Rorate Caeli

Further TAC developments

Those who are following developments regarding the Traditional Anglican Communion's response to the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus will find the following of interest. It is an excerpt from a recent pastoral letter (dated Sunday, 22 Nov. 2009) of Archbishop Louis W. Falk, former Primate of the TAC, and former metropolitan of the U.S.A. for the Anglican Church in America, which is the U.S.A. TAC body. Archbishop Falk is the TAC's founding primate, and currently is President of the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America. The excerpt follows:

". . . . An initial set of Complementary Norms has been issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which will be discussed in detail by representatives of that body and of the TAC College of Bishops within the near future. We are now asking members of the ACA (and other TAC provinces) to study the Norms and then pose such questions as may occur. (Some already have, such as: Question: Will we be able to continue to have married priests indefinitely? Answer: Yes. Question: Will those of us who were formerly Roman Catholics be excluded from the Anglican Ordinariates? Answer: No. Question: Will we lose control over our Church finances and property? Answer: No.) There will be more. These can be sent to your own Bishop, and he will see that they get to the appropriate TAC representatives. Your concerns, as well as your thoughts and prayers, are an essential element and a vital part of this process. . . . "

Our thanks to Mr. Peter Karl T. Perkins for bringing this to our attention.

56 comments:

Anonymous said...

Readers may be interested in this insightful blog:

http://psallitesapienter.blogspot.com/2009/11/special-provision-for-tac.html

I think there may be some truth to this statement. We wait and see.

Jay said...

As far as I know Anglicans, living in the midst of them, they are very happy with what they have and are usually not very enthusiastic about Roman Catholic Church. May be those from TAC are different, but I am surprised by all these questions, 'will we these??, will we that??' Those who converted in the past because of God's grace are certainly better off spiritually than these hesitating folks out there who in the end may stay where they are forever.

Mark of the Vineyard said...

A continuation of married priests? I wonder what this will bode for the Roman Church? I'm not intirely against married clergy (after all, married Eastern Catholic priests do exist), but I wonder what effects this would have for us Romans given that many of us are ignorant of the fact of married Catholic clergy.

Jay said...

This is what Archp Nichols said about Anglican conversions before meeting of Williams and the Pope..."It must be a positive desire in the heart – not questions of the ordination of women to the episcopate, not questions of sexual ethics -- but it must center round the understanding of the role of the office of the bishop of Rome," Nichols told the newspaper. "A person must be embracing of that concrete aspect of Catholic life, which is the authority of the Holy See in the person of the pope, if they are going to make this journey with integrity."

A conversion, Nichols said, wouldn't mean just "picking bits of the Catholic faith."

As I said, the Pope authority is kind of stumbling block for mainstream Anglicans, they have hundred of years of 'tradition' in this prejudice and I do not expect exodus - the conversion should be the work of God's grace to be genuine. Lots of prayers needed.

chiralcapers said...

This is interesting. My understanding was that while the provision for married priests is indeed indefinite, it will probably be restricted to married Anglican clergy (or married men in Anglican formation) who convert, and closed to new vocations within the (now Catholic) ordinariates.

Anthony OPL

Anonymous said...

First of all, I'm wondering if Archbishop Falk has been a bad boy and is divulging confidential information here; namely, the part in parentheses). But their Primate, John Hepworth, might be making his own comments as early as today. We are also expecting a separate C.D.F. document on the TAC as early as ... today. It might come on Monday. Whatever.

On his first answer, we have dealt with that q. here on this blog before. The rules for admitting future married men as seminarists and priests will be complementary with but not necessarily identical to current norms about this for the Latin Church. Since the new norms have not been devised yet, we simply don't know how difficult it would be for married candidates to be ordained. In essence, Rome has said that there will be SOME process but is postponing decisions about how difficult it will be. This gives Rome the power to open or close the valve in accordance with convenience and it enables Rome to reduce the flow if need be in order to protect celibacy in the Latin Church.

The second answer is very positive. It reveals that Rome is granting a general exemption from Art. 9, Sect. 1 of the Complementary Norms, but only, I think, for the current crop of TAC clerics. This is crucial because a fairly large per centage of them were once Catholic and subsequently converted to (or back to, in some cases), Anglicanism.

The answer to the last q. suggests to me that the TAC must be about to get a SEPARATE deal and a separate network of personal ordinariates. How else could its current prelates and members maintain control of existing property? They could not. This is extremely good news because the TAC people are reliably Catholic, whereas the true character of many of the other incomers is extremely questionable.

Please note, everyone, that because the new structures are personal rather than primarily territorial, the territories can be overlapping. There is nothing to stop Rome from erecting three such ordinariates to cover the same or about the same territory. They could erect one for the TAC in England, three for the FiF in the same territory, and another one or two for some other incoming group. Naturally, the tendency will be to have just one for all incomers in an area. But I'm guessing that the TAC is being given an exemption from this general rule so that all its structures can come in together. I'm also wondering if the TAC ordinariates will be associated in some way in law. We shall see.

If the TAC is getting separate arrangements, that also suggests that it will not be put under any future ordinariates for Forward in Faith in England, should the latter wish to cross the Tiber in February.

It is also great news that more qq. can be sent, so I've sent some along.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Three historical facts about the 1st attempt, called the "Pastoral Provision" (1980) :

1. it was negociated then already by CDF
2. It took a long time to come to a complete status : negociations began in 1977, the Provision was approved in 1980 and the Liturgical books in 1983. So a 6 year process.
3. Surprise (to me) : a certain William Levada was then secretary for the English language of ... cardinal Seper, prefect of CDF.
So the now cardinal Levada had already been involved in the 1st round of negociations to help some US Episcopalians into the Church.

There are only 7 personal parishes in the USA under the Pastoral Provision and Abp Myers is the Episcopal delegate in charge with the local bishops.
"Anglicanorum coetibus" represents obviously a big step further, something the 1980 CDF was not ready to grant.

Alsaticus

Anonymous said...

On Alsaticus's comments:

At its greatest extent, the Anglican Use comprised 10 parishes but two or three reverted to Anglican or dissolved or whatever. Most of the existing 7 are in Texas. It is almost confined to Texas.

There are perhaps two chaplaincies as well, one, I believe, in the Boston area and one in L.A.

Before the pastoral provision, there was also the unusual case of the Anglican Diocese of Amritsar, in India, becoming Catholic but retaining some Anglican liturgy. I know very little about that.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Chiralcapers:

No, there is provision for bringing in new married candidates to the seminaries. However, the provisions for this have not been established yet and Rome will have the power to restrict or loosen the regulations so as to protect the tradition of celibacy in the Latin Church.

P.K.T.P.

quirinus said...

The Apostolic Constitution clearly says that as far as married seminarians and clergy are concerned, the NORMS of Sacerdotalis Caelibatus and CDF's statement "In June" will apply. That excludes that married seminarians and clergy will be allowed "indefinitely":

SACRED CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Statement in June, 1980, on behalf of some clergy and laity formerly or actually belonging to the Episcopal (Anglican) Church for full communion with the Catholic Church, 1 april 1981: Osservatore Romano - weekly ed. in English - Apr. 6th, 1981, p. 2.

[...]In accepting former Episcopalian clergy who are married into the Catholic priesthood, the Holy See has specified that this exception to the rule of celibacy is granted in favor of these individual persons, and should not be understood as implying any change in the Church’s conviction of the value of priestly celibacy, which will remain the rule for future candidates for the priesthood from this group.

Anonymous said...

Interestingly, former Roman Catholic priests who got married and therefore were obliged to leave the church may re-enter the Church through one of these Anglican Ordinates - and not only enter as laymen but also as priests despite the fact that they were married. And certainly in any case if such a former Roman Catholic priest who leaft and got married but who later became Anglican may reenter the Church through an Anglican Ord. as is the case of Archbishop Heyward - the TAC Primate.

Anonymous said...

To P.K.T.P. : could you elaborate ?

"The answer to the last q. suggests to me that the TAC must be about to get a SEPARATE deal and a separate network of personal ordinariates. How else could its current prelates and members maintain control of existing property? They could not."

a) Separate from what ? from Anglicanorum coetibus ?
Do you expect a second Constitution for TAC only ? That would be consistent with the odd statement of cardinal Kasper but it seems very, vey UNlikely to me.

b) if TAC is the main part of Anglicans joining Rome, as it is likely due to the cold feet of FiF, why would they lose control on their present chapels ?
Former TAC priests/bishops are to be appointed Ordinaries under Anglicanorum coetibus, so where are they losing anything ?

The only way they could lose, in some ways, a part of their control would be a flood of FiF clergy running from the Anglican "Communion" to the new Ordinariates and Rome appointing them, en masse, Ordinaries and members of the Governing councils. This could lead to a worldwide hold-up of FiF upon TAC chapels ...
Even in this case, why should Rome be unable to have several ordinariates in a country, one around TAC chapels, one with supposedly thousands of converts from FiF who would have to find their own parking places, apartments and former methodist chapels to celebrate Mass ?

The material question is only for FiF not for the already independent T.A.C., in my humble opinion.

Alsaticus

rev'd up said...

Mr. Perkins: "wondering if Archbishop Falk has been a bad boy and is divulging confidential information here[?]"

This is a fair question. However, from what I know of Bishop Falk, he is a very sagacious man, very hard to provoke and gifted with an amazing memory; I find it nearly impossible to believe he would publish something (especially electronically) that had not been expressly granted permitted.

Unlike me, he is not known to shoot-off his mouth!

Anonymous said...

(Some already have, such as: Question: Will we be able to continue to have married priests indefinitely? Answer: Yes. Question: Will those of us who were formerly Roman Catholics be excluded from the Anglican Ordinariates? Answer: No. Question: Will we lose control over our Church finances and property? Answer: No.) "

These so-called answers are misleading, because both the Pope's Apostolic letter, and the clarifications by Cardinal Levada say the opposite as to what these TAC people say regarding "married priests".
They WILL NOT have married priests indefinitly. According the Pope, as well as Cardinal Levada, future seminarians (if there are any) who wish to be associated to the TAC group will be celibate, and be educated alongside the Latin Rite seminarians in seminary. Also they can found their own seminary....for celibate seminarians. Those people who wish to be seminarians and are already married will be REVIEWED on an individual basis. No seminarians will be permitted to marry during seminary training, nor after.
Also, on the second point....former Roman Catholic priests who are now TAC members are not barred from being a member of any new Ordinariate, but THEY ARE BARRED from functioning as priests.

Seems to me that these so-called "Archbishops" "Bishops" or whatever of the TAC ---who will now be just priests (not Bishops), want everything their way. They are spinning the decrees in a light most favorable to Anglicanism and it's former traditions....which is a false interpretation.

I knew all along, that they would try to pull this kind of thing.
Too bad Rome isn't strong enough to concretely draw the line, lay down the law, and state what is....and what IS NOT allowed for.

Anonymous said...

"
A continuation of married priests? I wonder what this will bode for the Roman Church? I'm not intirely against married clergy (after all, married Eastern Catholic priests do exist), but I wonder what effects this would have for us Romans given that many of us are ignorant of the fact of married Catholic clergy.
"

I AM. This would all but turn us into Protestants....after all, that's what the Novus Ordo is 95%.

If they allowed for married Latin Rite Catholic priests, I would quit the Church in 2 seconds. And I would hope like groups like the SSPX would too, and set themselves up as a substitute Roman Catholic Church, but this time...with a substitute POPE as well.

Anonymous said...

There's been too much speculation about these Anglicans, as if it's a wonderful and tremendous benefit for the Catholic Church.....which it isn't.

There are far more pressing problems for the Pope to deal with than to please these Anglican malcontents. The Mass and liturgy, the formation of priests, the corruption of religious life in Orders, especially of liberal Nuns, radical ecumenism, dissent, etc.

The issue of the Anglicans should be at the bottom of the "to do" list.

My reaction to these Anglicans and their religious traditions....
UGH!

Athelstane said...

Makes you wonder just how many Anglican use parishes there would be today if Anglicanorum coetibus had been issued in 1980. Or how big they would be; they also might have provided a life raft of liturgical sanity in many places where the traditional mass was not available.

Well - can't change the past.

Since the TAC is clearly "ready to go" - they don't even have to resolve foodfights over their property - it seems to make sense they are being fast tracked now with what seem to be effectively their own ordinariates, as Mr. Perkins suggests.

Oliver said...

My fear about allowing priests to marry is that so many of them will be tempted to marry each other! And with secular authority now insisting on this choice of legal partnership, how can it be refused? Secular law may in time outlaw enforced celebacy as well.

Jordanes said...

Anonymous 14:14 has already left the Catholic Church in his heart.

Anonymous said...

"My fear about allowing priests to marry is that so many of them will be tempted to marry each other! And with secular authority now insisting on this choice of legal partnership, how can it be refused? Secular law may in time outlaw enforced celebacy as well."

LOL!!!! But seriously speaking I'm afraid you may be right, especially when considering the intrusiveness of anticatholic states.

Anonymous said...

"Interestingly, former Roman Catholic priests who got married and therefore were obliged to leave the church may re-enter the Church through one of these Anglican Ordinates - and not only enter as laymen but also as priests despite the fact that they were married. "


THIS IS NOT TRUE. Any former Roman Catholic priests, who quit to join the Anglican/Episcopal "churches",functioned as Anglican/Episcopal clergy and now suddenly want to re-join the Catholic Church under the Apostolic Constitution guidelines MAY NOT (and it's in there quite clearly), MAY NOT function as clergy. They are reduced to laymen.

I love how some of some people who are so enraptured by these Anglicans are trying to spin the agreements to the most favorable way in favor of the Anglicans and their so called "traditions".

I wish the conversion process was the way it was in the pre-Vatican II days, when the Protestant party was forced to swear and renounce their former "church" and it's errors.When they came thru the door as Catholics, they left everything Protestant behind.

At least the old Catholic way wasn't like the Orthodox, who when recieving converts had them literally spit on the books , tracts, and bibles of their former "church".

Anonymous said...

Here's something interesting.

I'm presently reading Frank Sheed's "The Church and I" published in 1974. In it he tells of a biography recently published of Dom Beauduin, a leader of the Belgian underground in WW1. He says that the Roman archives on him remain closed because of his work for Reunion with the Anglicans. Beauduin saw reunion not as submission of the "other Churches" to, or their absorption by, Rome, but as a voluntary union "with each keeping its own traditions, ethos and jurisdiction."

We've come a long way.

Delphina

Anonymous said...

Quirinus is quoting selectively (but not deliberately). I don't have the time to revisit all the documents at the moment but this has already been discussed in detail on this blog. Anglicanorum Cœtibus says that norms for allowing married candidates into Catholic seminaries for the ordinariates will be COMPATIBLE WITH, not identical to, those already in place for admitting already-married and already-'ordained' Anglican clergy crossing as individuals. It then goes on to say that such norms will be devised by the ordinariates themselves in consultation with the respective episcopal conferences and must then be approved by the Holy See. Hence what quirinus is claiming here is NOT TRUE. I'm not saying that he's lying; quite the opposite. But he's got it wrong. I have already found these facts on a previous thread regarding Anglicanorum Cœtibus. I absolutely refuse to re-read my own posts and explain it all over again. Go back to that thread, posted recently on this blog, and I proved the entire case on this.

The norms for this have not yet been devised, so we can't comment on what hasn't been written. What we can say is that they needn't be identical to norms already existing in the case of already-married adn already-'ordained' Anglican clergy coming across as individuals.

The important point is that any norms agreed to by the ordinariates *must be* approved by Rome. Rome has the final say on this. So Rome can allow stricter or looser conditions in order, for example, to protect celibacy in the Latin Church.

Secondly, it is now clear that the TAC is about to be given a whole set of exemptions to Anglicanorum Cœtibus in a separate document, one which is now imminent. Let's wait to see if it comments on this. If we look at what Falk is saying, it would appear that the TAC bishops already have a draft copy of that Roman document. How else could he be answering these questions? So I am assuming that Rome has agreed, at least in the case of the TAC, to bring in married clergy indefinitely into the future. However, the conditions might be quite restrictive. We don't know yet.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Alsaticus asks:

"a) Separate from what ? from Anglicanorum coetibus ?
Do you expect a second Constitution for TAC only ? That would be consistent with the odd statement of cardinal Kasper but it seems very, vey UNlikely to me."

Separate from what? Separate from other ordinariates occupying at least some of the same territory. I think that the TAC will likely get its own set of ordinariates, each ordinariate corresponding to its present national and regiional churches. That way, it will control its own property; that is, none of its present real estate will be under the control of some incoming Anglicans who are not presently TAC members.

No, there is no need for a separate apostolic constitution. That's the beauty of the present one: personal ordinariates are not primarily territorial, and more than one of them can occupy all or part of the same territory (See Art. 1., Sect. 1).

The TAC is about to get a separate document. It will likely be a set of exemptions and exceptions to the provisions of Anglicanorum Cœtibus and not a separate apostolic constitution.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Alsaticus asks:

"b) if TAC is the main part of Anglicans joining Rome, as it is likely due to the cold feet of FiF, why would they lose control on their present chapels ?
Former TAC priests/bishops are to be appointed Ordinaries under Anglicanorum coetibus, so where are they losing anything ? "

No, no, comments by both Castrillón Hoyos and by Kasper suggest that a number of other Anglican bishops and 'churches' have asked for corporate entry. We have no idea at what stage their applications are or even who they are. Rome has never identified them. Some of them might get ordinariates even before the TAC does, and I am not referring to FiF. There are scores of conservative Anglican splinter-groups out there.

Alsaticus asks a very good question, though. I think that

(a) Rome will bring aboard the TAC in a set of its ordinariates corresponding roughly to its current national and regional churches. Rome will approve a set of exceptions to Anglicanorum Cœtibus because the educational and some other norms there would exclude up to two-thirds of present TAC clergy.

(b) In a completely separate deal, and perhaps with a different but similar set of exceptions, Rome will grant three ordinariates to the FiF in England, each corresponding to a present Forward in Faith diocese.

This means that the tiny TAC church in England will be governed by its current prelates and not by the FiF prelates. The TAC and FiF will exist in overlapping territory in the case of England. This assumes, of course, that FiF will cross the Tiber in February, which is looking more and more likelly now that the Church of England has recently rejected even minimum protection for it.

Rome will then make separate deals with some of OTHER incoming Anglicans but can always tell some groups that they must join the structurs already erected for the TAC or, in the case of England, the FiF or the TAC. This is a great way for Rome to control the nutty cases. You know, the 'bishop' consecrated by three different lines of lunatics and his tiny band of followers from 999 Queen Street (a Canadian, no, Torontonian joke).

It means that, in future, if a serious and well-organised Anglican group applied for entry, it can get a deal similar to that of the TAC. On the other hand, there will be a tendency for Rome to put later incomers under the existing TAC structures. But this is flexible: Rome can make exceptions when need be.

This is why the conditions under Anglicanorum Cœtibus are so restrictive. It's the old trick: first, you write conditions no applicant can meet. Then you make exceptions for those you really prefer to include. It is a diplomatic way for Rome to maintain control at the entry point.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 14:14, I suggest hyperventilation, relaxation, and then a cup of tea. You are not thinking like a Catholic. Look, we already have married priests in the Eastern Catholic churches, so this is not a reason for 'leaving'. Secondly, we already have married former Protestant priests and not only from Anglicanism. So why haven't you left over that?

Thirdly, indications so far are that Rome will use the very flexible provisions of "Anglicanorum Cœtibus", which she can also amend, to control the situation and protect celibacy.

I think that, on the contrary, Benedict XVI has in mind something completely different. He can gradually increase the number of married priests. Then, in order to 'save' the celibate norm in the Latin Chruch, he can insist that 'the sacrifice must be made: the only way to save celibacy is to weed out all the sexual inverts'! We have no choice, ladies and gentlemen. We shall have to submit all new candidates to polygraphy and psychological testing to exclude as many sodomites as possible ....

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I agree with Anon. 18:06. The norms of "Anglicanorum Cœtibus" which do indeed at least contemplate future married priests in the ordinariates DO NOT allow former Catholics to enter through the Anglican door. The new apostolic constitution makes this very clear. It would appear, however, than an excpetion is about to be made in the case of TAC clergy who were once Catholic, but ONLY as a special exception for existing TAC clergy. In other words, that door will not be open in general. Rome has been very careful not to allow Latin faithful to have their cake and eat it by marrying and converting to Anglican and then re-converting to Catholic and then coming back through these ordinariates. Rome is not stupid; she is not about to be fooled by schemers.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 14:17:

Ugh?

I'm sorry that you express little evidence of charity and less of imagination.

The notion that these Anglicatholic provisions have in any way distracted the Holy See is preposterous. TAC wrote its letter of submission to Rome more than TWO YEARS ago. It took Rome two years just to answer the letter. Let it go, boyo.

The TACers are like the Anglican equivalent of the S.S.P.X. Bringing in 400,000 of them means the entry of 400,000 traditioalists who think that even the thought of a homo act makes one a beast. What effect will they have? They will be allies and friends to Latin traditionalists, share some of their premises, and support our guys. I am convinced that, over time, some of them will morph into McFarland clones. (Hmm. Perhaps this is not such a good idea after all.) Don't kick a gift horse in the mouth!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 14.09, getting it wrong as usual, reveals in his own words where he deviates:

"Those people who wish to be seminarians and are already married will be REVIEWED on an individual basis."

If he would read the document thoroughly, as already explained on a previous thread here, the norms to be devised for such reviews are NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT to be necessarily identical to those already existing for individual Anglican ministers crossing the Tiber. Each ordinariate may draw up its OWN norms in consultation with the episcopal conference concerned and these must be approved by the Holy See. The norms to be devised must be COMPATIBLE WITH but need NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT be idenical to the existing norms. Before shooting off your anonymous mouth, why don't you READ Article 6, Section 1 of the Complementary Norms!

I suggest that this anonymous blogger, who could be anyone, including Cardinal Kasper, get his facts straight.

The situation is this: Anglicanorm Cœtibus DOES provide for an indefinite addition of married men to the seminaries. However, Rome has the final say on how restrictive the conditions will be in such cases. Rome could gradually phase out married candidates or she could gradully phase them in. Anglicanorum Cœtibus allows for possibilties but postpones decisions on this.

I suggest a very careful reading of A.C. will also show that this Anon. has it wrong on seminaries as well. Read the provisions VERY carefully. While they do enjoin formation in Roman seminaries at least for some of the training, they do not, in fact, require it. Note, for instance, the reference in Article 10, Sect. 2, to training with "other seminarians". But look at the subject in the sentence! It merely means that ordinariate candidates for priestly ordination must be trained with other seminarians. These could be other ordinariate seminarians or they could be non-ordinariate candidates training in a seminary run by the ordinariates (but under agreement with the local bishop)! The issue is mostly moot at this point because the TAC lacks the seminaries and/or staff for a full Roman programme of studies.

But read this Section again VERY carefully. The apparent meaning is that ordinariate candidates should (not must: see VI.5) receive some training with other candidates at a diocesan seminary. But it need not be a diocesan seminary at all. It could be an ordinariate seminary at which non-ordinariate candidates were welcome to train with them!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Thanks from Rev'd Up on Abp. Falk. I know nothing about him but this news is very good. We can infer from Apb. Falk's statement that it is Rome which has already answered those four questions and, that, yet again, the TAC is about to get a package of exceptions to "Anglicanorum Cœtibus". Really, this is necessary since the about two-thirds of TAC clergy do not qualify to be Catholic priests under the educational requirements mentioned in footnote 14 of Art. VI, Sect. 1. I refer esp. to Canon 1032.

According to one TAC priest I've consulted, Apb. Hepworth's period of silence ends today (yesterday by Australian time). So the moderators will want to keep their eyes peeled.

P.K.T.P.

The Anglo-Catholic said...

Several observations:

1. There will not be anything akin to a second apostolic constitution for the Traditional Anglican Communion. There will be supplementary norms and statutes for the TAC ordinariates, but these will accord with the general outlines of Anglicanorum Coetibus and its Complementary Norms.

2. A communication from the CDF to all of the TAC bishops is expected in the coming days, but this might be simply an acknowledgment on the part of the Holy See to the 'Portsmouth Letter' of October 2007. There is no reason to assume that it will contain anything earth-shattering (though this is, of course, a possibility).

3. While there is ongoing communication between the parties, the release of the AC and CNs have left the TAC bishops with a number of unanswered questions (obviously) and very soon there will be a meeting between TAC representatives and officials of the CDF. After this occurs, expect the picture to be a lot clearer.

4. I would not presume that the property issue hinges on TAC-only ordinariates (though we fully expect them). There is no reason to assume that, at least initially, individual congregations would be required to sign over their property to the P.O.s. In fact, congregational ownership of properties in the short term has been an assumption from the very beginning. With so many TAC congregations having been born in disputes with "church authorities," this is a sensitive issue with our people and Rome realizes this.

5. In tying the exemption from the requirement of clerical celibacy to the "needs" of the ordinariates, the Complementary Norms already make adequate provision for a native married clergy in the future. The simple fact of the matter is that, for the foreseeable future, our communities will likely produce few celibate vocations to the priesthood. This will no doubt increase over time, but the "needs" of the ordinariates will require accommodation for married seminarians and ordinands.

And (hint, hint) expect interesting announcements from The Anglo-Catholic in the coming days.

dcs said...

There are seven pastoral provision "parishes" but it looks like only three of them are canonical parishes:

http://www.pastoralprovision.org/Parishes.html

I thought there was a personal parish in one of the Carolinas but I don't know what happened to it.

Anonymous said...

PKTP,

Which Pastoral Provision parishes reverted to Anglicanism?

AnonymousX :-)

Anonymous said...

dcs:

It was in S.C. I recall that it was the Church of the Good Shepherd. At Columbia? I think that it reverted or something. They had as many as ten parishes at one time, perhaps around 1995.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Just one little ol' note. Once in the door, the priests of the new ordinariates will be allowed to celebrate the T.L.M. IN THE LATIN TONGUE (vide Article III of "Anglicanorm Cœtibus" and cf. Articles 1, 2, 4, 5.1 and 5.5, but esp. Art. 1, the full meaning of which is a hidden bombshell yet to be explo-- , I mean, interpreted; also read Canon 928: EVERY Latin Rite priest has a right to celebrate in Latin, whether using the 1962 or 1970 Missals [cf. S.P. preamble] and these new priests are Latin priests!).

Technically, at least, the new personal ordinariates will be 'free ranging' dioceses, equivalent in power to dioceses and juridically independent of them. At least in law, the new structures can be a free-ranging source of T.L.M.s, completely beyond the control of the local Latin Mahonys. For example, in law, there would be nothing to stop an American Anglicatholic ordinary from setting up one of his churches across the street from the Taj Mahony and offering the Traditional Latin Mass. And there would not be one bloody thing that that heretic, Cardinal Baloney, could do about it.

Of course, diocesan power is more than legal power, and the local bishops will use their *financial* resources to control the new boys on the block. Anglicatholic ordinaries will deperately need the use of Latin churches for their Masses and the Latin bishops will use that need to control them. But how can a Latin bishop complain when an Anglicatholic bishop 'helps' him fulfil his DUTY under Article 1 of S.P: "the [T.L.M.] ***must*** [emphasis added[ be given due honour for its venerable and ancient usage. How do you think Rome will interprest that?! Methinks the clarification of S.P. is acoming. Poor Daneels! Poor Baloney!

Also, as far as I can see in law, the personal ordinary for, say, Canada, could invite the F.S.S.P. to use several of his churches to celebrate Traditional Latin Masses. The TAC has churches, for instance, in Thunder Bay, Calgary, Oshawa (near Toronto), Halifax (where there is NO T.L.M.), &c.

The F.S.S.P. and I.C.R. are just as free to accept invitations from Anglicatholic personal ordinaries as they are from local bishops. Think about it, gents, because a p.o. is equivalent in law to a diocese and, if its priests are free to celebrate the T.L.M., they are obviously free to invite the F.S.S.P. to do so at their churches. Also, they have jurisdiction throughout whole countries. I don't see why they couldn't invite the F.S.S.P. to build its own churches under their auspices. This cannot be done in the case of Eastern Catholic churches because there is, according to Benedict XVI, a difference of Rite!

Hmm, Jordanes, despite my opinion on the matter of a Traditional Rite of Mass, I can see an advantage of having it as only a form of Mass in law!!!!!

Hat tip to Jordanes for this one!!!

!!!!!!


Now, Alsaticus, there must be some Colonel Mustard type irritating English tourists living at Reims, in St. Denis (Paris), um, Cambrai, let's see .... I'm just kidding, really. This is mainly work in Anglo countries and in former British colonies such as Zambia and India.

P.K.T.P.

Romanus said...

Not one Catholic priest who became Anglican will be received back as a priest. Married or not.

Anonymous said...

P.K.T.P., part II:

3. The one that concerns me is I.1 of A.C., since I don't care much about the vocational problems of TAC clergy (I should but I don't: call me a bad person) but I am absolutely obsessed about territory. Under I.1 of A.C., there may be a way to have an ordinariate include territory beyond that of an episcopal conference but a semantic excpetion is not necessarily a legal one. Lawyers look to the intent of the legislator, not to the sort of semantic tricks English professors are fond of.

Also consider the clause in C.N. 12.5. How on earth can there be elections among ordinariate clergy when there are only two or three or even four of them, one of whom is excluded, since he's the ordinary? Yes, it's true that the members of the governing councils don't have to be ordinariate clergy but the electors do.

The TAC in Japan has only one bishop and two or three priests. Can two priests elect governors? How would they break tie votes? Obviously, there must be an exemption and no governing council or else he can just appoint three clergy (including some from the dioceses). The other way would be to make Japan a vicariate in the Australian ordinariate, but that apparently violates the norm of I.1 of A.C.

The TAC is similar in extent of personnel in the Congo, Ireland (three priests total), and Central Aemrica & Mexico (one bishop and four priests). While I don't know for sure, I'd expect the same in the following TAC churches: Kenya, Mozambique, the Cameroon, and Puerto Rico (which might get absorbed in an another American ordinariate). Then there are the three TAC chaplaincies lying outside TAC churches, one each for Normandy, Switzerland, and Chile.

New Zealand is currently a deanery in the Australian TAC church. Is this permitted under I.1? I don't think that the legislator intended that.

These territorial qq. are what keep me from sleeping at night. I couldn't care less about their clerymen's future, even though I should. i worry non-stop about New Zealand, Japan, and so forth. The supplementary norms will have to deal with this. N.Z. has one parish on North Island, one on South Island, one priest for each, plus one deacon on North Island. But there are also laics in both parishes.

P.K.T.P.

P.S. I had to re-compose this after I hit a wrong key and wiped out my text! How does one restore wiped out text? Alt + what?

Anonymous said...

Anglo-Catholic (soon to be Anglicatholic?) writes:

2. A communication from the CDF to all of the TAC bishops is expected in the coming days, but this might be simply an acknowledgment on the part of the Holy See to the 'Portsmouth Letter' of October 2007. There is no reason to assume that it will contain anything earth-shattering (though this is, of course, a possibility).


I concur with this but it is incomplete. Apparently, once the C.D.F. delivers its response to the TAC letter of 2007, Archbishop Hepworth will make an important announcmeent. He was apparently asked to keep silent until that time. According to my sources, Hepworth plans to end his silence on Friday, 27th November. That's today for only a few more hours and it is yesterday in Australian time. So something should be imminent.

Judging from the remarks of Archbishop Falk, we can infer that the C.D.F. has been answering his questions or, more likely, some TAC bishops have a copy of a draft of the supplementary norms to come. These will be for the TAC alone.

The supplementary norms will likely deal with at least the following problems concerning "Anglicanorum Cœtibus" (A.C.) and its Complementary Norms (C.N.s) by granting general exemptions or dispensations:

1. An exemption for existing TAC clergy for the educational and some other formational requirements mentioned in VI.1 of A.C., especially indirectly by footnote 14. I refer especially to Canon 1032.1:
"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". Without an exemption from that, two-thirds of the TAC clerics are out. Most of them only get three years' training, I believe. Anyway, it isn't our training by our system. So this would admit only those who once received Catholic orders.

2. For existing TAC clergy and seminarists, an exemption will be needed from 6.1 of the C.N.s. This was put there, obviously, for future situations. It says those incomers who were at one time Catholic cannot be incardinated in the ordinariates. Rev'd Up found a parachute clause in the next section but this was obviously put there for special cases, again, in the future. A general exemption is needed here.

TO BE CONTINUED ....

Anonymous said...

Anon. asked:

"Which Pastoral Provision parishes reverted to Anglicanism?"

I don't know. I kept track of them once, some years ago. Perhaps none of them reverted but I think that one or two did.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Romanus, back from his personal parishes days, writes this:

"Not one Catholic priest who became Anglican will be received back as a priest. Married or not."

Well, I salute Romanus for once because he has dared to make a direct statement on this knowing full well that it is about to be tested.

Soon, we shall see. If he's right, Hepworth himself, their Primate, will only be able to return as a deacon or a laic. I presume that it would be as a laic. In fact, without an annulment for his first contract of marriage, I can't see how he can be received at all.

While I don't know the number, I'm told by my contacts that a certain per centage of TAC clergy are former Catholic priests. It would be curtains for them too. In fact, I can think of cases off the top of my head.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

It has just occurred to me that Romanus has appaently contradicted Abp. Falk of the TAC. Much as I dislike Romanus over his advocacy of the completely inflexible p.p. structure, I must admire him for directly contradicting a man who is apparently delivering answers given by the C.D.F. You certainly can't call Romanus a coward.

Fine, then. Soon we shall see who is right. Just to assist other bloggers here, Falk has said this:

"Some already have [posed qq. to the C.D.F.], such as: ... Question: Will those of us who were formerly Roman Catholics be excluded from the Anglican Ordinariates? Answer: No."

Romanus: "Not one Catholic priest who became Anglican will be received back as a priest. Married or not."


Now these two statements are not in direct contradition, since Falk's technically could refer to former Catholic laics being received as laics in the ordinariates. But that is clearly not what was meant here. Obviously, Falk was posing and reporting an answer in reference to Article 6.2 of the Complementary Norms, which, as a norm, bans former Catholic priests who converted or reverted to Anglicanism from serving in the ordinariates as priests. This is obviuos because there would be no good reason for him to intend a broader meaning.

The die is cast. Again, I admire Romanus for his courage. But trust me: if he's wrong, he will be thanking God he has not released his real name to this blog! If he's wrong on such a bold pronouncment, we can dismiss everything he claims from this point on.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Don't regard the comments by Bishops of the TAC as those of all the members of that group.

Second, conversion is a radical change, which excludes in principle the concepts of dialogue and negotiation.

If there is the grace of God in this affair, we will see conversions: otherwise it is best not to delude carnal men and let them be...

Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Anonymous said...

Br. Alexis wrote:

"Second, conversion is a radical change, which excludes in principle the concepts of dialogue and negotiation."

If we are discussing negotiation over doctrine then, yes, I entirely agree. If we mean that a group of converts is trying to ask the Pope for things the Pope has not seen fit to grant then, yes, I agree again. But I cannot see how it is impermissible for the TAC to negotiate regarding practical matters, and I believe that this is what the TAC bishops intend to do next month, and at the invitation of the Holy See.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

To the anon. who does not seem to like married clergy, I offer the following doggerel in the spirit of Rev'd Up:


I hate married priests!

I disapprove of sex!

As a spiritual director,

I really love to vex

young seminarians

with ice-cold showers:

an effective restraint upon

their generative powers!




I hate married priests!

Their filthy hands are vile

with which they hold Christ’s body

no doubt thinking, all the while,

of carnal, sinful pleasure

instead of meditation

- whilst taking communion -

on the mysteries of salvation.



I hate married priests!

I tell my seminarians

that married priests are worse by far

than modernists or Arians!

They live in unrepentant sin:

less dangerous to salvation

- just ask Saint Peter Damian -

is priestly fornication!



I hate married priests!

I sing paeons to virginity

As for continence in marriage,

well, I praise it to infinity!

I tirelessly urge young boys and girls

To imitate Saint Mary

and St Joseph in their sexless love

- a prospect most find scary.


I hate married priests!

their vile hands are filthy

from caressing women's bodies!

These criminals are guilty

of the foulest sins and vice!

of sacrilege and scandal!

I’d love to see their backsides booted

with the papal sandal!

rev'd up said...

Anonymous 11:31

Bravo! Bravo!

(It almost fits to G&S's Modern Major General; or perhaps the old English folk ditty "I have a very scolding wife...she warms me with the frying pan around the room at night." Did you have a tune in mind?)

Mar said...

Re Anonymous 18:11,

It is a barometer of the disposition of the heart what serious and sacred matters one is willing to joke about and to what extent.

Catholics have from time immemorial held things like virginity, chastity, purity and
modesty in the very highest esteem and have revered saints who heroically lived out these virtues in their lives.

Titles such as the 'lily of chastity' have been applied to Jesus and have been welcomed by Catholics with love and sincerity, in contrast to those who would
mock such titles in a snide and cynical fashion.

For someone to poke fun at the virginity, chastity, purity and modesty of Our Lady and St. Joseph and to mock those Catholics who with sincerity and seriousness
defend those ideals is to manifest a woeful ignorance about which things are dear and precious to the Catholic heart. Needless to say someone like that does not
come close to beginning to understand exactly why such things are held to be so dear and precious.

There is plenty anecdotal evidence around concerning those who will readily poke fun at that which is most sacred and serious but will never joke about money or sport.

This is the first time I have had serious misgivings about the recent moves by the Holy Father to bring Anglicans into the Catholic Church.

Anonymous said...

Mar,

What you've failed to understand is that Jansenism is the thing being satirised.

That you don't recognise that speaks volumes.

rev'd up said...

Mar, I for one didn't read Anonymous' lyric as an attack on virginity, piety, chastity, continancy and the like. It's intent, I believe, was through satire to laud these things. The underlying message is that the Christian marriage bed is undefiled, be the man cleric or laic. Unfortunately, there are those like yourself who seem to nurse a grudge against godly marriage where, yes indeed, please don't be shocked, man and wife strip and make sport. Lilies are a good image: "Thy two breasts like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies. Till the day break and the shadows retire, I will go to the mountain of myrrh and to the hill of frankincense. Thou art fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in thee. Come from Libanus, my spouse, come from Libanus, come." Canticle iv.5ff.

Anonymous said...

"What you've failed to understand is that Jansenism is the thing being satirised."

Had bishop Jansen really been disapproving sex, even in the marriage?

Mar said...

Silly me! How could I miss the hermeneutic of continuity between mocking Our Lady, St. Joseph, other saints and those who work to uphold sexual morality in the Church on the one hand and satirising Jansenism on the other?

Jordanes said...

Mar has clearly misconstrued entirely the message of Anonymous' verses mocking those who hate married priests -- the repeated line, "I hate married priests," ought to have given him an obvious clue about the point of the verses. They contain absolutely no "mocking Our Lady, St. Joseph, other saints and those who work to uphold sexual morality in the Church," only mocking of those who hate married priests.

Still, Mar has given no cause to believe he "nurse(s) a grudge against godly marriage." Let's remember that, while marriage is a holy sacrament and marital union a gift, nevertheless the Church has always upheld consecrated virginity as even more noble.

Let's also keep in mind the dignity and purpose of the Lord's Day, particularly this First Sunday of Advent. Marriage is good, but it is the spirit rather than the flesh that ought to occupy our thoughts at this time. No further disquisitions on the literal sense of the Canticle of Canticles today, please.

Indeed, let's drop this line of debate about Anonymous' verses altogether.

Steve Cavanaugh said...

It's only a tangent in this run of commentaries, but here are the Anglican Use parishes of the USA:
1. St. Athanasius, Boston, MA (quasi-parish);
2. St. Thomas More, Scranton, PA (a society, not a parish);
3. Our Lady of Good Hope, Kansas City, MO (a society, not a parish);
4. Good Shepherd, Charleston, SC (a parish, but does not use the AU liturgy);
5. Our Lady of the Atonement, San Antonio, TX (parish);
6. St. Mary the Virgin, Arlington, TX (parish);
7. Our Lady of Walsingham, Houston, TX (parish);
8. St. Anslem, Corpus Christi, TX (mission);
9. St. Paul's, Phoenix, AZ (a society at present, in formation);
10. All Saints Sisters of the Poor, Catonsville, MD (religious order, not a parish).

There were parishes in Nevada and Georgia, but these have closed. There are approximately 100 priests who have been ordained through the Pastoral Provision.

http://www.pastoralprovision.org
http://www.anglicanuse.org

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Mr. Cavanaugh. Yes, I do recall that there was once an A.U. parish in Nevada. I'm sorry to hear that it's closed. Two of them have closed and they only currently have four parishes and one quasi-parish.

I suppose that the A.U. has had some value as an early preparation for what we are now seeing, particularly as the Book of Divine Worship is about to become widely available. I'm not sure how good that is.

I'm told that the 1921 Anglican Missal is now available again but this time in paperback. I'm hoping that Rome will approve it. It provides a Mass which is vastly superior to that of the B.D.W.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

More TAC news:

This has been around for a few days but I didn't really know what to make of it.

Apparently, the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales have formed a Commission of three prelates, whom they've named (Longley is one of them) to provide advice to the incoming Anglicans of the TAC in England and Wales and to the C.D.F. on how to draw up supplementary norms and statutues. From what I can make out, the commission will really be mostly consultative since this matter falls into the purview of the Holy See.

One apparent foul-up involves Scotland. Those of us here who are fortunate enough to have Highlander recusant (Jacobite) ancestors, thereby making them superior to all the other visitors to the this blog (except for the French, who are, of course, superior to everyone), will know that, perhaps owing to the Auld Alliance, Scotland has its own separate conference of Catholic bishops.

Well, now, that poses a wee problem. The reason, again, is that foolish Section 1 of Article 1 of A.C. Apparently the ordinariates are confined to the territory of particular episcopal conferences. But the TAC member church in Great Britain covers not only England & Wales but also Scotland. So how can an ordinariate arising from it cover Scotland as well? What a foul-up!

Yes, yes, I know: it is presently a moot point, since the TAC just happens to have zero parishes and zero clergy in Scotland. But it means that, with the stroke of a pen, they lose all of Scotland, thereby limiting possible growth there (growth from zero being possible, whereas decline is not--unless we are talking about Canterbury Anglicans, who seem to have found a way to decline even from a zero).

Again this Article I.1 creates similar problems for Japan, N.Z., Ireland, Guatemala, the Congo, &c. I presume that the supplementary norms will add to the complementary norms on these problems.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

The Commission of the Catholic Bishops of England & Wales for implementing "Anglicanorum Cœtibus".

I've heard that the bishops chosen are likely to be quite favourable and are relatively conservative. They seem only to have a consultative voice and will concentrate on matters touching the duties of the English episcopate in the erection of new personal ordinariates.

The members are Archbishop Bernard Longley of Birmingham, Bishop Malcolm McMahon of Nottingham, and Bishop Alan Hopes, Auxiliary in Westminster. Longley will likely be the chairman. Hopes converted from Anglicanism when he was about 48 years old.

Incidentally, if FiF comes across in February, it could bring with it 250 parishes and 800-1,000 priests. The TAC in England has about 15 parishes and 15 priests but only two or three of its own buidlings (Portsmouth, Lincoln, and perhaps Cheltenham). It would appear that the TAC will get a separate deal from Rome and go first. It will likely get an ordinariate covering England and Wales (and perhaps Scotland).

If the FiF bishoprics come across, they would exist in the same territory as the TAC ordinariate. They have the Bishopric (not Diocese, since it is also sort of a 'personal' jurisdiction) of Fulham, led by Bishop John Broadhurst, leader of FiF; the Bishopric of Beverley, now led by Bishop Martyn Jarrett; and the Bishoporic of Ebbsfleet, led by Bishop Andrew Burnham.

The distinction between a diocese and a bishopric is like our distinction between a pontificate and a papacy (or between that of a dukedom and a duchy). At least, that's my sense of it.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

I've just been informed that the Australian Conference of Catholic Bishops has this Monday appointed Bishop Peter John Elliott, Auxiliary Bishop in Melbourne, to be the delegate for receieving Anglican ordinariates in Australia. He will be assisting individuals and groups and preparing the way. This is the second such case. In England, the Bishops have appointed three among themselves for the same end.

P.K.T.P.