclusion from the ordinariates of cradle Catholics? This could be a major issue, inasmuch as some of the Anglican Use parishes really owe much of their vitality to the infusion of such Catholics. Thanks for any insight or information you can provide.

MJS

Anonymous said...

Does this constitution permit TAC ministry on the territory of Episcopal Conferences without establishing an Ordinariate? E. g. a single parish with priests incardinated to a foreign ordinariate?

Anonymous said...

Anon. writes:

"Does this constitution permit TAC ministry on the territory of Episcopal Conferences without establishing an Ordinariate? E. g. a single parish with priests incardinated to a foreign ordinariate?"

This is a major problem. I am asking the TAC to apply for an exemption so that it would enter reunion as a single international ordinariate and the consultations with episcopal conferences would then be waived.

But to answer your question, I think it could be done but only with the permission of the local bishop in a country where there is no ordinariate. If the Bishop of Bayonne can employ a priest incardinated in the Diocese of Clifton, in England, I see no reason why he could not employ a priest of the English ordinariate, and that priest would have liturgical rights proper to his own ordinariate. He would keep his right to say his Mass and Office, just as if he were travelling. He would not have lay subjects in Bayonne and the Bishop of Bayonne would have to agree but it could be done, just as there is a Byzantine Ukrainian Mass under the Archbishop of Dublin in a country which has no Byzantine jurisdiction of any kind. Faithful can attend Mass and receive confession and Extreme Unction validly and licitly in such sitautions.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

This is all about "full communion" -- a V2 sort of concept -- with the V2 church

Yep -- full communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church -- the Vatican II Church, the only Catholic Church on earth.

Anonymous said...

I note also that, in a clarification of the P.C.E.D. of some years ago, Bishop Rifan can even operate apostolates outside his territory and laics can be inscribed in them, provided there is permission from the local bishop. As far as I can see, these ordinariates are parallel to the Campos personal apostolic administration in nearly all matters of ecclesiastical law, really except where specified in this new apostolic constitution. There may be a problem, though, because the pastoral work of the ordinarate is apparently limited to places where the ordinariate exists. We may need a clarification on this.

So since there is no ban on this in the apostolic constitution, it follows that there may be solution here for small TAC churches in places such as New Zealand and Japan. Presumably, the TAC priest in Japan could be incardinated in an ordinariate in India or Australia and could then be employed by Japanese or N.Z. bishops. They would be able to say their Anglican Masses but their former Anglican lay beneficiaries would become subjects of the local Latin bishops.

Citizenship should not be a problem either. A Canadian priest can be incardinated in a Canadian diocese and yet be employed by an American bishop. He only needs permission of his own Cannuck bishop and the American one.



P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

M.J.S. asks:

"If you're still there, could you weigh in on the apparent exclusion from the ordinariates of cradle Catholics? "

There is almost no exclusion. Cradle Catholics cannot become subjects of the ordinariate. So what? Latin Catholics cannot become subjects of the Ukrainian Byzantine Church either. But they can fulfil the Sunday obligation at Byzantine churches, receive absolution in confession there, and receive Extreme Unction from its priests.

Even in the case of Baptism, Marriage, Confirmation, and burial, there can be exceptions made by agreement of the local bishop and the ordinary. Not a problem.

No, the problem is this business of Anglican parishes in countries not having an ordinariate. We must solve it.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

One benefit we are all FORGETTING in these analyses is that priests of the ordiinariates will be allowed ON THEIR OWN AUTHORITY to offer the Traditional Latin Mass. My fingers are too tired to explain this in full here but S.P. DOES NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT require that a 'group' ask for such a Mass for it to be public: all parish priests can do it on their OWN authority. Article 5 of S.P. only says that WHEN a group asks, the parish priest must take this into serious consideration. But, from Article 1 of S.P., it is clear that the p.p. can proceed even if NOBODY asks. And these can be PUBLIC Masses (cf. Canons whatever, I've quoted them so often, um,. 837.1 and 899).

In other words, under these new provisions, an ordinariate priest could offer the T.L.M. publicly and there is not one damn thing the local Latin bishop could do to stop him--at least in law. At least in law, the ordinariate priest could tell the Bishop of, say, Las Cruces (ha!) to go *#&63 himself.

The problem is the financial power the local bishops will have over the new ordinariates, for the latter are poor. Most Anglican ordinaries will bow to the wishes of the local bishop in order to gain access to Latin parish churches to offer Mass. But this does increase access to the T.L.M..

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

To the too optimistic P.K.T.P. :

"If you look more closely at the norms, the governing council has only a consultative voice in some major matters, and its membership is determined in part by the ordinary and in part by the clergy of the ordinariate. Note that the clergy of the Latin Church can NOT vote for anyone on this council. The Anglican clergy are mostly ultra-orthodox, so your fears are unfounded. This is not a problem."

1. You need to read again very closely article 12 of the Norms. The Governing council is truly ... governing. The Ordinary will need the "consent" - stress on "consent" - of this elected body for all crucial decisions.
It is NOT just a consultative body like the common presbyteral councils.

2. Don't you think that liberal theologians won't be able to read this article 12 in Canada, Northern America and Europe etc. ?
How long will it take for a general outcry "Give us article 12 in our dioceses !" ?
Don't forget these new Anglican-catholics belong to the Latin Church : they will be allowed to celebrate the Roman rite.
I have no fear against the anglican-catholic priests of TAC and FIF but I have reasonable fear of liberal "Latin" clergy all over the world.

3. Finally, if you read again carefully the Constitution and the Norms, you'll see that compared to what was offered to Bp Fellay in 2000, these personal ordinariates are maimed/handicapped personal dioceses. Not only will they be dependent on diocesan bishops and episcopal conferences on precise points, but they are deprived of a fundamental right : the right to have a full seminary.
Without a real seminary, how will these ordinariates last past the present generation of TAC and alii priests ?
Can you imagine SSPX priests trained in Vancouver or Los Angeles seminaries ???

No the pressures to limit this welcome to those called Anglican traditionalists have been largely successful on cardinal Levada and the pope.
My bet is Bp Fellay will study carefully what happens to be a step not forward but backward re. the 2000 canonical "Rolls Royce".

Alsaticus

John McFarland said...

Mr. Perkins,

Anything that's not built on the Faith is going to be a disaster, even if it manages to avoid being a debacle as the world judges such things. The best we can hope for is the Novus Ordo, more or less. That's not good enough.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland writes:

"Anything that's not built on the Faith is going to be a disaster, even if it manages to avoid being a debacle as the world judges such things. The best we can hope for is the Novus Ordo, more or less. That's not good enough."

Mr. McFarland, beset with difficulties, is not content but would try to create even more. We don't know what Rome is planning for the TAC liturgy. It's supposed to be published next month. We don't know if the TAC is working on it co-opoeratively by invitation. My sources are divided on that question.

Try sticking to critcisms of what is and leave tomorrow to tomorrow. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. We might get a very respectful Anglican Liturgy with no 'Blessed are You Lord God of all creation' trash. You don't know, and yet you play the prophet.

As for their faith, I am convinced that many of them will have a commitment comparable to that of the sternest traditionalists in the S.S.P.X. Others are more 'evangelical'. I'm willing to leave the judgement on that to Jesus Christ. But then, who needs Jesus when we have a McJeseus McFarland?

Where is your evidence that their entrance is not founded on the faith? Let me guess. You will tell us that their bishops swore on a Catechism which was written in Hell. Well, look, exactly what they intended, even if they erred a bit, was to accept what the Church accepts and teaches. Perhaps the Catechism of the Catholic Church is less than perfect (I certainly think so). What they *intended*, however, is to accept the ancient Catholic Church. Trust me on this: most of them (the Anglo-Catholic majority, in any event) want to belong to the Church of St. Pius X and of St. Teresa of Avila, etc. If you don't 'get' that, you are motivated by bigotry, not concern for the faith.

Give it a rest, McFarland. There are enough problems in this apostolic constitution without having to add more just for fun.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Alsaticus writes:

"1. You need to read again very closely article 12 of the Norms. The Governing council is truly ... governing. The Ordinary will need the "consent" - stress on "consent" - of this elected body for all crucial decisions.
It is NOT just a consultative body like the common presbyteral councils."

No, you need to read the norms of that Section. The governing council has an executive voice on four enumerated matters and only a consultative voice on the other matters.

It is composed of six priests. Three of them are appointed by the ordinary. Three are elected by the ultra-orthodox priests of the ordinariate. These are the sort of people, believe me, who worry obsessively if the cope is the right colour. Frankly, the three who are elected are good because they exert some control over an ordinary who might be too liberal. You seem to think that those elected by ultra-orthodox priests will be secret liberals, whereas the ordinary will not be. Stars above! Why do you think this? It is your fears that are doing your thinking for you.

Lastly, guess who breaks a tie vote in this governing council? The ordinary does.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Alsaticus writes:

"the right to have a full seminary.
Without a real seminary, how will these ordinariates last past the present generation of TAC and alii priests ?
Can you imagine SSPX priests trained in Vancouver or Los Angeles seminaries ???"

We've been through this before. They certainly can have their own seminaries but the norms for this have not been devised yet.

I agree that these personal ordinariates are not as good as what Bsp. Fellay was offered, although the main reason is that they are not international in scope. That's not a worry: the situations are different. These Anglicans have a political tradition which is decentralised and therefore different than ours. The S.S.P.X will not be offered this solution in this form--and would not take it.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

You need to read again very closely article 12 of the Norms. The Governing council is truly ... governing. The Ordinary will need the "consent" - stress on "consent" - of this elected body for all crucial decisions.
It is NOT just a consultative body like the common presbyteral councils.


True -- it seems more like an old-style cathedral chapter, though perhaps with even more power than that.

But Mr. Perkins has responded more than adequately to your concerns on this score, I think.

Don't you think that liberal theologians won't be able to read this article 12 in Canada, Northern America and Europe etc. ?
How long will it take for a general outcry "Give us article 12 in our dioceses !" ?


And the response will be something along the lines of, "You're not Anglican converts and have no such living tradition of anything like a governing council, so go fly a kite."

My bet is Bp Fellay will study carefully what happens to be a step not forward but backward re. the 2000 canonical "Rolls Royce".

As well he should. But what the Church is providing for Anglican converts should be expected to differ from whatever provisions might be made for the SSPX.

Anonymous said...

Alsaticus:

In regard to seminaries, it is a mixed bag. The Ordinariates may provide supplementary instruction regarding their patrimony and may have separate curricula of formation approved by the Holy See. It is true that, in other respects, they are trained in Roman seminaries with the N.O. seminarists.

You are seeing boogey men here where there are none. Rome wants to ensure

(a) that they are trained in the essentials of CATHOLIC theology and

(b) that they learn about traditional Anglican patrimony to secure their identity.

At present, they HAVE no seminaries anywhere on this planet and train their priests at other Anglican seminaries, with students of mixed jurisdictions. This is not acceptable. They are Catholic now. Hence the new norms.

This should be seen also as a practical norm because they just don't have the money to run their own seminaries. Also, given their past in heresty and schism, Rome needs to ensure that they are being trained as Catholics.

The situation of the S.S.P.X with its six seminaries is entirely diferent. Worry less.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Alsaticus (and I know who you are!):

Three members of the governing council will presumably be appointed by Rome or by the ordinary. The rest are elected by very orthodox priests. While Latin priests can *serve* on these councils, they do not get to vote for them. Only the ordinariate priests get to vote for them, and they are all ultra-orthodox.

If the appointees are liberals named by Rome, the electees will be orthodoxers elected by their orthodox clergy and NOT by our clergy.

If the appointees are conservatives named by their ordinary, the electees will also be conservatives, elected by *their* orthodox priests.

And, in all cases, the ordinary breaks tie votes. Think before you worry.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Alsaticus:

Here is Article 12 of the supplementary norms:

"§ 5. The Governing Council is composed according to the Statutes of the Council. Half of the membership is elected by the priests of the Ordinariate."

These are elected by THEIR priests, not by N.O. priests and not by any laics.

You just don't get it. Far from being a danger, this is designed to given the majority of their priests a voice in governance just in case they get a liberal ordinary!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On Alsaticus's concerns:

I agree with Alsaticus (too Alsatian and not Frankish enough!)that a personal ordinariate under these provisions would not be best for the S.S.P.X, although an international one could be fixed to make it work.

What the S.S.P.X needs is a full diocese or apostolic administration which is 'personal' or 'ritual'. That has not changed. This new structure is equivalent in essentials to a diocese but is hampered in several respects. In particular, a structrue for the S.S.P.X needs to be international. I'm not worried about this. At this point, the S.S.P.X. won't accept *any* structure, even the right one.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anon. writes this nonsense:

"Well, Mr. Perkins, if most of them want to belong to the Church of St. Teresa of Avila and Pope St. Pius X, they came to the wrong place. That Church blew out the window John XXIII opened."


Dear Anon.:

This may come as a surpise to you but the S.S.P.X does not claim to be the Church founded by Christ but only a part of it. It might also surprise you to learn that the Society recognises Benedict XVI as Pope, the Successor of Peter. And guess who's signature appears on these norms? If you answered 'Hillary Clinton' or 'Donald Trump', you get a zero on your report.

There is only one authority on earth which could regularise them, and that isn't Bishop Fellay, much as I may wish that Biship Tissier de Mallerais had been elected Pope.

They are dying, anonymous, and they are trying to find a room in the Inn. Some asses are blocking their way. Some of them are liberal asses and some of them are bigoted traditionalist asses. Pray the Innkeeper will do better than the last one did.

P.K.T.P.

Sean said...

If this is true....we have problems.

From TIME Online:

it is clear from Article 11 that former Anglican bishops can become Catholic bishops in all but name, even where they are married. They will officially retain the status of presbyter, but will be allowed to be the Ordinary or head of the Ordinariate, will be allowed to be a member of the local Bishops' Conference with the status of retired bishop and, significantly, will be allowed to ask permission from Rome to use the insignia of episcopal office. This leaves the path clear for Bishop of Fulham Father John Broadhurst, married father of four, to head the new Ordinariate in Britain. Heady stuff indeed - and I mean that theologically and metaphorically.

John L said...

I think Alsaticus's objection to the governing council cannot be dismissed. How is it compatible with the authority of a bishop as successor to the apostles that he be required to get the approval of a council on any matter whatever? the fact (if it is a fact) that the people on these councils will be all right does not affect this principle.

Jordanes does not distinguish between the authority of a bishop (which is of divine law) and the authority of a bishops' conference (which is nil). Giving power to a bishops' conference is not giving power to a bishop; it is wrong.

John L said...

I note however that, for the comfort of Alsaticus, it is hard to see how the episcopate could ever agree to anything like the Governing council being implemented in the Latin rite of the Catholic church. If the Pope cannot even get the bishops to tolerate the traditional liturgy of the Church, I don't see how he can get them to consent to their collective emasculation.

Jordanes said...

How is it compatible with the authority of a bishop as successor to the apostles that he be required to get the approval of a council on any matter whatever?

You're forgetting something blazingly obvious: they are ORDNARIES -- they are NOT bishops.

Jordanes does not distinguish between the authority of a bishop (which is of divine law) and the authority of a bishops' conference (which is nil).

Wrong again. Actually it seems that it's you who aren't making that distinction.

A bishops' conference's authority is hardly nil, though.

Giving power to a bishops' conference is not giving power to a bishop; it is wrong.

There is nothing whatsoever in this constitution and the norms that gives any power whatsoever to a bishops' conference.

John McFarland said...

Mr. Perkins,

If the TAC are the spiritual brethren of St. Teresa and St. Pius X, why are they parlaying with the Vatican and not with Menzingen? What do you suppose St. Pius would have had to say about the preface to the AC?

At a minimum, they should have been in the Catholic Church long ago. Anyone who thinks that Anglo-Catholicism is a "tradition" that carries any weight against the Faith of Teresa and St. Pius is, to say the least of it, sorely lacking in judgment.

So I find your judgment of their soundness extremely hard to credit.

As for your complaints about my speculating on problems, let me remind you that this is all speculation, very much including your own rosy scenarios. So far the AC is just a sheaf of papers; as your legal relations can tell you, what will be made of that sheaf of papers is anybody's guess.

To be sure, my pessimism is a lot profounder than your optimism, since I believe that even the deal of your wildest dreams, as long as it is a deal with unrepentant modernist Rome, is vanity and a chase after wind.

Dan Hunter said...

"I'm not worried about this. At this point, the S.S.P.X. won't accept *any* structure, even the right one."

Mr Perkins,
Are you saying that you are not worried that thousands of Catholics [FSSPX faithful]do not have access to valid confessions and marriages?
And why wouldn't
the FSSPX accept any structure, even the right one, if Bishop Fellay has said recently that Rome is preparing one for them that he will accept?.

What are the FSSPX faithful supposed to do to remain in a state of grace before recieving the Eucharist?

John McFarland said...

Mr. Hunter,

It seems to me highly unlikely that God is going to let all the SSPX faithful go to Hell because Bishop Fellay is not as accomplished a canonist as you.

Nor is His arm limited in length to that of His Son's vicar.

Dan Hunter said...

"Fellay is not as accomplished a canonist as you."

Well, I was T.O.W. gunner for several years in the USMC, which is kind of like a canon, er um cannon.
I am not sure if HE Fellay has ever fired a 'tube launched optically tracked wire guided missile", so I would surmise that you might be right.

Take a workout fella.
Or at least a good glass of absinthe.

Did you ever hear of "baiting"

craig said...

"If the TAC are the spiritual brethren of St. Teresa and St. Pius X, why are they parlaying with the Vatican and not with Menzingen?"

Because they're not interested in joining a sect. They've been there and done that, and now they want to be united to the whole Catholic Church.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Hunter:

I don't know what you've been smoking but, in the recent clarification of Bishop Fellay from Brazil, he DID NOT say that he was prepared to accept a structure--any structure--for the S.S.P.X. He will not consider that, even on a temporary basis, until the talks are concluded, which, according to his confrere, Bishop Tissier, will likely take 30 years. I have extreme longevity in my family and will likely be here 30 and 50 years from now. However, I don't have much patience.

What Fellay said is that he would welcome a recognition of the Society's faculties by Rome. But he didn't ask even for that.

P.K.T.P.

wheat4paradise said...

If the TAC are the spiritual brethren of St. Teresa and St. Pius X, why are they parlaying with the Vatican and not with Menzingen?

Is Menzingen the new Rome? An alternative to Rome?

Someone has been imbibing a schismatic mentality. Not even Bishop Fellay is suggesting that the TAC should be "parlaying" with Menzingen rather than Rome.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland writes:

"Anyone who thinks that Anglo-Catholicism is a "tradition" that carries any weight against the Faith of Teresa and St. Pius is, to say the least of it, sorely lacking in judg[e]ment."


I don't recall writing that High Anglicanism is a legitimate tradition in the religious sense, in the sense in which the Byzantine Rite is. It is a 'tradition' in the sense that it cherishes a body of rituals, practices, legal norms, and so forth. What I meant is that the Anglo-Catholics have longed for years to be united to the See of Rome. True, they may have entertained the fantasy that they were already part of the Holy Catholic Church (this is the so-called 'branch theory') but I think that they have honestly desired incorporation in the Catholic Church and unity with the Successor of Blessed Peter. Damn them for that if you wish but it is what every creature on earth should earnestly desire, including we who have it. What else do they want? They want to retain elements of their heritage which are close to their hearts.

As for me chasing the wind, I would say that I merely hope that these good people can come home. I am reasonably certain that, once joined to us, they will prove to be our friends. I can't say that of the false charismatics, those idiots and fools who roll around on the floor. I can't say it of the 'neo-conservatives' (well, only partly).

I must tell you, McFarland, that I am not as enthusiastic about their character as you might suppose. Even when one removes all the Cranmerian theology, one cannot rid their liturgy of its High Protestant tone because the words used are connected to an entire worldview that persecuted the Holy Faith during the Highland Clearances (and in England and Ireland too), even if very æsthetically pleasing in other ways. But I prefer not to put my purely historical misgivings before the importance of this reunion. I'm not prepared to tell them to stay out just because the connotations and tone of 'Do ye who earnestly repent ye of your sins' reminds me of a Church which was positively supercilious as it drove out the true Church 200 and 400 years ago.

It's time for all of us to grow up and put the past behind us. Nobody from the Church of England means to draw and quarter me. It's not something I worry about today. I fear indigestion and gout more than that (and let's not mention the dentist). Instead, they come to our Latin Mass and help us perfect Gregorian Chant. I'd call that the working of the Holy Ghost. The real enemy is secularism and atheism and materialism, and if we don't pull together under the Holy Father and face it, we're in for a rude awakening. They want to submit to the Catholic Faith and help us but Mr. McFarland will never allow that! What sort of soldier fends off his allies so that his enemies have a clearer shot at him?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Alleluia! I've solved a MAJOR problem in understanding this apostolic constitution. The bastards have used trick wording. This instrument is much better than I had thought but they are disguising it!!!!!

My principal concern is that the very first section of the very first article apparently makes this impossible for small TAC churches in New Zealand and Japan, par example. NOT SO! I should have seen past this, especially given my own profession. They used trick wording!

Here is the text of the section but, before reading it, please, dear reader, note the OMISSION of the term 'only' or 'entirely'. They did this also in S.P. in Article 5: it doesn't say that *only* one T.L.M. may be offered but 'one may be offered', and it turns out to mean 'at least one', not 'only one' (when you consult other articles. Actually, it means 'normally one but sometimes more, given the limited number of hours in the day and priests').

Now, to make it easier, I quote and the re-quote so as to remove distracting clauses to aid comprehension:

"1. §1 Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church are erected by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith within the confines of the territorial boundaries of a particular Conference of Bishops in consultation with that same Conference."

Now, again, without the distraction:

"Personal Ordinariates ... are erected within the confines of the territorial boundaries of a [sc. one] particular Conference of Bishops ...."

Now the first term can be plural or singular depending on the particular case. Let's make it singular to avoid additionsl distractions:

A Personal Ordinariate ... is erected within the confines of the territorial boundaries of a [sc. one] particular Conference of Bishops

Now here is what it does NOT say:

A Personal Ordinariate is erected only/entirely within the confines of the territorial boundaries of particular Conference of Bishops.

All the section says is that the Personal Ordinariate is erected so that it exists within the territory of a particular conference of bishops. This does not mean that ALL of it must lie in that territory, only that AT LEAST SOME of it must. It is erected within one such territory, and this implies that the principal church of that structure (as later mentioned) will lie in that territory. But the territory can extend beyond the territory of one conference of bishops: it could exist in several. Frankly, it could exist in many.

This means that the TAC could put New Zealand with Australia or with an ordinariate in just one part of Australia (likely the south-east). It also means that the territory of an ordinariate could extend into several other countries so that it embraces all of them or only parts of them, even only single dioceses in some of them. For example, an ordinariate in England could extend into one single diocese in France or in Switzerland.

Of course, in some of these countries, merging with other incoming Anglicans can solve the problem to begin with.

Problem solved, I think. They used trick wording to coddle the liberals.

Note to TAC churches: keep this in mind, please, and make your applications so that your smaller churches are included. For example, the recent TAC request from Great Britain should eventually include Ireland and perhaps the territory of one Diocese in France.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Romanus:

I like this:

"I §3 Each Ordinariate possesses public juridic personality by the law itself (ipso iure);

IT IS JURIDICALLY COMPARABLE TO A DIOCESE"

Yabadabadoo! It's not a personal prelature, which is NOT juridically comparable to a diocese.

Also, note what the Roman commentators have to say about that trash structure, the personal prelature. Let's hope that structure never rears its ugly head again, although I am happy that Opus Dei is saddled with one, but that's because I don't like Opus Dei.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Remember how that enemy of tradition calling himself 'Romanus' urged personal prelatures for the S.S.P.X and for these Anglicans. Lookey what Fr. Gianfranco Ghirlandia, S.I. saith on this (as he comments for the Vatican):

"Nor can these Personal Ordinariates been considered as Personal Prelatures since, according to can. 294, Personal Prelatures are composed of secular priests and deacons and, according to can. 296, lay people may simply dedicate themselves to the apostolic works of Personal Prelatures by way of agreements. Members of Institutes of Consecrated Life or of Societies of Apostolic Life are not even mentioned in the canons concerning Personal Prelatures."

And Fr. Ghirlandia does not even mention Canon 297, which condemns the p.p. structure even more.

I wonder if Romanus is man enough to admit that he was wrong. Not likely. Liberals never admit to error. It's their one and only principle.

As for the brainless journalists, they'll never change. Being more than a bit slow, they find that those two initial letters p help them to remember the wrong structure: ppppersonal ppprelature. It's s-s-so s-s-stupid.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

In deference to Mr. McFarland, I must say that this passage worries me:

"1 §5 The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith professed by memmbers of the Ordinariate."

True, the Catechism is not per se an infallible document (a relief, since it is totally wrong on captial punishment). But I note that this section refers to *all* members of the Ordinariate, including all its lay subjects. I suppose that, read carefully, this does not mean that they are bound by divine and Catholic faith to accept everything therein. Still, I'm can't say I'd sign on to this myself.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I've found yet another misintrepretation from this blog. The rotters! More word games! I've been through this one before regarding that slippery trick work 'should'. It can mean 'must' or it can express only a recommendation. There is a canon somewhere saying that the interpretation which admits or accords more freedom is the one to be assumed. Now, of course, only the Latin text can provide the ultimate source on this, but a translation to 'should' would be erroneous if 'must' or, even better in formal law, 'shall' were meant.

Here's the opening on seminaries:

"VI. §5. Candidates for Holy Orders in an Ordinariate should be prepared alongside other seminarians, ..."

Sorry, liberals such as Cardinal Baloney, here is what this means:

It is better that candidates for Holy Orders in an Ordinariate be prepared alongside other seminarians . . . .

Were it a mandatory statement, you'd need 'shall' or 'must' there.

Since an Ordinariate is equivalent in law to a diocese except where limited elsewhere in law, and since all dioceses can open their own seminaries, IT FOLLOWS LOGICALLY that these Anglican ordinariates can lawfully open their own seminaries and train their boys separately.

True, the Church recommends against this and, true, the ordinariate will likely comply with Rome's request, since they are hungry for diocesan cash, but their existing seminary which I've just learned they have in the U.S.A. can continue operating. THey likely also have one in India, since a court shocked everyone and gave them all the old property from the Church of North India.

The slippery meaning of 'should' is one of my favourite topics of conversation. That's why I'm so popular with the girls.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

The following Section has been misinterpred a bit here. One blogger suggested that the "opinion" of the local bishop could be dismissed with, essentially, a third-finger salute by the ordinary. We need to read between the lines, however:

"VIII. §1. The Ordinary, according to the norm of law, after having heard the opinion of the Diocesan Bishop of the place, may erect, with the consent of the Holy See, personal parishes for the faithful who belong to the Ordinariate."

Now this is de facto restrictive. Why? It is because the TAC people, in particular, are as poor as church mice. This means that they will depend on the financial power of Latin bishops. Not all power is juridical power! If the ordinary has to inform the local Latin bishop every time he wants to erect a parish, and the local Bishop 'advises' against it, the ordinary will feel inclined to take the advice. He needs access to Latin parish churches and he needs financial assistance.

Of course, the situation may change one day. But not this day. So this provision actually does empower the local Latin liberal bishop, who would otherwise not be aware of the erection of new ordinariate parishes and not have the wherewithal to investigate such matters often.

The purpose here is to tie these tiny little conservative ordinariates to powerful liberal Latin dioceses. Of course, we should not be entirely negative about this: there will be co-operation and most Latin bishops just don't have the time to mess things up for the new structures.

Be wary: the more innocuous-looking articles are often just the opposite in practice.

P.K.T.P.

craig said...

"True, the Catechism is not per se an infallible document..."

Without agreeing or disagreeing, I would like to ask: upon what basis do you make this statement?

"But I note that this section refers to *all* members of the Ordinariate, including all its lay subjects. I suppose that, read carefully, this does not mean that they are bound by divine and Catholic faith to accept everything therein. Still, I'm can't say I'd sign on to this myself."

As someone who has been on the other side of the fence, I can say that this clarifies to Anglicans that they are not going to "split the difference" or enter into communion based on the Nicene Creed alone, but will subscribe to the whole Catholic faith. JPII's apostolic constitution issuing the Catechism stated: "I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith." BXVI is simply applying that statement to the present situation.

I presume that at the time of their reception/confirmation, they will profess to believe what the Church proclaims, much as "typical" converts do.

John McFarland said...

Mr. Perkins,

As regards the Anglo-Catholic usages, my point is that they don't have even the (very limited) significance that you attach to them. They were created in the 19th century, on the Roman model, and I think can accurately if undiplomaticaly be described as pious affectations. That anyone would let them stop him from becoming a Catholic yesterday (if not the day before) is a great scandal.

For present purposes, the only thing I have against the English is their proclivity for convincing themselves, in matters sacred and profane that 19th century creations are immemorial traditions.

As for questions of allies, I would say this: our only allies are Catholics. If the members of the TAC are Catholic, what are they doing being members of the TAC?

I think quite highly of you, Mr. Perkins, but you remind me of Pope Pius XI: you are wholly sound on the principles; but in practical application you tend to give aid and comfort to those who, in one way or another, subordinate the Faith to other considerations. Your preoccupation with all this canonical plumbing is of course the chief example of what I think I see at work here.

Anonymous said...

To Jordanes and P.K.T.P.

As John L. put it nicely :
"I think Alsaticus's objection to the governing council cannot be dismissed. How is it compatible with the authority of a bishop as successor to the apostles that he be required to get the approval of a council on any matter whatever? the fact (if it is a fact) that the people on these councils will be all right does not affect this principle."

1. The proper word is "principle" : P.K.T.P. is arguing with his usual brio on practical matters. The Governing council is a nasty thing but the councillors will be nice priests. Okay you're right on the practical side but this is leaving intact ... the principal : the Governing council is an evil institution per se, in itself, that would destroy any diocese in the world and ruin the episcopal ministry.

Now responding also on the practical matters. Have you heard of a group called the "16" who were FSSP members and now are nearly all diocesan priests, sometimes not celebrating TLM ? Does it ring a big bell ?
Put aside the present good T.A.C. priests who are joining these Ordinariates and think about say ... 2019, when many new ordinariate priests are coming from Los Angeles seminary or similar places ... are you still sure that the elected priests will be so nice ?
We need to think a bit about the future in reasonable terms.

I talked to a (liberal) Canon Law professor who had not yet seen this "wonder" of article 12 and he was exactly sharing my opinion, except that he found this not as revolutionary as he would like.
Maybe nobody will notice and the Governing council will stay an Anglican-catholic weirdness but the Holy See would be cautious to keep an eye open on this vicious innovation and prepare a revision in the coming years...

To Jordanes, I'm afraid you're wrong setting a big difference between ordinaries and bishops.
article 2 §2 : "The Ordinary is a member of the respective Episcopal Conference."
article 4 : "Article 4
§1. The Ordinary may be a bishop or a presbyter appointed by the Roman Pontiff ad nutum Sanctae Sedis, based on a terna presented by the Governing Council. Canons 383-388, 392-394, and 396-398 of the Code of Canon Law apply to him."
All those canons pertain to ... the "diocesan bishops" in the Canon Code 1983.

I am who I am but certainly not a fool and I do know how to read maybe with more attention than others ...

That being said, I rejoice with P.K.T.P. (and Jordanes) that these new Anglican-catholics are coming to the fold. It is indeed a precious support for orthodox Catholics in general.
However I won't say these Complementary Norms are an absolute marvel when they are obviously not and contain potential mines that could explode also in our Latin (so to speak) dioceses.

In addition and P.K.T.P. agrees, I notice these provisions are notably less generous than what was offered to SSPX in 2000. Due to the strong opposition, understatement, offered by various episcopal conferences and diocesan bishops against the idea of a personal diocese for SSPX or trads in general (see the systematically opposed article of S.P. on personal parishes), I don't see with joy all this collegiality and synodality imposed to the new Anglican-catholic Ordinariates.
That's all. In other words, beyond the legitimate immediate satisfaction, caveant consules.

Alsaticus

Anonymous said...

Yes I had noticed this new restraint on those poor diminished Anglican-Catholic Ordinariates that are definitely second class dioceses with numerous impediments both internal and external.

They will be heavily dependent on Latin dioceses for their finances. And as P.K.T.P. notices wisely, his initial enthusiasm being somewhat abated :

"So this provision actually does empower the local Latin liberal bishop, who would otherwise not be aware of the erection of new ordinariate parishes and not have the wherewithal to investigate such matters often.

The purpose here is to tie these tiny little conservative ordinariates to powerful liberal Latin dioceses. Of course, we should not be entirely negative about this: there will be co-operation and most Latin bishops just don't have the time to mess things up for the new structures.

Be wary: the more innocuous-looking articles are often just the opposite in practice.

P.K.T.P."

I agree 100%. It means the Anglican-Catholics will have to be as generous as trads to support their Ordinariates.

Alsaticus

Anonymous said...

MR. PERKINS

Re your reply to me-my, how you make assumptions! I have nothing to do with the SSPX. I continue to stand by what I wrote: if the Anglicans are looking for the Church of yesteryear...IT'S GONE!

Jordanes said...

Maybe nobody will notice and the Governing council will stay an Anglican-catholic weirdness but the Holy See would be cautious to keep an eye open on this vicious innovation and prepare a revision in the coming years...

I agree. I expect, however, that the Anglican-Catholic governing council will remain a provision solely for them, since this constitition was written with Anglicans retaining elements of their own traditions in view. As Mr. Perkins indicated, there hardly a chance that bishops will agree to their being "emasculated" by a governing council, and in any event such a thing is irreconcilable with the Catholic Church's doctrine on the dignity and role of the episcopal order.

To Jordanes, I'm afraid you're wrong setting a big difference between ordinaries and bishops.

I don't set a "big" difference between ordinaries (despite my use of big ALL CAPS letters). Bishops are one kind, but not the only kind of ordinary.

article 2 §2 : "The Ordinary is a member of the respective Episcopal Conference."

Which doesn't necessarily make him a bishop.

article 4 : "Article 4
§1. The Ordinary may be a bishop or a presbyter


Precisely.

Thanks for re-reminding me that these ordinaries may be bishops. In cases where the Anglican-Catholic ordinary is a bishop, it would indeed be a serious problem to limit his episcopal authority through a governing council. Granted, an ordinariate is not an actual diocese (though it is virtually one), nevertheless a bishop is still a bishop.

Anonymous said...

Craig asked:

"Without agreeing or disagreeing, I would like to ask: upon what basis do you make this statement?"

The Catechism does not make this claim for itself. It certainly contains much infallible teaching but is not itself an infallible vehicle for teaching.

Of course, I am not saying that anything in the Catechism is necessarily contrary to the faith. It is only that it is not in itself proclaimed to be an infallible document.

I note, though, that another Article in this Constitution only says that laics must make a Profession of Faith as a condition for entering the Catholic Church. The fact that the Catechism is declared to be 'authoritative' does not mean that inconming Anglilans are bound to accept everything in it.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On McFarland's point about Anglican usages:

No, they are not all from the nineteenth century. However much he was a heretic, Cranmer was a brilliant writer or, at least, an arranger. His early Prayerbook Service is one of the truly great works of English literature, along with "King Lear" and the "Canterbury Tales".

What the incoming Anglicans are attached to includes the non-heretical parts of that Service, which is most of it. I presume that it also includes usages for the Laudian period of the seventeenth century, although I'm not sure of this. It is outside my area of competence completely.

But the Cranmerian Communion Service and Morning Prayer and Evensong, and the other parts of their Prayerbook is part of the patrimony they are attached to, not just Oxford Movement changes. Also, the Catholic-oriented forms certainly had their origin (at least in principle) in the Laudian period and do not derive entirely from the 19th century.

As regards their Prayerbook, almost all of it is able to be interpreted in a Catholic sense. This was owing to Cranmer's need to prevent a rebellion. In fact, to make in entirely Catholic in sense was not difficult and required only small changes in their Anglican Missal.

It remains true, however, that the forms of their liturgy do at least connote a 'High Protestant' ecclesiology. It will take time for these associations to disappear but I suggest that they are not noticeable to 98% of the faithful in this illiterate age.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland writes of Anglican usages:

"That anyone would let them stop him from becoming a Catholic yesterday (if not the day before) is a great scandal."

Not really. As I've explained before, they have subscribed to a theological error (not a heresy) by which they are already part of the Catholic Church. I think it entirely understandable that they have come to reject that notion in very recent times, given the sudden departure of their community from essential Christian teaching and order. The question then becomes whether or not, having realised this, they should convert individually. But it is possible that they still subscribe to this error (as many faithful subscribe to others) or fail to understand completely their need to be united to the See of Rome. It may be that this understanding will only be completed after their time of reunion.

It is really not for us to judge the degree of understanding of others. We can only say that perspicacious people would see the need for individual conversion. But their perspective may be clouded by a number of factors, such as the following:

1. The fact that Rome herself appears to have abandoned her true nature (wouldn't you agree, McFarland?);

2. The beauty of their traditions obscures their perspective.

Of course, perhaps they should march off to Menzingen to be reconciled to Benedict XVI, but you can pardon them if they don't do so on the grounds that Benedict XVI does not even recognise that the S.S.P.X has licit Sacraments.

So I think that their confusion is natural in these circumstances. After all, a rather large number of cradle Catholics are confused. Even I find myself confused from time to time by all this.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland writes:

"As for questions of allies, I would say this: our only allies are Catholics. If the members of the TAC are Catholic, what are they doing being members of the TAC?"

I think that those who wish to join the Church but are confused are also our allies. Let's give them a hand. Don't worry: their hands are not soiled from shaking others', since they don't have the handshake of peace.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland writes:

"Your preoccupation with all this canonical plumbing is of course the chief example of what I think I see at work here."

I just find this to be fun stuff. Perhaps I should have 'taken advice' from family and entered the legal profession. No thanks! But it is fun to find out what these tricksters in Rome are up to and why. Mr. McFarland would like to take away my sandbox but Jordanes is there to protect it. Thank goodness for that!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Some completely anonymous person wrote:

"Re your reply to me-my, how you make assumptions! I have nothing to do with the SSPX. I continue to stand by what I wrote: if the Anglicans are looking for the Church of yesteryear...IT'S GONE!"

I can't know what you have to do with the S.S.P.X, since I don't even know who you are. Who am I replying to? If the Church of yesteryear is gone, the Church must be gone. How can this be? Please clarify and at least give us a pseudonym or initials.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Alsaticus writes,

"The Governing council is a nasty thing but the councillors will be nice priests. Okay you're right on the practical side but this is leaving intact ... the principal : the Governing council is an evil institution per se, in itself, that would destroy any diocese in the world and ruin the episcopal ministry."

Actually, I agree with you entirely here, Alsaticus. And given the additional reference to the "pastoral council" of each ordinariate, I suspect that these innovations are being inserted so as to introduce some concepts of Anglican governance. I am no expert on this but my understanding is that Anglicans have much more decentralisation, much more democracy in governing, and then the Erastian principle of connecting nations to ecclesiastical jurisdictions and then making the latter independent of one another.

I see all these trends in this new legislation and I don't like it any more than you do. I would especially contemn it if applied to other groups in the Church. I agree with you on this!

I think that I misunderstood the thrust of your comments. Or did I? At one point, you said that, as soon as these ordinariates are created, the laics will demand to have these governing councils, presumably so as to control the governance. But this is not the case. Every one of these ordinariates will have such a council, not only those in which the laity demands this; and the laity will have no say in who serves on these governing councils. Only orthodox priests of their community will vote to elect members. In other words, this is not a way for liberals to take over the ordinariates or have a say in their governance.

But if your main point is that this innovation undermines the principle of hierarchal rulership in the Church, I agree with you entirely!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Alsaticus writes:

"new ordinariate priests are coming from Los Angeles seminary or similar places ... are you still sure that the elected priests will be so nice ?
We need to think a bit about the future in reasonable terms."

This is entirely true but, remember, Alsaticus, that the ordinaries themselves will be coming from, say, seminaries in Los Angeles. There may be cases in which a liberal personal ordinary is forced by his governing council to be more conservative. It cuts both ways. The only solution is to move our seminaries--all of them--in a better direction.

I agree with Alsaticus that this is not what would be best for the S.S.P.X, although a different version of an international ordinariate could work. I still prefer the personal apostolic administration or diocese structure which has been offered to them since 2000!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes writes:

"Thanks for re-reminding me that these ordinaries may be bishops. In cases where the Anglican-Catholic ordinary is a bishop, it would indeed be a serious problem to limit his episcopal authority through a governing council. Granted, an ordinariate is not an actual diocese (though it is virtually one), nevertheless a bishop is still a bishop."

Actually, the problem raised by Alsaticus is the same regardless of whether the ordinary is a bishop or not. Personal ordinaries and Military ordinaries, not yet added to the Code, govern structures which are equivalent in law to dioceses (vide Canon 368 on other such structures).

The principle at stake has nothing to do with the Holy Order received by the ordinary. Prefectures apostolic are often governed by ordinaries who are not bishops and, when they are, they are titular bishops, not diocesan bishops.

Alsaticus's point, I think, is that the one who rules a 'particular church', be he diocesan bishop, titular bishop, or simple priest, should not share his powers of governance with others, except the Pope.

As to the difference in power between a personal ordinary or permanent apostolic administrator or prefect apostolic, as examples, and a diocese, the former are EQUAL in law to the diocese EXCEPT insofar as statutes limit the other structures. Sometimes there is a limiitation, sometimes not. For example, the Apostolic Administration of St. John-Mary Vianney, having no limitations to its authority over its subjects, is EQUAL to the authority of the local Bishop of Campos and all other diocesan bishops.

In the case of these new ordinarieates, the ordinaries would have been equal in authority to local bishops EXCEPT that, as Alsaticus notes, they were limited by intrusion of these new governing councils. This idea no doubt came from the TAC itself. The Anglicans have always been suspicious of our more authoritarian rulership, but their democracy and decentralisation has led to many of their problems. For example, they have no ultimate leadership equivalent to that of the Pope.

P.K.T.P.

John McFarland said...

Mr. Perkins,

I of course quite agree that these are indeed confused times, for Catholics and the TAC alike.

But one place that one certainly cannot go to dispel the confusion is to Vatican City. The very fact of the TAC's going to Vatican City I view as a very bad sign.

The Church's embracing the literary side of Cranmer's successful exercise in weaning the English from the one true Faith strikes me as an abomination, no more, no less. To do so is to spit on the graves of the English martyrs. Sure, there is nothing unorthodox about A Mighty Fortress Is Our God (or at least the verses I know; but consider the associations. The whole point was to fill up with beautiful things the void left by the destruction of the Mass.

Jordanes said...

The fact that the Catechism is declared to be 'authoritative' does not mean that inconming Anglicans are bound to accept everything in it.

Quite so. That's in essential agreement with what Cardinal Ratzinger wrote in "Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church," pp.26-27 --

"What significance the Catechism really holds for the common exercise of teaching in the Church may be learned by reading the Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum, with which the Pope promulgated it on October 11, 1992 -- exactly thirty years after the opening of the Second Vatican Council: 'I acknowledge it [the Catechism] as a valid and legitimate tool in the service of ecclesiastical communion, as a sure norm for instruction in the faith.' The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess. The weight of the Catechism itself lies in the whole. Since it transmits what the Church teaches, whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teaching of the Church."

As I read that, Mr. Perkins, it appears to me that Cardinal Ratzinger's explanation would show that your objections to, for example, the Catechism's treatment of capital punishment, are perfectly acceptable (I agree with you on the Catechism's treatment of capital punishment, by the way) -- whereas Mr. McFarland's objections to the new Catechism seem much more categorical and wholesale, which would mean he is treading on spiritually treacherous and dangerous ground. This is all of a piece with his being troubled by the fact that the TAC is doing what any group of people who wish to become Catholic must do -- "go to Vatican City," as he puts it.

Anonymous said...

To P.K.T.P.

your post dated
10 November, 2009 21:40

is explaining perfectly what I meant re. the Ordinaries.

Just a precision : my initial concern with this dreadful innovation of "Governing councils" is mainly directed at a possible contamination of this Protestant Anglican virus into the body of the Latin Church.
The vectors of the contamination of this ecclesiological swine flue being the well known lib theologians, the well known neo-mod magazines, the "trendy" lay lobbies like Call-to-Action, Wir sind Kirche and our French "comité de la jupe" (skirt committee).
Curiously so far nearly nobody in these groups have noticed the potentially destructive virus but my bet is it won't last long before they start reading too.

I would not be surprised if a say cardinal Martini was suddenly praising the reformer Benedict XVI and suggesting that "Governing councils" should be created everywhere in the Latin Church to make her more "synodal" and increase her ecumaniac appeal.
I could already write a paper for "America" the subversive Jesuit magazine to celebrate the great ecumenical step and progress toward a truly "synodal" Church, making Abp Lefebvre's old nightmare of collegiality into a gore scenario... each true Catholic bishop being gutted by Mahonyan/Weaklandite/Quinnite Governing councillors.

May the Lord protect us all from this frightening scourge, the Governing councils.

Alsaticus

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland writes this:

""Your preoccupation with all this canonical plumbing is of course the chief example of what I think I see at work here."

He has made similar cryptic remarks in the past, and I'm honestly not sure exactly what he means by them.

My main concern in plumbing the legal complexities is to find out the extent to which these new ordinariates protect our allies (as I see them) from the local liberal bishops.

I'd like to put this in bold terms. Typically, traditional people are minding their own business and worshipping God and venerating our Lady from the heart. Then along comes a communist Freemasonic heretic radical feminist Hegelian post-colonialist descriptivist post-structuralist semeiotician deconstructist bitch. Said male or female bitch then proceeds to make war on the Altar, the statues, the tranquiilty, the vestments, the theology, the piety, of the worshippers. Since these liberals are demonically possessed, they will stop at nothing. They get themselves elected to parish councils and create discord. When they are thrown out, they go to the bishop, the prime minister, the Duke of Aught, the press, the Pope, even Tintin or Fred Flintstone. They do whatever it takes to shut down all that is pure and good and holy. If need be, by-laws are passed and your church becomes a fire hazard.

So my real intent in plumbing these statutes is to determine how much freedome they afford to good people. I want to know if Benedict XVI is creating a safe haven or a trap.

P.K.T.P.

dcs said...

If the TAC are the spiritual brethren of St. Teresa and St. Pius X, why are they parlaying with the Vatican and not with Menzingen?

Because "the Vatican" (i.e., Rome, the Holy See, the Pope) has jurisdiction over them and Menzingen does not.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland, reaching for it yet again, writes:

"The whole point was to fill up with beautiful things the void left by the destruction of the Mass."

Yes, I quite agree, Mr. McFarland. And the English of the sixteenth century saw that. It's why the Government of that time had to ban plays composed to mock the new Cranmerian Service. But the perspective of those who died in the Great Western Rising and in the Pilgrimage of Grace will obviously not be that of those raised generations later. To the latter, the Communion Service was a treasure and one not connected to the deracination of the True Faith, a Faith which became foreign to them.

I don't doubt that the motives of these incoming Anglicans is mostly good. To say that they are correct objectively is another matter entirely.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Well, P.K.T.P., at least the Anglicans of the TAC have sufficient Sensus Catholicus to adhere to the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

So long as any group regards the Catechism as heretical or containing heresy (a determination made by an abortive, invalid parallel magisterium comprised of protestantized laity and illicit clergy), they will never possess a legitimate ministry within the Church.

Dan Hunter said...

Mr Perkins,

I do not smoke, but I thank you for the unsult just the same.
It gives me yet something else to offer up for my converion and the conversion of others.
Actually Bishop Fellay in an interview on, 8-17-2009, expressed his interest in a canonical structure for the FSSPX:

"What juridical status do you wish for the Society of St. Pius X? A prelature, a society of apostolic life, or something else?"

Bishop Fellay:"Obviously, this will depend upon Rome which is the authority that will make the decision for the structure. Their intention is the desire to respect as much as they can the concrete reality that we represent. My hope is that we will be sufficiently protected in the exercise of the apostolate to be able to do good, without being impeded in our actions by juridical reasons. MY WISH IS A PRELATURE, even if I do not have any preference. As for the timetable, I can say nothing, everything depends upon Rome."

Anonymous said...

Anon. writes:

"So long as any group regards the Catechism as heretical or containing heresy (a determination made by an abortive, invalid parallel magisterium comprised of protestantized laity and illicit clergy), they will never possess a legitimate ministry within the Church."

I suppose that's true. Of course, you could not be referring to the S.S.P.X, which holds that the C.C.C. contains theological error but not heresy. All heresy is erroneous but not all theological error constitutes heresy.

The C.C.C. does not claim to be an infallible document and thereore is not one. It is authoritative, of course.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

The moderators are apparently not publishing my reply to Mr. Hunter, which, fortuantely, I've made to him privately as well. I'll make this very brief, then. First, what Fellay said this August is definitely not supported by what he said publicly in Brazil two weeks ago. We need to add to that what Fr. Gianfranco Ghirlandia, S.I., said about personal prelatures on this very blog. Scroll down to after the complementary norms on the Anglican structure. Then compare all this to what Fellay said was offered in January by Cardinal C.H. My conclusions are as follows:

1. Fellay is constantly mixing up the structure because juridical differences do not interest him. Frankly, he doesn't know a prelature from a pickled herring, not because he's stupid but because he couldn't care less. He'll leave all that to the canonists. He keeps saying 'prelature' probably because it's easier to remember, although he often says something completely different.

2. It definitely won't be a personal prelature.

3. It may be a personal ordinariate but under somewhat different articles than the Anglican one; or it may be a personal (ritual) dioceese or apostolic administration. I still vote for the latter. Fellay doesn't want any 'governing council'. He needs to be a diocesan bishop to govern this structure effectively.

4. There will be no structure of any kind--even on a temporary basis--until the talks are concluded successfully, which could take 30 years, according to Tissier. Please note: I'm not favouring this; I'm just repeating Fellay on this.

5. Rome might instead simply recognise Society faculties for the interim. I think that Fellay wants this and might be quietly trying to wrest it out of Levada. The problem is that the Williamson Affair has made the S.S.P.X 'toxic waste' and the liberals and Jews (esp. one particular Rabbi Rosen) are trying right now to stop this from happening by 'digging up dirt' on the Society.

I've proved these points time and time again. If anyone needs more, contact me at pkperkins@telus.net

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

There may have been a technical glitch, Mr. Perkins. I didn't see your response to Mr. Hunter until just now, and I can't imagine any reason why your comment would have been rejected.

John McFarland said...

Anon 13:09 has said:

"So long as any group regards the Catechism as heretical or containing heresy (a determination made by an abortive, invalid parallel magisterium comprised of protestantized laity and illicit clergy), they will never possess a legitimate ministry within the Church."

Mr. Perkins' characterization of the SSPX view is probably usefully supplemented by the folowing summary passage from the lengthy analysis in consecutive numbers of the Angelus back when the CCC was published:

"Just as the Virgin Mary would not be immaculate if she had the lightest blemish, so the Catechism is not Catholic if the faith that it teaches is not whole, total, and clearly explained. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is therefore not Catholic. It expresses the conciliar ecstasy before the splendor of man, and can only seduce the poor Christians severed for the past thirty years from all serious doctrinal formation. It is a symphony too discordant not to grate on the Catholic faith; it is the symphony of the new world, for the New Age of man in the third millennium."

I don't know or care whether this is an accusation of heresy; it is certainly a terrible accusation -- and, unfortunately, a true one.

Anon 13:09, I'd suggest that you read the SSPX analysis, which is available on sspx.org; and come back and tell us what you then think.

Jordanes said...

I don't know or care whether this is an accusation of heresy;

You should.

it is certainly a terrible accusation -- and, unfortunately, a true one.

No, it's rubbish.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes,

I accept your explanation about technical hitches. The fault may have been mine. Perhaps this infernal machine didn't send the message.

Anyway, I would like to comment soon on something you might find on Virtue Online. Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria has just said no to the Pope for the entire GAFCON. I actually think that this is only a temporary no (for two decades or so) and that, all things considered, it is actually good news. We don't want people who clearly don't want the Catholic Faith. If you go to the article you might want to post the bit around his photograph (it starts a bit above and extends for a fair ways afterwards). You will no doubt want to omit all the rest, which is essentially a dreamathon by evangelical Anglicans who are sure they can defeat Catholicism on the one side and liberal Anglicanism on the other. They'll need a sword in each arm to keep to their via media. Their problem is that they occupy middle ground between absolute truth and Satanic error. We all know where Dante put the wavering angels: on the outskirts of Hell.

I expect that my comments on this will largely please Mr. McFarland, even if he is not welcoming to the TAC people, whereas I am.

P.K.T.P.

M.J. Ernst-Sandoval said...

Some photos of a more traditional TAC parish:

http://www.stmaryoftheangels.org/gallery.html

Anonymous said...

Some photos of a more traditional TAC parish:

http://www.stmaryoftheangels.org/gallery.html



http://www.stmaryoftheangels.org/MotherVesper2.jpg

Pretty hellish.



Kneeling communion in hand: http://www.stmaryoftheangels.org/PATRONA%20FIRST%20COMMUNION%20222.JPG - "hermeneutic of continuity" ?

Jordanes said...

"Pretty hellish"?? Silly, or maybe even cute if you like dressing up your pets, but certainly not "pretty hellish." But I guess you're not a cat lover. Perhaps the opposite.

rev'd up said...

The Anglo-Catholic parishes that come over are going to need some positive reinforcement. Many have accrued some of the less offensive novus ordo-isms.*

I sincerely believe that if a knowledgeable, earnest Roman Catholic appear one day in the Sacristy and asks, "Father, have you ever thought about doing things this way..." At which time, the suppliant opens his copy of Fortescue, O'Connell or better yet 'Ritual Notes' (9th edition *only,* available from Lancelot Andrewes Press) and proceeds to show him how things should be done, I believe that he will meet with great success. These (Roman) Anglo-Catholic priests will be very desirous of pleasing new comers. Many of these priests have had inadequate training at the altar; often learning ritual from someone who is incompetent or misinformed.

It is my hope that traditional Roman Catholics will do just this and clean up the acts of manya sloppy priest.

*communion in the paw is unfortunately a deep seated Anglican problem. Again, positive reinforcement will wear down this problem. One must keep in mind, the old stick-in-the-muds will soon be dead and the younger folks are easily converted to communion in the proper manner via peer pressure.

Anonymous said...

Dear Rev'd Up:

Yes, I think you are right. Some of them are very knowledgeable about proper form but others are not. I've seen photographs on line of their parish in Nova Scotia. Unlike the others, it appears to have altered boyesses. I've also seen that one of their priests wears the calotte during Mass, which only abbots can do unless one has an indult, and that indult must come from the Pope. One of their priest in B.C. also seems to dress like a monsignor. There are things. On the other hand, so many of our own T.L.M. priests have to re-learn all the rules. Ceremony will take time!

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

Note to Mr. Perkins:

The virtueonline.org story on Archbishop Akinola and GAFCON's reaction to Anglicanorum coetibus seems to be laded down even heavier than usual with evangelical Protestant drivel, and for that reason it seems inappropriate to feature so much of their story here at Rorate Caeli. This commentbox is already pretty full, but Rorate has a more recent post on Anglican matters further up the weblog page, and there aren't quite as many comments there yet. We've mostly been talking about the Pauline vs. traditional Offertory prayers in that commentbox, but it seems that starting a discussion and analysis of the GAFCON/Akinola reaction would be a great way to get that discussion back on topic. You're most welcome to post your analysis there.

Anonymous said...

In analyising the new apostolic constittuion, one worryying part is Article VI, Section 1. Note the reference to footnote 13. This, in turn, refers to Canons 1026-1032. These set out requirements for new priests in the ordinariate (as elsewhere). Now here is Section 1 the text of Canon 1032:

"Aspirants to the priesthood may be promoted to the diaconate only when they have completed the fifth year of the curriculum of philosophical and theological studies"

Section 2 then requires time spent excercising the diaconal function before being admitted to the priesthood. Section 3 makes this period mandatory, although its length of time is left to the Bishop or superior of a respective religious order.

I have been told by one TAC priest that this is potentially a deal-killer, since the great majority of TAC priests don't qualify. I imagine that their system of formation is very different.

Was this inserted by Levada at the behest of Nichols, Kasper, Hummers, Vingt-Trois, Daneels, and so forth, to make these ordinariates stillborn? Is that why even Murphy-O'Connor is now generally accepting them and coming out of retirement to comment positively (or at least neutrally)? No, I don't think so.

We should step back and realise that Rome is simply establishing stable policies for the ordinariates. She wishes to emphasise that, as a norm, ordinariate priests will need the same sort of professional education as have other priests; and she wishes to warn future incomers that you can't just walk into the Catholic priesthood. No, you need thorough training (even if what they get in most N.O. seminaries is questionable at best these days).

I think that Article 6, Section 2 of the Complementary norms is similar in function. It says that those who once obtained Catholic orders and then converted to Anglianism may not, in future, be incardinated into the new ordinariates (although Rev'd Up found an out clause at least for those among them who have good records).

I think that, in both these cases, the purpose is not to shut out the TAC but simply to establish firm policies for the future. Therefore, I expect Hepworth to go to Rome with requests for general dispensations, certainly for the educational requirements and possibily for this second bit as well. I think that he will ask for and obtain such dispensations but that Rome will be less amenable to them in the future. Rome might ordain them and then require some minimal educational upgrading after the fact. Rome wants the TAC in the door but does not want to let in every looney 'solo' bishop of Anglican character who has a congregation of four and worships in a callbox.

P.K.T.P.


"

Anonymous said...

Where's the mention of the necessity of abjuring the Anglican errors and heresies?

Why receive heretics without such an abjuration and twiddle ones thumbs negotiating with Catholics (SSPX)?