An Ordinariate Catechism?
June 19, 2012 9 Comments
Steve Cavanaugh reports:
While it is understood that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the standard for the Ordinariates, the Catechism itself is designed as a source for producing particular catechisms. With that in mind I point you to two considerations of this.
From Vincent Uher’s Tonus Peregrinus, writing about a text of Percy Dearmer:I hope in due course the Ordinariates together with the Anglican Use parishes will produce a new particular Catechism with Services of Instruction like those with which we were once familiar. Of course, they would need to be adapted properly to our Catholic life. It would be an excellent way to bring quotes from the Anglican worthies to bear upon questions of the faith by way of footnote or direct quotation in the text…
In the September 2011 Holy Cross embertide issue of Anglican Embers, we published an article about devising an Ordinariate-specific Catechism. You can read author Hugo Mendez’s thoughs at “An Ordinariate Catechism: Prospects and Possibilities” on the Anglican Embers page of the Anglican Use Society’s web site.
This is thinking big. A good idea no doubt. I know that the Ukrainian expression of the Catholic Church uses her own Catechism, a book entitled Christ our Pascha. The Maronite Church, I think (?), uses a book called Captivated by your Teachings - a copy of which I own (purchased from the local Catholic bookshop). So I suppose the CCC acts as a base Catechism, if you will, for the entire Church, with the possibility of other catechisms being created from it as a source. An Anglican version for catechetical formation in the (various) Ordinariates would then be a distinct future prospect.
About Fr Stephen Smuts
The USCCB also published an Adult Catechism which is quite good as well. If I remember correctly, I think somewhere in the preface/intro to the CCC, JPII wrote that he thought it would encourage local Catechisms to be produced. I think an Ordinariate one would be a great idea.
When I was in a class for confirmation for adults, what the Archdiocese of Los Angeles gave me was the “Compendium of the Catholic Church” which was an abbreviated version of the larger Catechism. I think it would be a GREAT Idea for “specialized Catechism” of course, there has to be a notification that there is a “Mother” Catechism book, like what was said about the Compendium
I ‘ve just been just been reading yet another post from the good Mr Uher on the Anglican Use of the Roman Rite blog in which he expresses discontent with the name chosen for Ordinariate over which Mgr Steenson presides and says there ought to have been more consulation, presumably including him as a consultee.
So his latest two suggestions: (i) an Ordinariate Catechism and (ii) references in it to the work of Anglican Divines are not in the circumstances wholly unexpected.
There is much merit in the works of some Anglican theologians. As the former (and Deo Volente soon again to be – 27th June) ) Father John Hunwicke pointed out in his recent Latin Sermon at Oxford University, it was the emininent Catholic Theologian, Father Aidan Nichols OP who coined the felicitous phrase “separated doctors of the Church” for some of these. I understand that the soon to be published Customary for use in the OLW ordinariate will include some such writings for use as readings in the offices and with Father Nichols as joint editor with Mgr Burnham one can have confidence that these will be eminently suitable.
Mr Mather of Geogia recognises this in his piece:-
“Happily, precedents are emerging for this bold step. Anglican voices are already poised to fulfill a devotional role in the liturgy of the English Ordinariate. As Fr. Aidan Nichols, O.P., recently indicated, “the larger number” of second readings prepared for the Matins of the Ordinariate “derive from the Anglican patrimony (the Caroline divines and their Restoration successors, the Tractarians with particular reference to Newman, and a selection of later Anglo-Catholic writers). Msgr. Andrew Burnham seemed to corroborate this fact in a recent essay, noting that “an enormous wealth of English spiritual writing, hardly explored as yet in the liturgical life of the Catholic Church,” may be available to enrich Ordinariates
around the world. The inclusion of post-Reformation, non-Catholic sources in a book of Catholic liturgy is a bold and welcome development.”
So, Mr Uher has the comfort of knowin that there are others who have his point and are at work. An Ordinariate Catechism may well be a very good idea. But there is a difference between a full form multi-volume catechism for advanced study purposes and the sort of booklets one needs for use in the RICA process which need to be much more concise and modestly priced.
In the UK much of great use has been publiched by the Catholic Truth Society (whose update from the good old “penny catechism” now retais for £2,50. Books such as “What Catholics Beleive” are produced by the CTS for just £1.95 and Pope Benedict’s Compendium on the Catechism of the Catholic Curch is just £1.74. The Evangelium course was widely used for Ordinariate Groups in England and the CD-ROM of the presentations is just £25.
If someone is minded to produce a specifically Ordinariate Catechism, why not? Mr Uher, perhaps. Since he is a Catholic he will be aware of the provisions of Canon Law: “Title IV: The Means of Social Communication,” paras 822-832.
When a Catholic writes a book on faith, morals, theology, liturgy, books on prayer, editions of Sacred Scripture, etc., he is expected to sumit his his manuscript to the Censor of his diocese or ordinariate. If the Censor finds no problem with it, it will be stamped “Nihil Obstat,” which means that there is nothing found in the text which contraindicates publication. The MSS is then sent to the Bishop or Ordinary for review. If nothing objectionable is found the “Imprimatur” or approval for printing is given. Certain cateogries of texts, in particular those proposing formulas for the administration of the sacraments have either to conform to approved normative texts, or be submitted to the appropriate Roman Congregation. Mgr Burnham has expressed the view that the definitive Ordinariate liturgy for Holy Mass will take about 5 years to obtain final approval. So this is not a project for the short term.
BTW I note that the expression “Anglican Ordinariate” is beginning to creep into use in the USA. I think that is unfortunate. The Ordinariates are not “Anglican” but “Catholic” and I would hope that in time the expression “Anglican Use” for liturgical books will also fall away and that any liturgical uses will be referred to as “Ordinariate uses”.
Penny Catechisms are GREAT! Especially really simplified dialogue form. “How many Gods are there?” “One” and so forth.
I think the “Anglican Ordinariate” expression is for reasons of clarification… It would be convenient to use “Anglican” merely because something is “English” in the context of religious identity. We can’t really call former Anglicans “English Catholics” without thinking about Catholics both Ordinariate and otherwise who are British, because there are non-British Ordinariates. At the same time, since you have Ukrainian Catholics, Maronite Catholics, and so forth, why not call the Ordinariate members “Anglo-Catholics”? Then we’d end up thinking about TAC, and other people who are OUTSIDE communion with Rome who consider themselves already “Catholic”. The safest way is to call the Ordinariates by their proper name. “Chair of St. Peter” “Our Lady of Walsingham”, etc .
Besides. We should not lose hope that one day, the Church of England and the whole Anglican Communion would all be converted by the Holy Spirit and be in communion with Rome. Then, it is only apt to call the Ordinariates “Anglican”
But then, we can be honest and call the Ordinariates “Roman” for the express reason that this entire thing is attached to Rome. Yet this robs the former Anglicans of the sort of independence they have under Rome. Maybe “Anglo-Roman” Ordinariates?
Or… We could just call them Catholic. That would also be good.
Both the “Penny Catechism” and the Compendium of the Holy Father from CTS are in question and answer form.
To describe congregations, I think one can speak of Ordinariate Catholics to distinguish them from dicocesan Catholics – but to describe than as “Anglican” or “Anglo-Catholics” makes them sound as if they are part of the CofE. Some CofE people describe themselves as “Anglo-Catholics” because that’s how thy think of themselves.
My preference for the different Ordinates is to use the initials “OLW”, “COP”, OLSC” as a prefix if it is necessary to distinguish because the full title is such a mouthful, but to use “Anglican Use” or “Anglican” as a prefix again risks confusion – because many Catholics might think they are really protestant.
I have seen “Anglican Use of the Catholic Church” and “Anglican Use of the Roman rite”, and I find them clear and acceptable by anyone.
BTW, both Mount Calvary Baltimore and St John’s Calgary’s new signs read ‘Roman Catholic Church – Anglican Use”. Though on the internet sites of both it’s “A Roman Catholic, Anglican Use parish of the Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter”.
It would be great to find an alternate name, in a similar way some Eastern-Orthodox Jacobites became Syro-Malankara Catholics when they re-united with Rome. Ioannes suggest “Anglo-Romans”… but why not “Sarum Catholics”? (an allusion to the rite of Sarum… ok now I’m just dreaming).
“Sarum Catholics” would be nice, but what would it mean to the average Catholic or Protestant? In the UK there are so many CofE Churches which are so “high” in both appearance and ritual that Catholics have been mislead into attending the services. So, now there is suspicion among Catholics about any church describing itself as “Anglican”. A leaflet has recently been produced in the UK directed to Catholics which explains the Ordinariate and I think that is very helpful so far as increasing the understanding of Catholics is concerned – but it will take time.
So far as Anglicans are concerned, most of the clergy of the “Anglo-Catholic tradition” in the CofE and many of their parishioners know more about the Ordinariate concept than do the Catholic laity. They can see the CofE adopting policies and legislation which will make it very difficult for them. The two “hot button” issues are, of course, female bishops and “gay marriage”. Given the concept of the relationship between presbyter and bishop, this is fundamental After all, how can one be in communion with a bishop who one thinks is not a bishop? However the capacity of the CofE to come up with an “Anglican Fudge” should not be underestimated. Many of the “Forward in Faith” movement are in a knd of stasis hoping aganst hope that the Synod and the bishops will come up with a formula they can live with.
The problem is that many of the so-called “Catholic Wing” of the House of Bishops really want to stay where they are and are pushing non-solutions such as the “The Mission Society of
Saint Wilfrid and Saint Hilda”.
A good example is their letter of June 2012, rather disgracefully (to my mind) described as a “pastoral letter” which can be found on line at: http://www.forwardinfaith.com/news/docs/Pastoral_letter_June_2012.pdf. In that letter, there is but one line which makes sense:
“We believe that the Church of England must keep its pledge to recognise that many in the Catholic tradition cannot in conscience receive the sacramental ministry of women priests and bishops.”
But, of course, what if the CoE doesn’t? if the views of these bishops are honestly those of the Catholic tradition, what steps do they envisage taking about the “non-priests” in their dioceses and the prospect of being in communion with female bishops who in their eyes would not be bishops?
Unless I am mistaken, these pusillanimous prelates are not going to act like the late Mgr Leonard, or the former CofE bishops who now grace and inspire the OLW Ordinariate. And that may encourage both clergy and laity to remain in the ghetto which the Synod is minded to construct for those who like to call themselves “Anglican Catholics”.
“Sarum Catholics” is very obscure. No one knows what a “Sarum” is, nor would not understand why the Use of Salisbury would be relevant in establishing a liturgical identity, save for the informed. Then again, to some people all masses, all churches, all religions are the same, so what would it matter to them how we name the Ordinariate groups? It would, however, matter to the members themselves, because it establishes an identity to which they will be known in the world, within and outside the Church. Should Ordinariate members start a petition to be known as “Sarum Catholics”? This Roman Catholic will be observing with interest if that initiative takes off.
Oh, boy. I guess it’s the same in the UK as well; here in California, when I visited San Francisco with my family, we were looking for a church to attend a mass in. We saw this beautiful Gothic cathedral and immediately took up a pew and knelt on individual kneelers. There was nothing else peculiar about that church until I saw the many signs. 1. No corpus at the cross. 2. museum exhibits at the sides of the Church. 3. Pro-homosexual agenda exhibits in said displays.
It turned out I was inside Grace Cathedral, an Episcopal church. My family and I were red-faced with embarrassment for thinking it was a Roman Catholic church.
Closer to home, I visited St. Mary of the Angels, here in Los Angeles. I have said before, and I will say again, it is the solemnity of the liturgy celebrated in the “Sarum Catholic” way that has made me fall in love with the Ordinariates and have said many prayers of thanksgiving for Anglicanorum Coetibus. The first time I have experienced the mass, I said to myself that if there ever was a mass said in English, what I have witnessed in St. Mary’s ought to be the standard. It wasn’t until I’ve researched more (eventually ending up in this blog) about St. Mary’s and the incredibly complicated issue surrounding that little church that I refrained from visiting, our of caution, until they are de jure members of the Ordinariate. That church was behaving as if it was de facto Catholic, but… We all know the situation, and I am praying that all its issues be resolved that it may be admitted into the Ordinariate.
See, this ignorance on the part of the Catholic laity, OUR side, gets frustrating, and I pray that the Holy Spirit would grant me the virtue of patience on this matter; but I sense that a large percentage of the laity, who grew up in the “Spirit of Vatican 2″ were not properly catechized, or have given themselves and their children to the spirit of the world rather than as identifying themselves with absolute certainty as members of the Catholic Church. As a result, I have some anxiety; even if we are active in informing, say, Roman Catholics about the nature of the Ordinariates, if those people who are dying or already dead in spirit, who sit in the pews every Sunday just to go through the motion, or hold some sort of pious agnosticism, if those people are so lukewarm that they couldn’t be bothered to wake up and appreciate and educate themselves about their own Church, then how are they going to grow in spirit with the knowledge of the Ordinariate? But, see, I go back to my previous point; it wasn’t because of what I knew that drew me to love the Ordinariate and its members; I hope I’m not being overly dramatic or that I labor this point too much, but it was the Holy Mass, done properly! That sacred moment in space and time is the +crux+ of, well, everything about our faith. Without it, what is the point of talking about the Pope’s authority, or even in believing in God? You know that Jesus Christ is there, at the altar! Not only intellectually, but emotionally. And this very fact gives me a small hope that will never die with regards to the Re-Evangelization of the West, and of rousing those who have fallen asleep in their Faith.
I wonder if these “Catholic” Bishops are more or less the CoE’s version of SSPX? While the SSPX considers itself “The Church” in the right side of the argument, they would not be reconciled with the Holy Father, though they do not even declare sedevacantist notions with regards to him. Maybe it is fear. The SSPX fears what they fought will be in vain if all these hardcore liberals in high positions of the Curia would bully them once they entered into canonical place within the Church. Likewise, maybe it is the fear of absorption and the concept of Rome itself that prevents these “Catholic” bishops from joining the Ordinariates. They both fear that a trap is set for them.
I understand them erring on the side of caution. But it also seems to me that we need for them to be strong men of God, men like Peter, the Rock, stable and courageous to the point of death rather than soft men in skirts who sit around while the Devil actively campaigns to destroy us all. Will these men wait until some atheist government decides to persecute Christians once again as the only time to do something decisive and bold?
@ Ioannes: Much worse in the UK my friend, the nominally CofE church would have had all but all, the accoutrements of a Catholic church, reserved sacarament, incense, priests in birettas, Lady Altar, Rosary & benediction, prayer for the Pope.
But if you really want to feel bad, you might try going to a genuine Gothic Cathedral constructed in decorated Gothic style 1265-1342 to find going on a vaguely Chistolgical service part of which required each member of the congregation to use a soothing Playstation 3 game called “Flower” designed to stimulate positive emotions in players and requiring gamers (aka worshippers) to dictate the movements of a flower petal by controlling the wind. You might think this an unlikely tale. Google “Playstation Exeter Cathedral”.