Check out "Clayboy": http://clayboy.co.uk/2009/10/rome-and-traditional-anglicans-what-rowan-should-have-said/

Please look at the two threads on this at www.commonwealmagazine.org. The general feeling among Thinking Roman Catholics is that this is another Ratzinger mess.

Why is Rowan able to smile? Because he knows Anglo-Catholics far better than the Vatican does. He knows that far from the claimed half million, only a trickle of clerical blowhards will cross the Tiber. Thus Benedict has unwittingly called their bluff.

It is interesting to see in the video at the link below a Roman Catholic take on this news, including what it calls Rowan Williams'"endorsement" of this Vatican Plan. This video is from a group called Rome Reports, "a private and independent international TV news agency based in Rome, Italy, specializing in covering the Pope and the Vatican."

http://www.romereports.com/palio/modules.php?t=Pope-creates-ordinariates-for-Anglican-dioceses&name=News&file=article&newlang=english&sid=1096

No surprise that Kendall Harmon sees only a negative meaning in this, using it as an excuse for Canterbury-bashing. Since most of the secessionist Anglicans seem to hate Rome as much as they hate gays there are really only very slim pickings in this development for them.

What is most curious about all this is that, since most English Anglo-Papalists already use Roman liturgical forms, just what exactly is going to distinguish their liturgy in the new ordinariate as being distinctively 'Anglican' - since presently they avoid being distinctively Anglican at all costs! It would appear that having married priests, their own 'Ordinary', and perhaps the occasional Choral Evensong is about it.

At least one AC considering the move has addressed this. Fr Jones at St Peter's, London Docks writes:

"Because we are what we pray, in November last year I published a post on this blog suggesting that in anticipation of a move of the sort we now have, that English Anglo-Catholics should adopt the Anglican Use Book of Divine Worship as the norm for Office and Mass in our parishes, displaying both a commitment to Anglican heritage and a desire for Peterine unity.The book...contains the order of Mass and Daily Office for parishes of the Anglican Use in communion with the Apostolic See in the USA, it is thus, as the ordinate proposals suggest will be the norm, an expression of Anglican heritage spirituality in a form approved by the Apostolic see. My suggestion was not, a year ago, well received. We may need to re-visit the concept, it is clear that the Apostolic see intends the Anglican Ordinate to have its own liturgical use and I have no doubt that the Book of Divine Worship will, at the very least, be the starting point. Anglicans who join the ordinate will not be using the Breviary and Missal of the Western Church, they will have their own provision on Book of common Worship lines. A recommendation at the Forward in Faith National Assembly that the Mass and Office of the Book of Divine Worship should become the normative liturgy in our parishes in the transitional period would be a strong and realistic statement of intent to take the ordinate seriously. This is not a second order issue, clear statements on identity and spirituality will, I think, be part of the process of creating ordinate(s)."
http://www.peterite.blogspot.com/

Wouldn't it would be highly ironic if the Anglo-Papalists had to give up their Roman Missals and Breviaries and take up distinctive Anglican liturgical forms in order to justify their presence in the new ordinariate :-)

If you want to follow more Anglo-Catholic responses to the Pope's initiative,
Ancient Richborough should give you lenty of links

Curious comment on this by Austen Ivereigh in "America, the National Catholic Weekly" - "Rome has been closely involved, and remains so, with the "covenant" process initiated by Dr Williams in 2004, which aims at tightening the bonds within the 80m-strong worldwide Communion."

http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/blog.cfm?blog_id=2&category_id=72C55AB2-5056-8960-32AED4D673185BF5

Another excellent response I wish I had written and with which I completely concur:
http://02continuum.wordpress.com/2009/10/21/anglican-on-purpose/

I would really like some more facts and figures on this Traditional Anglican Communion. It apparently claims 500,000. But where are they? In this country I doubt if they number 200 or so, or am I wrong? Apparently they exist in Australia, Africa, India, even S America? Well there cant be more than 200,ooo Anglicans in all S America.Are they brushing up against the TAC?? I'm rather bemused.

"Benedict has unwittingly called their bluff."

Well, someone needed to. And seriously, if they have no issues with Papal authority and the other issues that drove us to kick out the Pope 500 years ago, they are pretty much duty bound to put themselves under his control, um, care. If the only issue is that Rome is moving in a different direction on their favourite issues, and all the old disagreements from the Reformation are still there, then they are not being particularly honest. The only way they get to be what they are is because Anglicanism does not have the kind of centralized authority Rome does. They think that's a bad thing for Anglicans now. Wait till they have to deal with it practice, when it's THEIR bishop that is laying down the law in no uncertain terms and they can just pay up, pray up, and shut up. They'll pine for the good old days of Anglican laxity. I'd like to see them try to change the locks on an RC bishop if he won't publically answer their litmus test of "orthodoxy". They won't get away with what they got away with as Anglicans.

Here's another blog response: http://www.progressiveinvolvement.com/progressive_involvement/2009/10/fishing-in-the-anglican-lake.html

Jared Cramer has an optimistic/conciliatory take on things: http://www.jaredcramer.com/?p=1111

In a very brief note on his blog, Fr Hunwicke writes, "I regard as significantly positive the willingness of Rome to allow married Anglican bishops to continue to exercise episkope in the guise of prebyteral (sic) Ordinaries."

Does anyone else see anything of the kind in the Vatican announcement?

I cannot be alone here in being cheered and comforted by the reflections of 'that old heretic' (as RC friends affectionately describe him), Joseph O'Leary.

John Hepworth, primate of TAC, is a divorced, twice-married, former RC priest. Tell me Rome is going to welcome this with open arms.

"•married priests in Anglican Personal Ordinariates will have to marry prior to ordination to the diaconate
They will not be able to marry after ordination. Should his wife die, or he gets divorced (sorry – his marriage is annulled) he will not be able to marry. Roman Catholic deacons can be married, but in order to do so, must be married prior to ordination." - Fr. Bosco Peters Blog (above) -

For those of you who have not yet seen the videos of both the Archbishops of Westminster and Canterbury, I can recommend you tap into Father Bosco's blog. Bosco is a married ex-Jesuit, so he really knows what he is talking about! He is one of my fellow Anglican clergy in New Zealand.

The point he mentions here - about married clergy - is interesting. He shows us that, even in the new Anglican/Roman jurisdiction, one would not be free to marry AFTER ordination into the A/RC ordinariate. However, one wonders whether (if they really wanted to) ex-Roman Catholic priests who have since left and married could now join the new sodality as married clergy? That could bring a new slant to the equation. Perhaps that might help the current shortage of priests in the Roman Catholic Church

Another blog response, from Fr. Hart of the The Continuum:

http://anglicancontinuum.blogspot.com/2009/10/thanks-but-no-thanks.html

He's a priest of one of the Continuing Anglican Churches, I think the Anglican Catholic Church.

Somebody please tell me that this whole thing is not just advanced p.r. for Dan Brown's next novel.

It's been said before that this "crisis," or "schism," or "mass exodus," or whatever is written over the Emerald City today is powered almost-exclusively by clergy. This is true. They are the only ones with an investment. More bishops than you can shake a crosier at, Deans, Archdeacons, a buttressed ecclesial hierarchy.

It's also why they want the buildings so much. What the "True Believers" of this fiasco - if there is such an animal - forget is that people will put up with a lot, even if they feel outnumbered and outraged, just to stay put!

The greatest power in organized religion for the laity is not faith but Inertia. People may become "Anglican" if it's the same church they've always been in, but they'll stay Episcopalian and grumble about feminists and queers rather than move to a building down the street. You can have a church that's nothing but hierarchy - bishops, priests, deacons - but it won't do a whole lot and will be no fun at all for those with no one to lord it over.

The stagnant creek will flow into Rome and become another little "quaint" community, like Tridentines and Eastern Catholics - ecclesially inbred, largely ignored by Rome. This is not earth-shaking.

With regard to " calling their bluff" and going to Rome or not. This was never going to be the response of that anglo-catholic end of the CofE. it would rather be a withering and atrophying, and would take a generation. It would however, especially in the north exacerbate an already serious situation about clergy numbers in some dioceses and how we would provide ministry in some areas.

There are many people in the RC Church genuinely interested in ecumenism. The top hierarchy is not.

The Pope has acted in a manner true to his colours and many in his own Church will be in mourning.

++ Rowan should have defended his women priests and gay clergy before this, Now he pays the penalty for 'toadying ' up to Rome.

If these people go then life in the Anglican Communion will be better for LGBT people and for women priests but I mourn for those in the RC Church who also hope for the ordination of women and equal opportunities for LGBT people. There is an ecumenism of the marginalized.

Jean Mayland

Jean,

Believe me, it's not going to be great in the AC, either. I feel, deeply, for our more liberal and ecumenically-minded friends in the RC, but the big difficulty for us is that we're in a life-or-death struggle with our own *primus-inter-pares,* as it has become apparent that, while he's in the driver's seat, the Anglican Communion, indeed, anglicanism, no longer has a future. I think there's a fair degree of mourning going in our circles, too, as even Williams' staunchest supporters realize what a disaster he is.

Exactly JM Mayland. I always argued that far from advancing the wider cause of OOW in the RC Church (which I am in favour of) the precipitate action of Anglicans, after majority votes rather than consensus, has put the cause back decades by putting the frighteners on the RCs seeing our turmoil. I still hope and pray for a consensus, but we do not have one yet - either amongst Anglicans or with the RCs. You'll never get complete agreement, as there is a tiny minority of bigoted misogynists - but consensus in my book would look more like 90% agreement than 60%.
If only people had waited on God...

How in the world do you know we didn't, Neil?

I constantly here "Truth isn't by majority vote," almost immediately followed by "You should've waited for consensus." Do you expect us to take people who say this seriously?

Is abuse of any kind - and I assure you it *is* - abuse - allright because maybe, eventually most people, if we just wait, will feel differently?

Is God known for waiting for consensus, Neil?

Are we told to rebuke sinning brothers, or wait for consensus, Neil? You see, I accept rebuke from conservatives - who are DEAD wrong, of course - but at least doing what you're supposed to. What I don't accept is jaded attempts to undermine and destroy others. I don't accept bizarre theological sleight-of-hand pretending that church can only be Church when it's one corporate structure under one leadership, which is, frankly and undeniably, idolatry.

Now, I want you to be happy in whatever part of Christ's Body you've chosen to be in - and you did choose, it's no sacrifice; you went were what you found important was done the way you wanted - but don't think that anyone, Man or God, owes it to you to be beaten up either verbally or emotionally or physically, so that you can be comfortable, especially since Christ's Body has so many limbs - Roman Catholic, Anglican Catholic, congregationalist, pentecostal, liberal, hierarchical, democratic.

Be happy, but don't pretend you've done God's Will and others simply haven't.

"I constantly *hear* . . . " not "here"

I always do that when I rush.

Yes MarkBRunson - God does indeed wait for the right moment...an opportune moment. And if everybody agreed with you that the ordination of women were simply a matter of justice, it would have happened years ago, and the 'abuse' of not ordaining them halted immediately. But you must know that most people do not see this debate in this way. And so, yes, by precipitate action - and by failing to engage in the theological debate to win the argument around the whole of Christendom (and by presenting a fait accompli) some Anglican Churches are reaping the seeds of division that they have sown. What is so sad is that many of us long for that debate to be won - but in not waiting for God's opportune moment, the cause of women's ordination has been put back (in terms of the wider Church - RCs especially). I am not questioning you believe this to be God's will - indeed within the CofE your position is in the majority, and Catholics accept women Bishops will come. That is hardly a 'comfortable' position to be in ( as you describe). Those who oppose the Catholic grouping however do not accept their right to exist, and would have the CofE cleansed of those who do not believe OOW to be God's will. Ironically, it is they who exhibit (in your words) the 'bizarre theological sleight-of-hand pretending that church can only be Church when it's one corporate structure under one leadership, which is, frankly and undeniably, idolatry.'

"...And so, yes, by precipitate action - and by failing to engage in the theological debate to win the argument around the whole of Christendom (and by presenting a fait accompli) some Anglican Churches are reaping the seeds of division that they have sown...."

Why is it that Roman Catholics are always arguing that other Christian denominations should wait until there is a consensus of "the whole of Christendom" before making decisions--even about such second order concerns as women's ordination or third order such as same-sex marriage--while the Pope has historically made "fait accompli" determinations about far more substantive doctrine such as the perpetual virginity of Mary and her assumption into heaven?

"Why is it that Roman Catholics are always arguing that other Christian denominations should wait until there is a consensus of "the whole of Christendom" before making decisions--even about such second order concerns as women's ordination or third order such as same-sex marriage--while the Pope has historically made "fait accompli" determinations about far more substantive doctrine such as the perpetual virginity of Mary and her assumption into heaven?"
- Posted by: Pat O'Neill on Saturday -

Because, Pat, Roman Catholics are beset by some odd and contrary doctrinal notions - too many to mention here, but one or two could be useful:

a: That, although bishops, according to Saint Paul, should be 'married to only one wife' (and this was presumably true of the first Pope, Saint Peter; the present Magisterium has decreed that no priest or bishop in the R.C. Church should be married at all!

b: That, although women and men are both made in the 'Image and likeness of God', only men are fit to represent Christ in the Sacred Ministry.

c: That, although Mary Magdalene may have been sent by Christ (apostello) to announce his resurrection from the Dead to the male Apostles (and they didn't believe her, because she was a woman); no women are allowed today to be part of the Apostolic Ministry of the Church.

Most of us have given up on any sort of 'Reason' being applied to the Magisterium.

Good point Pat O'N - and such precipitate action on the part of Rome has proved equally divisive.

The Marian doctrines of Immaculate Conception and Assumption were widespread throughout the RCC for centuries if not milennia before they were proclaimed. They were consensus teachings. The real fait accompli was made by the First Vatican Council in declaring the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope to which there were substantial objections. Many if not most Vatican II decisions were not consensus decisions either, But what about Nicea and the decision against Arianism? Very far from a consensus. Anthony

What you've just presented, Neil, is entirely a fairy-tale, made up out of your sense of disappointment.

THIS statement is an outright misrepresentation: "And if everybody agreed with you that the ordination of women were simply a matter of justice . . ." It's not just a matter of justice (and, if it were, it's doubtful it would have made agreement any more certain; the churches are just as corrupt and ill-willed as any other human institution). The theology was done, ignored by opponents, so we went ahead because that's what God tells us to do. Again, God is well-known for telling prophets "Forget consensus. You've got an order."

If we're "reaping" anything, including ill effect, I'm very pleased about that. Reaping is what you do after you've sown. It's the way the world works. Nothing even vaguely mystical or prophetic there, but it can be instructive. John the Baptist reaped a beheading. Jesus reaped a crucifixion. Peter, crucified. Paul, beheaded. John the Divine, exiled to a backwater to die. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Unfortunately, seeing the results of the harvest - the real results - takes far longer than with grain.

Thank you, by the way, for illustrating my point, regarding the fact that when it's *you* who believe it and others find it intolerable, it's the catholic faith, and if it's someone else who believes it and you find it intolerable, it has to have consensus.

You chose what you wanted. Stop pretending that you're somehow grasping something holy. Stop pretending you've been put upon. You haven't and nobody's buying it, even you.

"And so, yes, by precipitate action - and by failing to engage in the theological debate to win the argument around the whole of Christendom (and by presenting a fait accompli) some Anglican Churches are reaping the seeds of division that they have sown."

We Anglicans owe our existence as a separate entity in Western Christianity to the precipitate actions of a lustful murderous King. If we'd needed a concensus of the entire Church to reject the authority of the Pope, the Anglican Church wouldn't exist, so it's odd to hear an Anglican appeal for worldwide concensus on OOW. Why is such concensus needed for certain things when other equally momentous things can be done without that concensus? But I agree that precipitate actions have brought us to where we are. There is the precipitate action of liberals who believe their ideas so selfevidently righteous that they have no need to explain them to us poor inferior mortals sitting in the pew. Then there is the equally precipitate behaviour of the conservatives in adopting a persecution complex and using it to manipulate the fears of others, and prevent any liberals who actually are willing to explain themselves from doing so, preferring falsehood to love. It's hard to do catechesis when a parish locks its doors on you for refusing to answer a simplistic litmus test of "orthodoxy" then claims you are persecuting them. The good thing is that the majority of Anglicans do not fall into either camp, and, I firmly believe, traditional Anglican seemliness will one day win out. It has every other time the self declared righteous have squared off against each other to the detriment of the rest of us. It ain't new, this kind of nonsense. My God, in less than a month the Americans will look back with fondness on the fact that one of these Anglican squabbles was a major factor in the formation of their country! It's just more public in our century than it was in the 17th century, or the 18th, or the 19th.