Rorate Caeli

Ordinariate for Australia officially established

As reporte here since December 2011, the Holy See established today the Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross, for former Anglicans in Australia. From the Bollettino:

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, under the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus, erected the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross, in the territory of the Australian Episcopal Conference.
The Holy Father, Benedict XVI, has named as the first Ordinary of Our Lady of the Southern Cross the Rev. Fr. Harry Entwistle.

The Anglican-Catholic Personal Ordinariates can, of course, establish quasi-parishes anywhere in their assigned area without a binding permission of the local bishops, but merely hearing their opinion. That was granted to the Ordinariates by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the Complementary Norms to Anglicanorum coetibus:

Article 14 ...  §3. For the pastoral care of the faithful who live within the boundaries of a Diocese in which no personal parish has been erected, the Ordinary, having heard the opinion of the local Diocesan Bishop, can make provisions for quasi-parishes (cf. CIC, can. 516, §1).

31 comments:

Jon said...

I would imagine this to be exactly the form the Supreme Legislator will grant to the Society. Although granting it in the form of Personal Prelature won't conform precisely to Canon Law as written, I for one can't envision another. It makes perfect sense, as it acknowledges in courtesy the office of the local Ordinary, while it doesn't bind the Society to his possibly inimical opinion.

That said, I have another question on a somewhat different track, but relative to the Ordinariate news.

On June 30th, as noted in an earlier post, the Customary for the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham will be published. Among other things, it will contain "an iterim Order of Mass." Do any readers out there as yet have a hint of what form that might take? English Missal? Hierarchic Sarum? Revised NO? BDW?

Anonymous said...

Pity that something similar wasn't proposed to sspx.

Trisagion said...

The Ordinariates are established for non-Catholics, lay and clergy, to come into the Communion of the Catholic Church. They need structures that create a place for those lay people to enter, hence the quasi-diocesan structure. The SSPX is a priestly society and doesn't have lay members, although lay people attend their chapels etc. The lay people are already lay Catholics and don't need a place to land. They don't need an ordinary to be subject to, because they are already subject to the ordinaries of the places in which they live. Aside from the canon 297 point - around which I am certain sure there will be a solution - a PP is the obvious structure.

Alsaticus said...

Trisagion said...

The Ordinariates are established for non-Catholics, lay and clergy, to come into the Communion of the Catholic Church. They need structures that create a place for those lay people to enter, hence the quasi-diocesan structure. The SSPX is a priestly society and doesn't have lay members, although lay people attend their chapels etc. The lay people are already lay Catholics and don't need a place to land. They don't need an ordinary to be subject to, because they are already subject to the ordinaries of the places in which they live. Aside from the canon 297 point - around which I am certain sure there will be a solution - a PP is the obvious structure.
________________
This post is reaching a summit in nonsense missing entirely the point.

Abp Lefebvre never founded a kind of monastic society for priests searching the salvation of their own souls and who do not care about the lay people.

The Society is entirely aimed at keeping the traditional priesthood FOR the people.

So the fate of the faithful is central in the canonical status and that's why the 1982 type of personal prelature is not adequate to the aims of the Society : providing TLM and pastoral care to traditional faithful. I would say it's "obviously" NOT the appropriate structure.

However the 1982 type could be amended in order to make it easier for the SSPX to continue its mission.
Moreover what is at stake is even greater : the 1982 type of P.P. would largely freeze the present map allowing a minute growth entirely depending on the benevolence of bishops like Abp Weakland's friends or cardinal Vingt-Trois or Abp Zollitsch etc. i.e. rabid trad haters.

Such an poor canonical structure would certainly create defiance among the faithful and Society members and push more of them to follow the real schismatic course that Bps Williamson and Tissier de Mallerais seem on the verge to choose.

I really hope some amendments will be introduced to solve this crucial question into the P.P. status granted to the Society. Clerical blindness as espressed by Trisagion would lead to serious difficulties, we already knows through time with FSSP, ICR-SP and IBP.
In Paris, IBP Centre Saint-Paul has not yet a diocesan recognition after ... 6 years and the Institute, lead by a prominent ex Society priest, has been blocked nearly everywhere in France and in Latin America outside the exiting chapels in 2006 (even are still pending diocesan approval).

Wake up please.

Alsaticus

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Deo gratias! Lets pray for many Anglicans to be reconciled to the fold!

Trisagion they may well be subject to their ordinaries but they don't want to be and the religious orders and congregations affiliated to the SSPX must also be accommodated for. Moreover one cannot simply rely on the benelovence of bishops as Alsaticus rightly points out. I do suspect it will be a modified PP of some sort, heavily modified mind, but with things going the way they are going it will be years before its sorted.

Dan said...

That makes sense to me, Trisagion.

Steve said...

The rule for the ordinariate sounds equally problematic.

"Article 14 ... §3. For the pastoral care of the faithful who live within the boundaries of a Diocese in which no personal parish has been erected, the Ordinary, having heard the opinion of the local Diocesan Bishop, can make provisions for quasi-parishes (cf. CIC, can. 516, §1)."

Personal parishes are erected all over the place in every diocese. When would there ever be a case where Society faithful would live in a diocese with no parishes?

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Steve, I believe it is referring to Ordinirate personal parishes see '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.'

Athelstane said...

Fr Harry Entwistle, who was born in Chorley, Lancashire, was ordained a Catholic priest today and named as the ordinariate’s leader.

Fr Entwistle had previously served as a bishop in the TAC, a communion of traditional Anglican groups that had broken away from the worldwide Anglican Communion.

The 72-year-old priest studied at St Chad’s Theological College at Durham University and served as chaplain at Wandsworth prison in south-west London before emigrating to Australia.

He said: “Pope Benedict has made it very clear that unity between Christians is not achieved by agreeing on the lowest common denominator, and those entering an ordinariate accept the Catechism of the Catholic Church as the authoritative expression of the Catholic faith.


It's good to see the TAC finally getting a place in the ordinariate hierarchy.

OutsideObserver said...

"In Paris, IBP Centre Saint-Paul has not yet a diocesan recognition..."

In practical terms, Alsaticus, what difference will it make?

Anonymous said...

Please rememeber the FSSPX actually HAS lay members: its third order, and other traditional thir orders of it.

Also, the Traditional Carlist Communion must be considered as a part of the FSSPX.

Pious

Ora et Labora said...

"Anonymous said...
Pity that something similar wasn't proposed to sspx.

15 June, 2012 12:07"


I totally agree with you!

I am obedient and respect the Holy Father but there are some decisions he makes which I don't understand!!!



Mary Help of Christians pray for us!!!

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

'Traditional Carlist Communion'? Are you talking about the political party or movement 'los carlistas'?

P.K.T.P. said...

Athelstan:

While you are right about the TAC affiliation, it is important to note that Fr. (soon to be Msgr.) Entwistle was trained in the Canterbury Communion and was an Anglican priest (Canterburian) before he entered the TAC in Australia. I believe that he was part of Forward-in-Faith in Australia and was therefore part of the Anglican Church of Australia before he joined the TAC there. That's the bottom line: Rome will name as a superior a TACer who was once a Canterburian and was trained as such, but not a TACer who was not.

However, Rome had few candidates to choose from in this case and so it matters not a whit. This was an excellent choice which we can celebrate.

Regarding offers to the S.S.P.X: an ordinariate would not completely work for the S.S.P.X, whether personal or territorial because ordinariates, in Church law, are each confined to a particualar episcopal conference (a country or group of small countries). While personal ordinariates can have members and communities living outside their proper territories, this is only done ad hoc to the extent necessary. Hence Scots can belong to the English one; Canadians, to the American one; and the Aussie one will likely include a small community in Japan.

Rome will not create one for France for the S.S.P.X and then have all its members outside France (U.S.A., Asia, &c.) belong to it. But this does point to the fact that there are options to the p.p. I have spelled out the 'personal' diocese (ritual & international) and will detail it no further.

Despite my comments here, Athelstan is right that this is the FIRST personal ordinary who was formerly a TACer and, yes, that is a milestone in welcoming the TAC.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

Jon,

In the Campos Apostolic Adminisration, the apostolic administrator is not required to get approval from OR even inform the Bishop of Campos to establish an apostolate: the two jurisdictions are equal in law over their respective subjects. THAT is the correct solution, not an ordinariate.

I did receive information on their customary but I must run now. Later.

P.K.T.P.

John H said...

Trisagion is right, and such amendments could easily be written into the PP structure. Just because Opus Dei, for their own very different reasons, refused such amendments, it does not follow that no one else can. The fact that OD is the only PP so far is clouding the issue. PPs are better, as they are made for Bishops, not non-bishop Ordinaries.

Athelstane said...

Hello Mr. Perkins,

I had not know that about Fr. (soon to be Msgr?) Entwistle; but I suppose it makes sense.

Still, it represents a kind of progress, and, as you say, something we can all celebrate as the ordinariates struggle to get off the ground.

I agree that ordinariates, as currently structured in canon law, are not the appropriate solution for the SSPX, unless of course the Holy Father alters the law to permit a universal ordinariate. But that seems unlikely. At this point, I'm left to hope that it is the personal prelature that will be altered for the purposes of the SSPX.

Thank you, Abp Lefevre. said...

None of the bishops of the visible Church will protest entrance of the Anglicans but they are already gnashing their teeth in Germany and proposing open revolt against the pope AND the Society if regularized. Please visit http://pius.info/archiv-news/892-kirchenkrise/6870-deutschsprachige-bischoefe-starten-ungehorsamsinitiative-

Alsaticus said...

dear P.K.T.P.,

You're wrong on Campos : the decree Animarum bonum (2002) is asking for the advise of the diocesan bishop to create a personal parish.

"VIII § 1. Administrator Apostolicus ad iuris normam, atque Episcopo dioecesano Camposino rogato sententiam, erigere poterit paroecias personales, ut fidelibus Adminstrationis Apostolicae pastoralis praestetur cura."

It doesn't say more so what is happening in case the advise is "no" ?

For the 2009 ordinariates, the only element which is interesting is the concertation procedure with an appeal to Rome in case of disagreement. This would help to have diocesan bishops less negative if at one point they have a say, without automatically being able to block everything every time.
Just an idea in passing.

Alsaticus

Ben Vallejo said...

Rome has serious doubts on the seminary formation of TAC priests. But it could name as ordinaries former CoE, Anglican Church in Aus priests who joined TAC. The Rev Entwistle is an appropriate choice.

His congregation brought into the Ordinariate its own church building that has been designated as the Ordinariate's "cathedral". It is becoming more and more anomalous that the English Ordinariate still has no principal church while the Australians and the Americans have theirs.

Rome will have to spend more effort in "convincing" more the English hierarchy to support the Our Lady of Walsingham ordinariate.

P.K.T.P. said...

Athelstan:

No, a p.p. is NOT the solution. Rome is not likely to alter Canon 297 because that is essential to the definition of a p.p. The answer, again, is a universal diocese under Section 2 of Canon 372. Moreover, the description of a p.p. in Canon 294 does not fit the circumstances of the S.S.P.X.

Alsaticus:

Thank you for the correction on the Campos but it makes not a whit of difference. Animarum Bonum was supplemental. There is no reason the section you quote need be duplicated in the statues for the S.S.P.X because it is not called for in Section 2 of Canon 372. Moreover, again, this is only for advice: there is no permission needed from the Bishop of Campos: Bishop Rifan, the Apostolic Administator needs only to consult him, not to obtain his permission.

As long as there is no permission needed, the Campos A.A. is free. That's what counts. The ordinariate structure could be made universal but that would violate its nature as currently established. In stark contrast, the 'ritual' particular church (whether apostolic administration or diocese) can clearly be international under current, established law. We know this because Sect. 2 of Canon 372 refers to "episcopal conferences" in the plural number".

Thank you anyway for the quotation form Animarum Bonum. It's been a very long time since I've read it.

P.K.T.P.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

PKTP can you just stop going on and on and on about Campos? I mean set up your own blog if you're that bothered :P

porys said...

Maybe I missed something but when was Fr. Entwistle received to Catholic Church, and ordinated deacon?

P.K.T.P. said...

Mr. Vallejo:

Your comments are all correct as far as I can see.

Of course, I don't agree with Rome's preference for the educational qualifications of Canterburians. The Canterburian (regular Anglican) seminaries are expert at creating heretics. Therefore, attendance at them should count against a candidate, not for him. Those who have attended regular Anglican seminaries and theological colleges need first to spend some years being deprogrammed so that they may unlearn their heresies. Then, and only then, should their training in Catholic seminaries begin.

In contrast, the younger TAC clerics, who had none of this misedcation, at least have nothing to unlearn. So they should be allowed to proceed to seminary without first having to spend years being deprogammed.

I am making a bit of a joke of this, of course, but behind the joke is some truth. Training a man in how to become a heretic should not count in his favour when considering him for the Catholic priesthood. On a more serious note, both TAC and Canterburians alike, regardless of their past seminary training, should have to put in the full six or seven years at a Roman seminary.

However, for pastoral reasons, I would reduce this significantly for both groups and allow them to put part of it in after rather than before ordination. But I don't think that Anglican seminaries should be preferred just because they are more 'sound' or 'august' because what they do soundly is to form a man in rank heresy.

Finally, moreover, modern Anglican seminaries are not very impressive by any standard. A professor of music at an Eastern Canadian univeristy, referring to their degrees, said to me this: they are not worth a piece of toilet paper.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

Porys:

Good question. I was confused by that in the press release. It would appear that he was received and ordained both deacon and priest all today.

J.M.J.:

I only went on a bit about the Campos because others here continue to confuse these structures.

What is important about the news on this thread is that the Anglican Use people don't need permission from the local bishop to implant new apostolates in their local dioceses. So the ordinariates are better than a personal prelature. If the Anglican Use people don't have this restriction, why should the S.S.P.X? When the point is raised that the ordinariate structure would not be appropriate, I will naturally remind people that the Campos structure has the same advantages AND can be international under current law. The Pope could create an international ordinariate but he is not likely to do so, as that would violate its 'received' nature.

Am I trying to do my utmost to recommend the Campos structure? You bet I am. Why would I want to do this? It is firstly a matter of principle but I'm also trying to ensure that at as few Society members as possible leave the Society over any canonical arrangement considered. I hope that you are with me on that. I want the Society to be as united and as strong as possible after regularisation.

Some here will want a p.p. because they are liberals who want to see that structure drive priests out of the S.S.P.X. I hope that J.M.J. is not one of those. I presume that he is not.

P.K.T.P.

JMJ Ora Pro Nobis said...

Well thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt PKTP!

I want a good structure, however PKTP as I noted earlier the SSPX situation is unique, Campos was a group of priests yes? The Anglican use parishes were priests and lay faithful, the ordinariates are priests, lay faithful and the odd religious...The SSPX is a group of priests, lay brothers, sisters, oblates and third order members, there are then 5 allied religous orders (with various foundations, the benedictines having 6) and 14 religious congregations, all spread over several continents. Do you begin to see how complicated this matter is? A Campos solution would give them lots of liberty I agree, but on the other hand given the vast scale of the SSPX and its associated groups it risks becoming a parallel church completely separate from the hierarchy. I can therefore see arguments for at least keeping the bishops involved in *SOME WAY*, whatever the solution will be it must involve ordinary and not accumulative jurisdiction and it must be somewhat unique. After all the SSPX are in a situation unique in Catholic history, they are as large or larger than some Eastern Catholic churchs and yet they are a western catholic group.

To be clear I do not support an unmodified PP and +Fellay would never agree to such a thing, BUT I see no problem with a heavily modified PP that gave them ordinary jurisdiction and treated them as bishops not a religious order. On the other hand I would not have a temper tantrum about a Campos solution either, I am merely being fair to all involved. And realistically as a modified PP is whats on the table, its what likely to happen. That said any such modifications would have to exclude any possibility of the bishops disputing recent foundations and allow them some say ONLY over new ones. Of course complete independence from the bishops would be ideal in the views of some, but I personally would still prefer at least consultation.

Ben Vallejo said...

PKTP:

Many of the Anglican clerics joining the ordinariates are old. Letting them go through six years of Roman seminary is not a good idea for pastoral reasons. Msgr Steenson's online seminary seems to have achieved the right effects.

I agree with you but I won't call it "deprogramming" rather as a "reorientation" of their theological views.

And as for your views on the heresies taught by Anglican seminaries, we could well say that for our own Roman Catholic seminaries!

We may very well have to reprogram our own Roman Catholic clergy, deacons, priests, bishops and probably not a few cardinals!

For the Anglican Communion is fast becoming our own reflection in the mirror. I believe our Anglican brethren is a reflection of what our Holy Mother Church has become.

Alan Aversa said...

EF > Anglican Rite > Novus Ordo

Viz., “unity between Christians is not achieved by agreeing on theNovus Ordo.

As Card. Ottaviani made clear in his intervention to Pope Paul VI, regarding the Orthodox, the Novus Ordo “can only repel the faithful of the Eastern Rites.” So, the “Extraordinary Form” can only attract them, as it has attracted the TAC.

Gratias said...

Trisagion, poster #3, contributed wise words. Verbum sapientae. Gratias.

I am amazed at how well the Anglican Ordinariates have started off. Benedict XVI is a very good politician in addition to a Holy man. Testing the way forward for the SSPX while undoing Henry VIII. Doing more for ecumenism than anyone else.

Like many of you I pray for his long life daily.

Gratias said...

The Personal Prelature for SSPX will have, I suggest, some mechanism for the other traditional societies to also enroll in similar privileges. Perhaps a contact prelate at a Dicastery where a local Bishop can go complain if he disagrees, after having been consulted by traditionalists, about a new foundation that has been made against his learned opinion in his Diocese lacking a Tradtional Latin Mass Personal Parish.

A rule of a Personal Parish per Diocese, otherwise free for all, would be like how homesteaders colonized the American West. An arrangement with that in it may even be approved by our P.K.T.P.

Matamoros said...

I don't agree that the Anglican Ordinariate shows the way for future arrangements for the SSPX. Success for the Ordinariate lies in remaining as quiet as possible about the Cranmerian origins of much of their liturgy. Success for the SSPX and the Church in general lies in traditionalists continuing to make lots of trouble about current pratices in the Church and the influence of false ideas on our highest authorities.