Monday, 9 November 2009

Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus

Updated Monday lunchtime

The Apostolic Constitution providing for Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans Entering into Full Communion with the Catholic Church has been published by the Vatican today.
Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus
Complementary Norms for the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus

The Vatican has also issued this press release which includes both the above texts and an article The Significance of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus by Fr Gianfranco Ghirlanda, SJ, Rector of the Pontifical Gregorian University.

Damian Thompson has published the texts in the Telegraph.
Apostolic Constitution: Vatican publishes the details
Apostolic Constitution: the full text

There is a Church of England response: Apostolic Constitution - Bishop of Guildford responds

Posted by Peter Owen on Monday, 9 November 2009 at 11:54am GMT | TrackBack
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Anglican Communion
Comments

Still some important matters left unclear. But it just might mean that married laymen will continue to be eligible for priesthood and not just those who are ordained when they cross over.

One is left wondering just what this says about Anglican Orders ....... surely ALL Anglicans are in the lay state? There is no suggestion that the ordination all must submit to is "provisional" ...

No Prayer Book so ... no idea what constitutes Anglican Patrimony .....

The new Ordinary (if already a married bishop) will be ordained as a priest but (with permision from HF)will still be able to wear all the clobber. Looking like a duck, quacking like a duck but more like a retired duck .... Hmmmm!
Interesting description of the power relationship between the local bishop and the new Ordinary in that the Ordinary must listen to what the local bishop wants but can do what he likes.

I see the new Ordinary can call on those who have made the journey to Rome in the past to incardinate .... I wonder if the priest can refuse? I know many who hope so!

The devil is still in the detail and - of course - in the fact that this all has to be paid for.

Posted by: Martin Reynolds on Monday, 9 November 2009 at 12:56pm GMT

The part about former Anglican bishops not ordained as RC bishops being able to ask Rome for permission to use "the insignia of the episcopal office" is a little mystifying. Do they foresee former bishops using miter and crosier? And why?

Posted by: BillyD on Monday, 9 November 2009 at 1:39pm GMT

Hmm,
why is no one arguing that the C of E is the current expression of the historic inheritance of faith indigenous to England which goes back to at least the 4th Century?
Contextual theology expressing faith within a particular cultural or multicultural setting is an authentic expression of faith. Losing the Anglican identity (with a nod to Anglican liturgy ie in practice 1662 not common worship) impoverishes the body of Christ.
Unity is not uniformity.
Are there any Anglican bishops who will speak up for Anglicanism as expressed in the C of E?

Posted by: dodgey_vicar on Monday, 9 November 2009 at 1:48pm GMT

'Do they foresee former bishops using miter and crosier? And why?'

Yes, presumably that is just what they envisage. Bishops who secede will essentialy be able to continue to act as bishops in everything except specific episcopal rites such as ordination, consecration of a church and so on.

As priests in the RCC are permitted to confirm (I understand, perhaps with the permission of the bishop) then these Ordinaries will be able to continue to confirm if they wish to do so. So in practical terms hardly anyone would see any difference in the way they related to priests and congregations who secede too.

Allowing episcopal insignia to non-bishops is not unknown in the RCC: abbots and even abbesses have been authorized to wear a mitre and carry a crosier since at least the Middle Ages.

Presumably this was the nearest that Rome felt it could go towards making married men bishops.

Posted by: Simon Kershaw on Monday, 9 November 2009 at 2:40pm GMT

Thanks, Simon. I knew that abbots and abbesses wear use miter and crosier, but hadn't heard of common or garden variety priests being given this honor. Your explanation makes sense.

It's also reminiscent of Orthodox "mitered archpriests" and such, I suppose.

Posted by: BillyD on Monday, 9 November 2009 at 3:06pm GMT

What beautiful generosity from the Holy Father and Holy Mother Church....
Perhaps the General Synod should imitate this generosity.................

Posted by: Mark Wharton on Monday, 9 November 2009 at 3:22pm GMT

Ordinary jurisdiction is not limited to bishops in the RCC. Presbyters, as Simon says, are capable of confirming after having been granted the correct faculty.

The most important item in the constitution, is to my mind, the possibility of the ordination of married men who are not already Anglican priests (e.g. current ordinands). However, I think that before cheering too loudly, the experience of the Eastern Catholic Churches should be heeded. Whilst it is possible for married men to be ordained as priests in those churches special permission is needed where Eastern Catholics are found alongside Latin ones (e.g. in America). This permission is not always forthcoming leading to considerable agitation. It might not all be smooth running, and that's before I get onto divorced and remarried lay people....

Posted by: Wilf on Monday, 9 November 2009 at 3:53pm GMT

Simon refers to 'priests and congregations who secede'.

I do not see that congregations can secede from the CofE. It would be ultra vires for a PCC to take a vote of secession from the Church of England and before any Anglicans can take up the offer of membership of an ordinariate they must be individually received into the RCC and thus leave the CofE completely.

Posted by: Wilf on Monday, 9 November 2009 at 3:57pm GMT

I just don't get the point of Anglicanorum Coetibus. Anglican bishops, priests and deacons are still, according to Rome, merely unconfirmed laypeople. If those crossing the Tiber believe that their whole ministry so far has been nothing but a sham and a delusion, why would they want any kind of special treatment?

Posted by: Robin on Monday, 9 November 2009 at 6:19pm GMT

Let me help you then Robin.... it might not be spelt out but is clear to see between the lines. Rome professes our orders utterly null and void for it finds our many theological voices under one umbrella bewildering and unhelpful.

Whilst they privately find orthodox Catholics very pleasing they decry evangelicals with no belief in real presence and liberals who defy Catholic doctrine as described in the catechism.

This move illustrates that they want the few they would like to recognise but cannot due to the others....and this explains why in practice many crossing the tiber HAVE had their previous ministry recognised if not shouted from rooftops....

Posted by: Ed Tomlinson on Monday, 9 November 2009 at 7:19pm GMT

It does seem that a lot of people who up til now have been pretending to be Roman Catholics (and no, this does not include all Anglo Catholics, or even all those that will take the Pope up on his offer) will now be faced with the prospect of being pretend Anglicans!

Posted by: BillyD on Monday, 9 November 2009 at 7:38pm GMT

Not wishing to hog this discussion, but...

BillyD mentioned "mitered archpriests".

There have been mitred archpriests in the latin church too, particularly the administrators of the major churches in Rome. I don't think they have them any more, though.

Posted by: Wilf on Monday, 9 November 2009 at 7:45pm GMT

'Are there any Anglican bishops who will speak up for Anglicanism as expressed in the C of E?'

I do like that sentiment, DV. There is far too much pusillanimousness and defeatism. My part of the world in my youth, the commonest Protestant/Unionist sentiment was: 'xxxx the Pope'. Dreadful as it was, it's better than all this 'the Holy Father', 'his Holiness' nonesense.

Posted by: john on Monday, 9 November 2009 at 7:52pm GMT

What i want to know, can those of us who were Anglicans and then became Catholics in the past join these ordinariates or is it only for the new batch?

Posted by: Athol on Monday, 9 November 2009 at 8:29pm GMT

"It might not all be smooth running, and that's before I get onto divorced and remarried lay people...." - Wilf, on Monday -

One wonders what will happen to the international Head of The Traditional Anglican Communion -Archbishop Whatshisname* from Australia. He is apparently divorced and twice-married. Will he be able to have his first marriage annulled secretly before being offered a mitred Ordinariate in the new sodality? (*Bishop Hepworth)

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Monday, 9 November 2009 at 11:27pm GMT

Athol, as I read it anyone baptized an Anglican can join the ordinariate. Former Anglican priests who have since been ordained as Catholic priests can be brought under the authority of the Ordinary with appropriate consents.

You and I could join if we chose. Here in Canada I think that's unlikely. Those who want to be in the TAC already are -if people went to Rome solo here it's because we didn't find a home in the TAC.

Posted by: Clive on Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 1:10am GMT

"What i want to know, can those of us who were Anglicans and then became Catholics in the past join these ordinariates or is it only for the new batch? - Athol, on Monday -

But, Athol, why would you want to? Having already rejected Anglicanism as it has always been, why on earth would you want to join an Ordinariate, which is neither Anglican nor Roman - as they have always been? Or is this just nostalgia, and a longing for a bit of good old Anglican ritual?

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 1:22am GMT

It's in the document, Athol. No, those who are already Roman Catholics can't join.

Posted by: Paul on Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 1:39am GMT

I would think this was funny if it weren't for real. The RCC thinks that we have men playing at bishop and they are willing to let them continue to wear the finery and play some more. This is so profoundly insulting.

Posted by: ruidh on Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 1:49am GMT

Athol:

Yes, "the lay faithful originally of the Anglican tradition" who wish to join the new Ordinariates may do so after fulfilling various requirements. Article 5 of the Complementary Norms provides for exactly this. Those baptised as Catholics, however, are not ordinarily eligible "unless they are members of a family belonging to the Ordinariate"

Posted by: bain on Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 5:59am GMT

"The RCC thinks that we have men playing at bishop and they are willing to let them continue to wear the finery and play some more. This is so profoundly insulting."

Yes, but I will bet you dollars to donuts that they will have people take them up on the offer.

Posted by: BillyD on Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 1:46pm GMT

If Rome wants the misogynists and narrow minded of the Anglican Communion they're welcome to them. It's up to Rome to sort out the the who, what, when, how and where of this situation, not the Anglican Church. My personal belief is that those that head Romewards will find their eccentricities regarded in a colder light than in the Anglican Communion, and that ultimately there will be pressure for them to conform to standard RC doctrine.

I wonder what the sect will be called. 'CatholicLite' or 'I Can't Believe it's Not Rome' would seem apposite.

Posted by: RoddyFN on Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 2:17pm GMT

Just a few comments:

Mitred Arch-priests belong to the Latin tradition as well, and still exist in some parts of the world such as Malta, but they do not carry a crosier. Monsigniori wear episcopal non-liturgical attire minus the pectoral cross. It is likely that the concession given in the Apostolic Constitution is an extension of this privilege given to esteemed clergy.

Rome doesn't change on essentials: its attitude remains the same apropos of Anglican clergy as always it has since Apostolicae Curae; and all clergy who qualify, including bishops, will be ordained absolutely, not conditionally, into the Catholic priesthood.

What indeed constitutes the "Anglican Patrimony"? Why do Catholic-minded Anglicans prefer communion with Protestants than with Mother Church? No-one ever seems able to answer that conundrum. Perhaps it is that ineffable atmosphere, a certain taste for liturgical extravagance, and a penchant for anglophilia, which might explain the privilege of former bishops still enabled to "dress up": the removal of inessential barriers to full Communion.

Archbishop Hepworth has offered to resign his commission, and under the protocols of the Apostolic Constitution will not be able to exercise any priestly ministry within the Ordinariate.

The Church of Rome does not recognise the term "Roman Catholic". The Catholic Church is made up of many rites; the vast majority of course being Latin-Rite, but there are many oriental rites, springing from historically Orthodox churches which made their submission to Roman authority. Even within the Latin-Rite there has been a pluriformity of rites, such as the Ambrosian (Milan), the Dominican, and a variety of others. The "Anglican-rite", if it is to be so-called, will fall within this latter umbrella and be a Western variant, using the BCP, edited of Cranmerian prevarication and heresy touching the nature of the Eucharist. The purpose of rites is to preserve culture and ethos, and that is the purpose of the Ordinariate, but its members will be considered by the Universal Church as as Catholic as the Pope himself!

Many may feel affronted by the "re-ordination" of clergy and its implications for historical ministry, but those to have gone over to Eastern Orthodoxy have been "re-baptised" as well!


Posted by: Arthur on Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 3:53pm GMT

Father Ron, I believe in addition to being divorced, +Hepworth is also a former Catholic priest, and this will exclude him from exercising sacramental ministry in the Ordinariate.

However, all the Bishops of the TAC made it clear at the outset that they were willing to step down if required in order to achieve the communion for which they petitioned Rome, so I assume that's what he will do.

Howe

Posted by: Clive on Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 4:27pm GMT

"but those to have gone over to Eastern Orthodoxy have been "re-baptised" as well!"

Incorrect. Not all EO jurisdictions baptize "heretics" who convert. Some receive them by Chrismation (the analog to Confirmation).

Posted by: BillyD on Tuesday, 10 November 2009 at 9:02pm GMT

"Why do Catholic-minded Anglicans prefer communion with Protestants than with Mother Church?"

I don't. Unfortunately the Church Universal does not permit me to be in communion with Her, whereas the Anglican set-up hesitates to make such high walls against others.... I find it painful when I worship with Christians whose regard for the Blessed Sacrament appears to me to be casual, but I hold back from judging or de-Christianising them.

Posted by: mynsterpreost (=David Rowett) on Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 1:14pm GMT

"The Church of Rome does not recognise the term 'Roman Catholic'."

Conversely, Arthur, many find it increasingly difficult to recognize the Church of Rome (under JP2 and B16) as legitimately "Catholic".

Posted by: JCF on Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 8:05pm GMT

I hope you don't mind a Catholic priest giving his two cents. The RCC does not recognize the episcopal line of succession in the Anglican Church, not because we don’t like you, but rather the line of episcopal succession is all important to us. That line had been broken after the separation of the Anglican Church from the Catholic Church. The RCC does allow for male Anglican clergy to be ordained Catholic clergy if there are no impediments.

Posted by: Fr. Daniel Kelley on Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 9:56pm GMT

"Unfortunately the Church Universal does not permit me to be in communion with Her, whereas the Anglican set-up hesitates to make such high walls against others.... " mynsterpreost -

Actually, mynsterpreost, as an Anglo-Catholic I feel that I am already part of the Church Universal - although I do recognise that some Roman Catholics (like Robert I. Wlliams and the Pope) do not. I, too, am sad that some Anglicans still have problems with the reality of the Presence of Christ in the Mass, but perhaps that's preferable to some Christians who don't even celebrate the Holy Communion.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Wednesday, 11 November 2009 at 10:58pm GMT

@ Fr Kelley - "The RCC does not recognize the episcopal line of succession in the Anglican Church, not because we don’t like you, but rather the line of episcopal succession is all important to us. That line had been broken after the separation of the Anglican Church from the Catholic Church."

I'm sorry Fr Kelley but the 'line' was most certainly not broken. You should take the time to read "Saepius Officio" the "Answer of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York to the Bull Apostolicae Curae of H. H. Leo XIII". http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucgbmxd/saepius.htm Objections on the grounds of matter, form or intention simply do not hold up in the light of it, unless Rome wishes to negate her own orders.

If you are still worried about 'valid' lines of succession, then the Old Catholic 'Dutch Touch' first begun in 1915 should have been pervasive enough by now to remove any remaining scruples in that regard.

If not, then what about Marco Antonio De Dominis, Dean of Windsor and formerly Archbishop of Spalato (consecrated at Venice using the Tridentine Pontifical in October 1600), who on the 14th December 1617 assisted Archbishop Abbot at the consecration of George Montaigne as Bishop of Lincoln. Bishop Montaigne later became Archbishop of York and consecrated William Laud, who became Archbishop of Canterbury. All Archbishops of York and Canterbury, and the bishops they've consecrated, can trace their succession back to De Dominis.

Of course, there have also been at least four Anglican consecrations at which bishops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople assisted, and succession from at least three of them can be traced today. The first such bishop was Lycurgus, Archbishop of Syra and Tinos, who on the 2nd February 1870 assisted John Jackson, Bishop of London, at the consecration of Henry Mackenzie as Bishop of Nottingham, who on the 25th April 1877 assisted Archbishop Tait at the consecration of Edward White Benson as Bishop of Truro. Bishop Benson, of course became Archbishop of Canterbury.

And what about the case of Irish Anglican bishops? Most of their sitting bishops continued as such after the break with Rome and consecrated bishops themselves. And indeed they also at times assisted in the consecration of English bishops.

Posted by: MJ on Thursday, 12 November 2009 at 12:18am GMT

"No Prayer Book so ... no idea what constitutes Anglican Patrimony ..."

Since 1987/2003 "The Book of Divine Worship" exists. Being elements of the Book of Common Prayer
revised and adapted according to the Roman rite
for use by Roman Catholics coming from the Anglican Tradition contains the complete texts of the liturgy approved for the Anglican Use. This is a large and beautifully bound volume. It carries an Imprimatur, and it is an historic addition to the wealth of Catholic spirituality. But, ... "The Book of Divine Worship" is currently out-of-print. I do have the complete text, coming from Internet.

Posted by: Laurent Marc Côté on Thursday, 12 November 2009 at 6:34am GMT

There is, in the Franciscan Tradition in both Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches, mention of a winderfully ecumenical call to prayer, used every Friday, beginning with the words: "Here, and in all our Churches...."

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Friday, 13 November 2009 at 10:26am GMT

Billy, can you give me examples of EO churches that have merely chrismated? The Greeks and the Russians re-baptise Anglican converts, not recognising any of the sacraments conferred by Anglican clergy.

David R: Why do you imagine that the Universal Church does not permit you to be a member?

Fr. Ron: you may well feel that you are part of the Universal Church, but so do the Methodists, Presbyterians, and a host of other Protestant sects that recite the Nicene Creed in their profession of faith. What makes you any different to them? Is the Church a mere theory? or a concrete international family of humanity, as recognisable in reality as any family, with real bonds of communion, and not just theoretical ones?
Moreover, it is not a matter of "penicillin injections" by bishops bearing valid orders in subsequent consecrations which can remedy an essential defect in the Ordinal itself, which was the basis of Apostolicae Curae, which is followed by Pope Benedict in the present Constitution.


Posted by: Arthur on Friday, 13 November 2009 at 4:52pm GMT

MJ: Perhaps you might find the following links informative on why the Holy See did not accept the attempted rebuttals of York and Cantuar:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01491a.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm

Happy reading!

Posted by: Arthur on Friday, 13 November 2009 at 5:02pm GMT

"Fr. Ron: you may well feel that you are part of the Universal Church, but so do the Methodists, Presbyterians, and a host of other Protestant sects that recite the Nicene Creed in their profession of faith. What makes you any different to them?" - Arthur, on Friday -

Not quite the same things that make you, an R.C., different from 'them', Arthur. However, there are some similarities between us. Like, for instance.

1. The theory of Apostolic Succession.
2. The 'real Presence' of Christ in the Mass.
3. The honouring of Our Lady as Mother of Christ.

The main difference between me and you, perhaps, is that I do not recognise the Papal Magisterium as necessary to the integrity of priesthood or my fidelity to Christ within the Anglican Communion. Neither do I recognise the inheritor of the Roman title of the 'Vicar of Christ' to be 'infallible'.

Other than these sacerdotal qualifications, all Christians are part of the Universal Church's *priesthood of all believers*, spoken of by Paul.

Posted by: Father Ron Smith on Sunday, 15 November 2009 at 1:58am GMT

"Billy, can you give me examples of EO churches that have merely chrismated? The Greeks and the Russians re-baptise Anglican converts, not recognising any of the sacraments conferred by Anglican clergy."

The Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of the Americas, the Orthodox Church in America, and the Antiochian Archdiocese all normally receive previously baptized converts by chrismation.

Previously in Russia converts were also accepted by chrismation, as in the case of the Empress Alexandra.

http://www.assumptionaz.org/about/sacramental_information/320

http://www.oca.org/PDF/official/clergyguidelines.pdf

http://www.antiochian.org/node/19144

Posted by: BillyD on Sunday, 15 November 2009 at 8:36am GMT

And someone had better tell those churches in the northeastern and midwestern American dioceses, who have names such as "St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Church" on their signs, websites, letterheads and parish bulletins.

Posted by: Ceremoniar on Friday, 20 November 2009 at 12:39pm GMT

Surely Anglo-Catholics are Anglicans rather than Roman Catholics because there are some Catholic doctrines they don't accept, such as the Infallibility of the Pope, and because there are some things they believe that the Roman church rejects, such as the idea that Anglican priests are real priests. Will these convictions be reversed on the day they are received into the Roman fold? How can these mental gymnastics be performed with a clear conscience?

Posted by: Les Leeder on Monday, 23 November 2009 at 8:01pm GMT

To BillyD and Ceremoniar:

It's not necessarily a matter of the Church recognizing the title "Roman Catholic Church" as like you have pointed out Billy D, because the Vatican has been known to use that term.

However, the official terms to refer the Church of Rome would be ones like the "Catholic Church" or the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church." Orthodox groups would be against using these terms though to refer to that specific church that emanates from the city of Rome.

Therefore, the term "Roman Catholic" is a concession (evidenced in the cited Vatican documents from BillyD) to an exonym applied to the Church in Rome by groups who would not want to call that church the "Catholic Church", "the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church", or even "Holy Mother Church" and "Church of Christ" for that matter because if they were to do that, it would imply that the Church of Rome is the legitimate holder to these titles, something that would be totally counter-intuitive to the supposed legitimacy of these other groups.

Thus, "Roman Catholic" is not an official title. It is a concession to an exonym given to the Church of Rome by rival groups. "Catholic" is real title, but not accepted by other groups.

For example, the Republic of Macedonia considers itself to be THE Macedonia. Greece does not because if it were to accept the "Republic of Macedonia" title, it would mean its own Macedonian region in the north was not the legitimate remnant of the Macedon of Alexander the Great (a figure claimed by both the cultures of Greece and Macedonia). Therefore as a concession to Greece so that it would be recognized as an independent state, Macedonia uses the title "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" in global organizations like the UN or the EU. However, according to the Macedonian constitution, its name is still the "Republic of Macedonia."

Posted by: Christian on Wednesday, 25 November 2009 at 4:10pm GMT

Catholic Churches in the NE & MW of the US call themselves for example St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Church to distinguish themselves from say St. Gregory's Ukrainian Catholic Church or St. John's Maronite Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has also used the expression in ecumenical dialogues to be diplomatic.

Posted by: Tom B on Friday, 5 March 2010 at 10:23pm GMT

To Christian and Tom B--I am aware of the reasons that the Catholic Church has used the term "Roman Catholic Church" at times. I was merely responding to Arthur's assertion that such was not the case.

Posted by: Ceremoniar on Saturday, 20 March 2010 at 9:13pm GMT

But, Athol, why would you want to? Having already rejected Anglicanism as it has always been, why on earth would you want to join an Ordinariate, which is neither Anglican nor Roman - as they have always been? Or is this just nostalgia, and a longing for a bit of good old Anglican ritual?
Fr. Ron Smith.

That's not how it would be, Ron.
The Apostolic lineage would be restored under the Ordinariate. Which would then allow it to celebrate the Sacraments in communion with the Catholic Church, through an Anglican Rite form.
Personally, I hope it happens and soon.

Posted by: Stephen on Tuesday, 13 July 2010 at 1:17pm BST
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.