Things like this have been in the works behind the scenes for some time, but the Holy See has finally announced formal means for facilitating the reconciliation with the Catholic Church of Anglicans who are disaffected with the heterodox trajectory of the worldwide Anglican communion.
The plan will allow bishops' conferences to create "personal ordinariates"–basically nonterritorial diocese with its own bishop (although the former Anglican ordinariates will be able to have priests as their heads).
Further details are to be announced in an apostolic constitution by Pope Benedict. Initial details have been made available by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
JOINT STATEMENT OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF WESTMINSTER AND THE ANGLICAN ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.
As both statements point out, this move is in part a product of ecumenical dialog–even if it is rather a bank shot. It will be interesting to see how ecumenists receive the move. One has the impression that, for many, ecumenical dialog is an end in itself–not something that is supposed to produce concrete results, or at least not the result of bringing people into full communion with the Catholic Church in its current form.
(BTW, Allen's statement that "Popes issue apostolic [c]onstitutions in order to amend the church's Code of Canon Law" is poorly phrased at best.)
UPDATE: FIRST THOUGHTS FROM ED PETERS.
Praise be! As an Anglo-Catholic, I’ve been praying for this for years. I think it’ll both preserve and protect the Anglican form of Christianity but also be a blessing to the greater Church.
I like how they’re calling this the ‘fruit of dialogue.’
This is the fruit of giving up on dialogue. We should try that more often.
I would not get overly excited just yet. This is a 100 step process and we are on step 2.
You know, this is kind of cool, but I have to ask. What about those devout Catholics who have been begging the church to allow married clergy. It appears that the only restriction in place will be that married priest will not be able to become bishops. One article out of the UK I read this morning cited the Archbishop of Westminster as saying that married Anglican clergy and laity could seek orders without concern. What will the reaction be for those Catholics who have been asking to allow married men to become priests in their own rite going to react?
Greg,
This is basically the creation of an Anglican rite, though it was not given that name officially. So members of this “rite” will be able to seek ordination even if they are married, which is the same practice as the Eastern rites of the Church follow.
That’s an interesting thought Dave. I wonder if there will be people leaving the Latin rite to start going to the Anglican rite.
Greg,
Do you have a link to the article you are referring to? I haven’t come across anything mentioning the possibility of married men becoming priests if they are not already ordained. If the Church decides this will be the case it is certainly within her right; however, I would want to see this substantiated before rumors start to float around.
I fail to see how they are becoming part of the Catholic Church. It seems to me that “poof” and they are now “Catholic.” Same beliefs as before, except that suddenly they agree that the Pope is the head of the Church. They don’t even have to go to a new building.
I also thought that it was not possible for the Anglicans (or Lutherans) to become a new Rite. I thought that a Rite had to have been founded by an Apostle and since Anglicans were previously part of the Latin Rite that they would have to rejoin that from which they separated. As this is now being presented, those who have always called themselves “Anglo-Catholic” and claimed to be a separate rite are being given credence.
It is not officially a new rite, but other than the fact that it wasn’t founded by an Apostle, it’s very similar to a rite, except that I don’t think that one can go “join” the Anglican ordiniate if they are already Catholic. I’m sure one could attend Mass there, however. The full rules have yet to be spelled out; Jimmy may have more info.
Like Ed, I’ll have to wait to see what the apostolic constitution says to answer some of these questions, but one that is extraordinarily clear is that one *will* be able to attend a Mass celebrated in the Anglican ordinariate to fulfill one’s Sunday obligation. Ditto for receiving Communion in such a Mass to fulfill one’s Easter duty.
I am struck by the extraordinary emotional maturity of the Archbishop of Canterbury in accepting, what could be considered, ‘defections’ from the Church of England.
I think Archbishop Williams knows he’s in a similar situation that the captain of the Titanic was.
What I would like to know is. What will happen with Latin Rite priests which have left the church to pursue the desire to marry a woman (think of Father Cutie of a few months ago) and joined one of these traditionalist Anglican groups.
Since the Anglican’s have no valid priesthood or episcopate, will there be a mass-Mass where they are all ordained validly?
Anglicans actually have an interesting history in that they have claims to origins that begin even before the death of Christ, going back to the sending of the Seventy. It also has claims to evangelization by Joseph of Arimathea shortly after Christ’s death and resurrection. When Rome sent St. Augustine of Canterbury to evangelize Britain, there was already an indigenous Church there, with the only apparent theological difference being the primacy of the Pope. This isn’t quite the same level as Constantinople or Antioch, but I’d argue it’s more than Moscow could claim and is enough that a “special relationship” be preserved.
John F. Kennedy,
Do you understand the Anglicans who are likely to be affected by this? Many of them are “more Catholic than the Catholics” and it’s only the accident of their ancestry that they were in communion with Canterbury and not Rome. As for the rest…can you say with a straight face that any of them likely to swim the Tiber are going to water down the Holy Catholic Church in the West? The whole reason this plan is needed is because it’s the Anglo-Catholics who are afraid of being watered down by mainstream Catholic culture. They’re willing, if it ultimately comes down to it, to trade their rich cultural and liturgical heritage for communion with Rome, but why should they be expected to destroy something valuable when it could be added to the wealth of the Church instead?
My apologies I assumed what I read was “gospel” however it appears to only be speculation.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100014174/new-era-begins-as-benedict-throws-open-gates-of-rome-to-disaffected-anglicans/
It states (emphasis mine):
The Pope is now offering Anglicans worldwide “corporate reunion” on terms that will delight Anglo-Catholics. In theory, they can have their own married priests, parishes and bishops – and they will be free of liturgical interference by liberal Catholic bishops who are unsympathetic to their conservative stance.
There is even the possibility that married Anglican laymen could be accepted for ordination on a case-by-case basis – a remarkable concession.
However that is an interesting speculation in light of the statement released from the Vatican where it says:
The seminarians in the Ordinariate are to be prepared alongside other Catholic seminarians, though the Ordinariate may establish a house of formation to address the particular needs of formation in the Anglican patrimony.
The reason I say it is interesting is there are several married seminarians and no real statement has been made as to what will happen to them.
Rowan Williams is an unbeliever and scoffer at Christianity. He is probably happy that more conservative members of his apostate organization are leaving.
Are there going to be conditional or unconditional re-ordinations?
And what about the other sacraments?
What sort of “extraordinary” emotional maturity does it is take to realize that you have to play by the same rules as everyone else? What claim does the Church of England have to existence except that such defections are not wrong?
BillyHW that is an interesting question and we can only wait and see how Rome handles things. There may not be any re-ordinations at all. Typically when a protestant minister comes to Rome, they spend approximately four years becoming “normalized” at which point they are “re-ordained” conditionally which is done just in case their original ordination was not valid. However we are talking about hundreds of priests and congregations. Rome certainly cannot deny the congregations a way to fulfill their Sunday and Holy Day obligation. So that means there are a couple of possibilities.
One being that the “normalization” period will be drastically reduced and the Latin Rite bishops in the same area as these priests will “re-ordain” them en masse.
The other possibility stems from the fact that currently most if not all Anglican Bishops derive their historic episcopate back to the Old Catholic Church back in the late 1800s to early 1900s when the Anglican Church desired to regain the historic episcopate and the Old Catholic Church “re-ordained” her bishops. It is generally held that these orders are indeed valid due to various statements from, including Cardinal Ratzinger’s ‘Dominus Iesus’. Therefore the Vatican may declare that because their orders are derived from the Old Catholic Church, that they already hold valid orders and there is no reason to “re-ordain” them.
At any rate we probably won’t have to wait long to find out.
I think this is a prelude to the reunion of the Traditional Anglican Communion with the Catholic Church.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/8235121/Traditional_Anglicans_to_be_offered_personal_prelature_by_Pope/
I’m sure there will be others, just waiting to join up. Will they step forward?
Dear Mary,
“personal ordinariates” are not the same rules as everyone else who is received into full communion with the Bishop of Rome.
The Archbishop of Canterbury presumably believes that the Church of England has a valid claim to existence, yet he makes a gracious joint statement with the leader of England’s Roman Catholics. In my book, this is not the obvious human or emotional response to ‘defection’.
I liked this quote from the London Times: “Every church leader speaks about unity, but they all want it on their terms. Pope Benedict XVI is the first since the Reformation who seems to have hit on a realistic way of turning the clock back by moving it forwards.” To me, this is the biggest news in the Church since the death of JPII/ascension of Benedict and possibly bigger than that. I look forward to welcoming so many new brothers and sisters into the one true faith. All glory to Jesus!
For reasons set forth here, I doubt this will have much of an effect.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/world/europe/21pope.html?ref=todayspaper
Rowan Williams is a clown. It is said that a liberal is a person who won’t take his own side in an argument. Williams issued a joint press release with a Catholic bishop supporting this thing. Shouldn’t he encourage Anglicans to stay Anglicans?
On the Archbishop of Canterbury’s reaction, while I agree it was gracious, he is presiding over the dissolution of the Anglican Communion and knows it. At this point, there’s no philosophical way of keeping these groups together.
Quite frankly, the union of the Anglicans has been on shaky ground for over a Century. Many of the traditional Anglicans are not only very Catholic in outlook, but as noted above, they maintain that they are Catholics. This includes not only those who have already separated into Anglican Catholic churches, and severed their relationship with the Episcopal Church, but also with what some like to call “High Church” Anglicans. This isn’t new by any means. For over a century this branch of the Anglican world has argued that they are Catholics. I’ve even heard one former Anglican (now Roman Catholic) member argue that when he was an Anglican Priest, he sent his children to a Roman Catholic school, and taught them that the Pope was the head of the church. The argument advanced by these people is similiar to that which is sometimes made by Irish romanticist, which is that Catholicism was established in their lands early and semi independently, and they’re only maintaining an ongoing unbroken Catholic tradition. In the Anglican’s case, they’ve actually tried to bolster this argument within the past Century by incorporating the Old Catholics within their general communion to some degree (although I don’t fully understand that).
There are obvious problems with this view, of course, but that’s what they argue. More on that in a second.
Other branches of the Anglican Communion, however, have been very Protestant and fully reject the assertion that they’re Catholic. From time to time, one group or another has been in the ascendancy.
This entire problem was kept under control up until about 40 years ago. I’d argue it was social change that brought about the current problems. In the Western Hemisphere membership in the Episcopal Church was strongly associated with economic success. At one time, in many areas, if a person became a successful businessman, at some point he joined the Episcopal Church, and probably a lodge or the Masons. So Episcopal membership benefited from social concerns. You can find more than one example of Roman Catholics who converted to the Episcopal Church for this reason, just as you can find more than one example of Presbyterians who did the same. Indeed, in my office there are two old men whose fathers had that respective occurrence.
While that befitted the Episcopal Church, it also made it a house of cards in North America. As soon as it was no longer necessary to join it in order to assure business success, the reason many joined it evaporated. Here in North America, therefore, the Church has been dying off for 40 years. What is now the case is that those who joined for business no longer have to join any church, and if they choose to, they join one closer to their hearts as a rule, or frankly join Protestant Fundamentalist churches that now sometimes seem to convey an economic advantage in some quarters (but not to the same extent). In turn, the North American Episcopal Church has joined other WASPish old groups in going from extremely conservative to sort of wishy washy liberal in many instances. That alienates the serious conservative Protestant Anglicans in the pews, and makes it darned near impossible for the Anglican Catholics in the pews to stick around.
Very recent events have essentially almost made it impossible for any of the serious traditional Anglicans or Anglican Catholics to remain in the church. This group had limited disagreements with the Roman Catholic Church, which is missed by a few of the comments above. When the Anglican Communion was a truly big tent, but still more cohesive, there was a wide range of opinions on what the church was, with some feeling it was a Catholic church, as noted above, and others feeling it was its own church, and others yet feeling that it was a Protestant church with English traditions. Quite a few members, of course, didn’t worry about any of this at all. Those who felt that they were Catholics really disagreed with Rome about very little in the first instance, essentially disagreeing with Rome only on the question of the Pope’s authority (but usually conceding that he was at least the titular and persuasive head of the Catholic world). I’d guess that they disagreed with Rome about Papal Infallibility. At one time they disagreed on a local rulers ability to make church appointments, but clearly this issue is now completely moot, as nobody serious thinks that the Queen of England has any real role in religious governance.
All of this has operated to really make it the case that serious Anglicans/Episcopalians have had to examine their consciences and decide what they believe. So its now the case that those who are really Protestant are likely to leave. Indeed, locally, in our area the large Presbyterian Church put up a huge banner the last time the Episcopalians were having these troubles which read something like “Care to join an authentic Church?”. There’s no doubt who it was aimed at, as it faced the main Episcopal Church. Those serious Protestants are going to leave.
Likewise, the serious Anglican Catholics in the pews have been examining what they believe, and they’re now at the point where the only thing really separating them from Rome is tradition. They’ve been coming over to the Catholic Church in large numbers, but the call to tradition is strong enough to make many hesitate. The Pope’s action here takes that problem away, and means that there’s now practically no reason for them not to come home.
On this comment: “Williams issued a joint press release with a Catholic bishop supporting this thing. Shouldn’t he encourage Anglicans to stay Anglicans?”
That is, in effect, exactly what he is doing.
The Archbishop is aware that the Anglican Communion is essentially doomed, in its traditional sense, at this point. Theologically, it cannot remain one Church. What the High Church Anglicans believe, and what the Anglican Catholics believe, cannot be reconciled with what the liberal Protestant’s believe, which in turn cannot be reconciled with what the conservative Catholics believe. A house divided against itself, cannot stand. And a religion cannot really say that all views are welcome, and all are okay, unless it aims to be something like the Universalist, which are “inclusive” and “non judgmental”, and essentially devoid of any real beliefs beyond the most general.
What the Archbishop presently has is a centuries old structure which is close to Catholicism in form. The fact that it exists is because the High Church Anglicans have resisted making the church a more Protestant Church since the onset. It didn’t become the Lutheran Church, and it didn’t become the Presbyterian Church. It held on to a claim to Catholicism.
Now that this is rapidly disappearing as a maintainable claim, what is left is a unique tradition, although the tradition departs from Roman Catholicism only slightly in its common day to day form, particularly since the Roman Catholic Church abandoned Latin. The tradition is clearly not going to survive in a unified Anglican Communion, and it is very doubtful that a unified Anglican Communion will survive. Most probably, the Protestants are going to leave, and the remaining churches will be very diluted theologically, keeping to the old form more or less, but with lots of new changes that serious Anglicans cannot reconcile themselves to. That being the case, the best chance of actually preserving the Anglican tradition is to allow the Anglicans to go back to Rome.
That is, I strongly suspect, what the Archbishop has realized. He wants to save the tradition, I suspect, and knows that this is the only way to save what is left with it. The Anglicans have a home in Rome, but they no longer really have one in London, and he wants to allow them to survive, rather than cease to exist. This assures the survival of their traditions, and it’s the only way that it can be done.
On a question raised above, I have a related question, and I hope Jimmy or some other knowledgeable person can answer it.
Does this mean that the Roman Catholic Church will be incorporating permanently Anglican Catholics within the church, but with a separate structure. Sort of a sub rite of the Roman rite? And it will continue on?
If so, does this mean there is now a way in which married Roman Catholics can become Priests?
Wolfwood;
I also have heard the Anglican case for their historical founding. Nevertheless, they were part of the Latin Rite and never a separate Rite. They can’t, after the leaving the Latin Rite, claim to have always been a separate rite.
I also understand your comment and their thoughts of being “more Catholic than Catholics.” From what I understand the primary cause of this announcement and the creation of these structures was due to all of the roadblocks from “liberal” or heterodox Catholic bishops in Great Britain. (I doubt I would want to be associated with them either.)
My question is are they really becoming part of the Catholic Church or are they becoming part of a new Catholic Communion? Do they really see a difference between the two or is just easier to “swim the Tiber”. (BTW, I think this is more like “speed boating across the Tiber.” )
Which Rite will the previous “Anglicans” be part of? Does this set a precedence to create a Lutheran rite? I think it does. A Baptist Rite? An LDS Rite? An Amish rite? Those are not so likely but where does it end? I think you get my point and concerns.
John F. Kennedy,
I don’t know about FIF or other groups, but TAC Anglicans are looking to become a part of the Catholic Church on Rome’s terms. They’d asked to be allowed to enter corporately and to keep their own organization, but have made it clear that if Rome had said “no” then they would’ve dissolved and instructed their members to come over singly as previous Anglicans have done.
Anglicans don’t necessarily want a separate Rite so much as some structure that guarantees autonomy. I’ve heard horror stories about bullying by the Roman Rite of the Eastern rites in the West, and there’s a rumor that Benedict blamed the failed attempts at reunification with the Church of England in the 1960s on the “intransigence” of the English cardinals. The joint declaration by the Catholic and Anglican archbishops seems to me to be a humiliation for both of them: who should be the most likely friend to the Church of England than the Church in England? Yet the English Church seems to have been the biggest impediment. I really do believe that this structure is put in place not to protect the Roman Catholics from the Anglo-Catholics but the other way around.
While perhaps not rising to the same level as being its own church, the Church of England has held a special place in Catholicism (remember that the Archbishop of Canterbury took precedence over all other archbishops in Councils).
This personal ordinariate system seems to do that: a personal prelature would be too weak and impermanent, while an apostolic administration would be too tied to one location; it seems to be a quasi-uniate status: all the protections without the baggage.
This is petty, but I would count it an unimaginable blessing if the Catholic Church were able to recover some of the old English cathedrals and even one day re-establish the See of Canterbury as a Catholic diocese. Having been to many of these cathedrals in 2002 as an ECUSA Episcopalian and in 2007 as a TAC Anglican, the difference between feeling humble joy that these houses of worship are yours and the feeling of wanting to cry that they’ve been lost is immense.
So what?
It’s not unique, remember. All I wonder is that they don’t call it the Anglican Rite.
His “valid claim to existence” depends on the righteousness of defection. If he objects to defection, he can hand back all the churches taken from the Church — which, indeed, does not appear to be the case for these Anglicans, who do not get to keep their churches.
Thanks for the comments Yeoman they were quite helpful as a recap.
Maybe you can answer the following question: Does the Anglo-Catholic Churches have a valid priesthood according Rome?
I know this is nit-picking but the Roman Catholic Church has not abandoned Latin, which is still the official language, it does allow the Mass to be performed in our native languages.
ANTI-CATHOLIC SPAM REMOVED.
Amy, what do you think the Catholic Church would say to those claims?
Lucien Syme,
Does the Anglo-Catholic Churches have a valid priesthood according Rome?
I hope the following links work and are helpful.
Anglican Orders: A Report on the Evolving Context of Their Evaluation in the Roman Catholic Church
On the Nullity of Anglican Orders
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Lucien,
The short answer is “it depends.” A Papal Bull was issued on this topic back in the late 1800s, and it was determined that the Anglican Communion had NOT maintained apostolic succession (I believe the intent element was missing and the form was also defective). As a result of this, some Anglicans arranged for the so-called “Dutch Touch,” which brought in Old Catholic bishops (who are validly ordained but practicing illictly) to double ordain priests and new bishops. The key word here is “some.” If the form of the “Dutch Touch” ordinations was correct (I’m assumuing intent was there because this was a remedial effort to restore apostolic succession), then some (probably a minority) of the Anglo-Catholic holy orders may be valid but illicit.
I’m no theologian, but I’d say all Anglican priests need to be ordained, but some should ber conditionally ordained based on the “Dutch Touch” issue.
John F. Kennedy,
An Anglican “Rite” has been in existence for some time (this isn’t a new thing). It is called the Pastoral Provision of Pope John Paul II for the Anglican Usage of the Roman Rite. It is basically the Book of Common Prayer with changes necessary to insure Catholic doctrine is followed. Please refer to http://www.pastoralprovision.org/. I actually came to the Church via the Pastoral Provision (I was an Anglo-Catholic). My old Anglo-Catholic parish taught virtually everything the Church teaches (we even used the Catechism of the Catholic Church) with the exception that the Pope was first among equals rather than the Supreme Pontiff (I believe this is the same stance the Eastern Orthodox take).
Amy,
Get a life. The Church is the reason there is a bible today… without the Church.. no canon. The ten commandments were not re-written. The Pope has never claimed to be God. The failings of individual Catholics does not invalidate the Church, no matter how evil they were (*Monty Python reference begin* Spanish Inquisition? Nobody expects the Spanish Inquistion! *Monty Python reference end*). Honestly, I don’t have the patience to go through all this nonsense with you, but I’m betting there are plenty of resources for those that are willing to keep an open mind rather than accepting anti-Catholic bigotry as the truth.
Wolfwood,
Are there any TAC parishes in Fort Worth, Texas? How can I find out? If they are brought into the fold, I’ll gladly go there to meet my Sunday obligation (Lord… I do love smoke, bells, full vestments, NO TALKING BEFORE MASS, genuflection, etc.) There is a Pastoral Provision parish some dstance from my home, but it is a drive and I usually worship at my wife’s parish (it has been eight years, and I still feel like I don’t have a place in the “modern” Church… my wife was actually happy to go to places with guitars, “praise and worship music,” etc… I just cringe and take comfort in knowing the Sacraments are valid).
“Amy” is a spammer. She posted (pasted) the exact same comment on Sherry Waddel’s blog. Her name links to a vacation rental website. Just ignore her.
John F. Kennedy,
I don’t want to leave the impression that I reject the doctrine that the Pope is the Supreme Pontiff. I do not. I seek to accept and conform to all Catholic teachings.
I did have a bad experience at a Byzantine Catholic parish (they’re in full Communion with Rome). While their missal uses “proceeds from the Father and the Son,” that parish ignored the filoque (sp?) clause and was very negative about the Roman Rite. I am hopeful that this won’t happen with the Anglican parishes that come to Rome, but I suppose “holier than thou” is a natural state of man (just look at how the Tridentine Mass worshippers denigrate the normative missal).
Tim Brandenburg
If Hurst is near Ft. Worth, here is a parish near you. The TAC is the global communion; the Anglican Church in America is the American province (apparently their web development skills peaked in 1996); you’ll sometimes see it called “TAC/ACA” in writings. I’ve only ever been to the ACA Church of the Good Shepherd outside Philadelphia, but if they’re any indication then I think the Holy Catholic Church is about to be very blessed.
Wolfwood,
Hurst is very near. I am hopeful the parish will come into the Church. I imagine it will take a while, but it’ll be worth the wait!
Thanks Inocencio and Tim for the information.
I’ll echo Lucien’s thanks to Inocencio and Tim.
Tim — You mention the lack of the filioque in the creed at a Byz parish you visited. Actually, the Byzantine rites have permission from Rome to not use the filioque in the recitation of the creed. It’s an issue of respect for their heritage that will no doubt be cleared up one day when things are a little less tense between East and West.
The important thing to keep in mind is that reciting the creed without the filioque is not heretical, it’s just not saying everything about God that is being said when we say the creed with the filioque. Christians said it sans filioque for a long time and, we should bear in mind, even saying the creed with the filioque doesn’t say everything there is to say about God.
So while, as a Byzantine Catholic, do long for the day when we all say the same creed the same way, I try not to let that theological nuance that’s missing bother me.
As to anti-latin sentiment, that’s unfortunate and definitely a problem, but I believe it’s one that, like most others will be worked out as we come to a better understanding of the necessity of “breathing with both lungs of the Church”, as Pope John Paul II of blessed memory put it.
Matt,
I wasn’t aware Rome had granted permission to not use the filioque. Thank you for the letting me know. I wish I hadn’t held that against them all these years. I simply have got to stop imputing evil motives… it is a besetting sin of massive proportion. Pray for me. Really.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_vatican_anglican_south