The series of blog posts started by Peregrinus on Anglicans being reluctant about the Ordinariates continues. Part 1, which was posted here on this blog, has generated much interest, comment and debate.
The questions presented here in the first “Reulcant” post have caused quite a flury of comment on other blogs. I will attempt to summarize some of the constructive comments since our purpose is to seek clarification for those sincerely seeking to respond to our Lord’s prayer that we all may be one.
So, here is a partial summary with the caveat that any condensation will be incomplete and since, as repeatedly mentioned, this is a process which is unfolding over years there are no easy, much less permanent, responses apart from those which are made by the CDF and other agents of the Holy See.
With this in mind, here we go with a first attempt at summary.
1. Authority
A number of posts have raised concerns about “private judgement” in relation to questions of authority. Some have pointed out that, amongst others, J.H. Newman held that there was a role for and necessity for the Church to elicit the voice of the laity in the determination of many matters including the reception of doctrine.
As it applies to the Ordinariates there are a number of matters which affect how this role might be defined in the governance of parishes, sodalities and ordinariate structures generally.
Anglicanorum Coetibus outlines clearly that it is expected that the councils and committees which are to be part of the structure being erected will reflect the engagement and contributions of laity in oversight at various levels. This has been a developing part of Anglican patrimony which will continue in the Ordinariates.
For Newman consultation with and participation by the laity is an important aspect of faithful discipleship as it relates to the stewardship which we collectively share for the Church Militant. In no way does consulting the laity detract from the proper role of doctrinal development and definition through the Petrine office or the role of the Magisterium in governing. In fact, the role of laity was seen by Newman as complementary to the Magisterium and as a sign of a vibrant Church with an educated laity – something Newman stove for in his work to establish a Catholic university in Ireland and in other aspects of his ministry.
The role of the laity as an aspect of patrimony is not then to be confused with the issue of “private judgement” in matters of doctrine.
There’s also this note:
Due to time constraints, posts on this topic will continue at irregular intervals. For those interested there is much more discussion on the “The Anglo-Catholic” blog and Fr. Smut’s blog amongst others…
More to follow.
The issue of “private judgment” has become sort of a myth and great misunderstanding today, especially in some old Roman Catholic circles! It can be almost an excuse for biblical and theologial ignorance with some Roman Catholics. This is just myth and wrong! Noting, 2 Tim. 2:15, etc. Certainly Newman was not of this idea as an Anglican or Roman Catholic!
The issue of private judge ment results in Evangelicals being unable to agree as to who should be baptized, what baptism means and the mode.It also divides them on whether our Lord allows re-marriage after divorce. The list could go on.
It would be a disaster to allow synodical governmment in the Ordinariates..That very system sealed the fate of Anglicanism, into the current incoherent mess, that is teh Anglican communion.
Bishops are apointed in the Church of God to rule ( Ephesians)..but oh, there are non in the Ordinariate..only a vague notion of being under the Bishop of Rome. This I feel will prove to be the fundamenmtal flaw.
“It would be a disaster to allow synodical governmment in the Ordinariates.”
I hasten to acknowledge that you have said something with which I can agree wholeheartedly.
The expression “synod” comes from the Greek for “meeting” and in the Catholic Church it is broadly synoymous with “council” And there is a whole long list of important synods in the history of the Church perhaps begining with those held at Antioch and Carthage from around 250 AD and certainly including the Synod of Whitby in 664AD. The institution survives and works in the Catholic Church and in Orthodoxy. So far as the Catholic Church is concerned, there can be diocesan synods, and also meetings of national episcopal conferences all of which are provided for by canon law. At diocesan level the functions of the synod are advisory. The authority is that of the bishop.
But various non-Catholic Churches have adopted with word “synod” to denote their own meetings and the confusion arises because in scuh bodies, the expression has different meanings. In the CofE, the supreme legislatative authority is vested in Parliament – Church law is what parliament says it is. But the authority has been delegated to “general synod” – a kind of mini-parliament with three houses, bishops, clergy and laity. and it is that form of governance which has proved a disaster.
As Mr R.I Williams must well know:-
The ordinary of an ordinariate is a voting member of the national episcopal conference. The Ordinary has identical powers over those subject to his jurisdiction as diocesans have to those subject to their jurisdictions. The Governing Council and Finance Council of the Ordinariates function in the say way as the equivalent diocesan institutions and the same provisions of canon law apply.
The single difference is that when it comes to the choice of an ordinary, the compilation of the “terna” of names to be submitted to the Pope is not undertaken by the Apostolic Nuncio but to a deliberative vote of the Governing Council. Hardly revolutionary. That’s broadly similar to what happens for Eastern Rite Churches too.
And there is no “vague notion” at play. Canon law is quite precise.
See Canon 331 “The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.”
See also Canon 372:
Ҥ1. As a rule, a portion of the people of God which constitutes a diocese or other particular church is limited to a definite territory so that it includes all the faithful living in the territory.
§2. Nevertheless, where in the judgment of the supreme authority of the Church it seems advantageous after the conferences of bishops concerned have been heard, particular churches distinguished by the rite of the faithful or some other similar reason can be erected in the same territory.”
And as with Apostolic Administrators – the Ordinary is provided with the full powers of a Bishop which he exercises by delegation. The only difference is that when an Ordinary is not in episcopal orders, he cannot ordain priests – he issues dimmisoral letters to a bishop, just as one bishop often does to another. One may expect that in the fullness of time, there will be Ordinaries in episcopal orders.
These are theoretical discussions, though I’d say not too far from the level you’d get from sophomore liberal arts majors in a dorm room bull session. This neither fills parishes nor saves souls. At the risk of irritating some readers, I think it’s worth getting back to practicalities here: the question is why are some Anglicans reluctant to join Ordinariates, and in the way things are working themselves out, I think the St Mary of the Angels case is a very good example.
The parish had long attempted to affiliate itself with the Catholic Church; it was turned down as Anglican Use in the 1980s, and the rector at the time then became a Catholic priest on his own. Supermajorites have repeatedly voted in favor of the Ordinariate, and even those not in favor, or those who for whatever reason (like prior marriages) could not become Catholic were assured of continual communion in the parish.
The parish expressed its interest in the US Ordinariate from the start. Its members attended catechism classes throughout the summer of 2011. It followed every instruction from Cardinal Wuerl prior to the erection of the Ordinariate, and then every instruction from Msgr Steenson and his representative afterward. Msgr Steenson’s representative assured the parish that it would be received during the first weeks of January 2012.
Yet this reception was continually delayed, first for a second parish vote (whose result was almost identical to the first), then for revisions to bylaws and articles of incorporation — when the parish had initially been assured by Msgr Steenson’s representative that reception would take place prior to those revisions, and indeed, assuming that the promise of reception in early January 2012 was sincere, could not have taken place if those revisions had been preconditions.
In other words, the parish went into the process in good faith, fully catechized and fully aware of the theoretical issues being raised here — indeed, it had known of them and dealt with them for 30 years. Yet the Ordinary dithered. An explicit promise to the parish had been broken — in various e-mail conversations I’ve had with some of those involved in the Ordinariate, I’ve had answers like “after all, none of us is paid” (oh, right, but you’re doing this as part of your day jobs anyhow, and Msgr Steenson is apparently keeping his airplane payments up just fine). Or “well, we’re making it up as we go along”. Or, “but there’s no money for attorneys”.
The result was that the parish was effectively unaffiliated until the ACA decided to step back in and seize it. This result could certainly have been foreseen, and indeed, I would suggest that excuses aside, the parish deserved the pastoral protection from Msgr Steenson that it had requested, had been promised, and didn’t receive.
Thge parable that keeps coming to mind here is the one about the talents and the servant who decides his master is a pretty unforgiving guy, and he’s gonna keep things exactly the way he got them. I would certainly urge any parish considering going into the Ordinariate with property to recognize that it may well not receive effective support in its own stewardship from Msgr Steenson or Chancellor Chalmers.
Why are some Anglicans reluctant indeed!
We Catholics must look like jerks now, huh?
Sorry about that. I wish I can do something about it.
I somewhat agree John, btw, Protestantism leaves the task of discovering true Christian doctrine, tradition, and church squarely and ultimately on the shoulders of the individual and freedom of the believer, but with the help of the Church, certainly. The Church is never merely the authority over the believer, but for Protestantism there is of course the priesthood of believers! Indeed here is the best of all worlds, with classic Anglicanism, as the church of the via-media, middle way, both “catholic” and “reformed”. Also, at the Bema-Seat of Christ it will be the individual Christian before his/her Lord alone, HE is the Judge & Mediator alone, and not the Church! (Heb. 9:27-28)
“Supermajorites have repeatedly voted in favor of the Ordinariate, and even those not in favor, or those who for whatever reason (like prior marriages) could not become Catholic were assured of continual communion in the parish.”
Say what? The latter part of the sentence I have excerpted seems to be the most absurd thing I have ever read. As with all other “groups of Anglicans” who have come into communion with Rome, those in irregular marital circumstances can hardly expect to receive the Catholic Eucharist before or until their marital circumstances are “regularized.” To do otherwise would seem to result in a kind of “adulterers’ charter.”
The sad reality, Dr. Tighe, is that this is precisely one of the carrots that had been dangled by former Bishop Hepworth. He assured, and reassured, all and sundry that he himself had negotiated a “special deal” with the CDF. To quote him verbatim, it would be “No questions asked”. Good, and subservient, laity believed him implicitly. He was at that time, after all, their father in God.
I don’t believe the situation at St Mary’s comes from a defect in Catholicism — if anything, as I’ve remarked here before, some of the problem may come from Msgr Steenson’s background as an Episcopal bishop and the tendency toward complacency and frivolity that we see among the prelates of that denomination. But I’m looking at the clear responsibility in denominations with bishops for the bishops to exercise a special pastoral role of protection — the parables about shepherds certainly stress the protective role. Or look at how seriously Pope Pius XII appears to have taken his special role as protector of the Jews during World War II, even to the exent of touring the ghettos in disguise to do as much as he could. He could only save a fraction, but he did it — and nobody so far has insisted that he couldn’t save them all because he wasn’t paid (after all, the Pope doesn’t get a salary), or because there was no money for attorneys, or because this Nazi stuff is all so new, we gotta make it up as we go along.
As I continue to learn more about Anglicanism and Catholicism, I think it will be important for those Catholics who supervise Ordinariates to recognize the tendency toward frivolity and complacency that’s been rampant in TEC and elsewhere, and I don’t believe it’s exclusively, or even primarily, there just because of its policies on gays, women’s ordination, and the like.
I don’t blame the Pope. I do blame Steenson.
Indeed John, the very best of the Church, even as the Body of Christ, is a Pilgrim Body, in this life! There was/is and never has been any infallibility in the Visible Church Catholic, itself! Our “perfection” sits above, on the Throne of Grace and Glory, and His name is Jesus-Savior!
And btw John, the whole doctrine of Church Bishop’s and episcopacy, though somewhat necessary, always comes up wanting on the human and even ecclesiastical level. My take anyway, but then I am closer to Jewel and Ussher, here.
The only thing I’ll say there is that we have high expectations of sea captains, say. Certainly there are sea captains that don’t live up to those expectations. On the other hand, we don’t spit the difference and lower our expectations of all other sea captains because one didn’t measure up!
And my point anyway, is that no man or even Church ministry measures up to the person and offices of Christ, Himself! This has become simply myth to call men, Your Holiness, The Holy Father, The Very Reverand, etc. The biblical presbyter is simply a Man of God, called by God, a pastor-teacher, and we can call the “Man of God”..”Father” as a pastoral title (1 Cor. 4:15). And its fine I think to use the title Bishop, for an episcopal work, but beyond that it gets verbose and can even become outside the biblical lines. The titles for the pope have become ad nauseam, and quite beyond the biblical revelation itself! And I am not trying to get into a fight with anyone here, but simply looking more to the Bible for our definitions. And too simply no man, save Christ (God & Man), has divine and supreme jurisdiction over the universal church! Yep, just basic Protestant and really Anglican Evangelicalism!
Well, “doctor” you already left the Roman Catholic Church, making you an apostate and espousing heretical views; you ask to be left alone and yet you can’t stop imitating your patron saint, Ian Paisley.
Preaching to us as to how to address the Holy Father, now?
You are not qualified to talk to us about what we ought to believe when you yourself rejected your own beliefs and now teach heterodoxy.
Who exactly are you? Do you fancy yourself the “voice the cries out in the wilderness?” because so, so, so many atheists and opponents of the Roman Catholic Church, and they’re all destined to die off in a state of irrelevancy as the Roman Catholic Church increases its members and stands against the gates of Hell itself. As for me? It doesn’t matter if I die anonymously; I die in communion with the Holy Roman Catholic Church, not excommunicated, nor professing any heterodox, protestant “faith” if it can be called that.
If that angers or annoys you, you’re probably just jealous, because deep down, you know we’re right, and no amount of Scripture-slinging will make it otherwise.
The Bible is about Jesus Christ, it is not a substitute for Christ, nor does it embody Christ, for if all things that were done and said by Him were written, not all the books in the world can be filled. And this irritates you because what you want is to have no Pope, and to interpret the Scripture how you want.
@Ioannes: Trying to chat with you on Catholicism or Protestantism, is simply a no go, for you really only understand just your “own version” of everything, very sad indeed! I do hope I live long enough to see if you grow-up mentally and theologically? It just bothers you, as some others here, that I have no intention or desire to go back to Rome or Catholicism! And I really have no overt war with Rome either, but the papacy is just simply not who they think they are! This is the saddest situation ever, for I have extended RC family members who, like you and Mourad, don’t have a theological clue here! And yes, I am a firm Protestant Anglican, and THAT is certainly my conviction and belief! And I have yet to have a good, honest debate and dialogue with a Roman Catholic here! (This blog) Honest debate and dialogue has give and take in it, and that rarely happens anymore sadly! Yes, I miss my old theological days,as both student and teacher/professor!
Also, watching the Ordinariate’s, and how Rome and the papacy is working this, has just pressed me even more away from the RCC! When Ratzinger/Benedict is gone, who knows what is going to happen here? Not a pretty sight indeed!
“it will be important for those Catholics who supervise Ordinariates to recognize the tendency toward frivolity and complacency…”
Bloody hell! Just listen to yourself.
Complacency induces acedia, and acedia leads to suicide.
I’m puzzled here: “Little Black Sambo”, certainly in the US, has been regarded as a highly offensive appelation for at leat 50 years. I’m not entirely sure what point or points this gentleman is trying to make — African-Americans use the n-word among themselves, but certainly don’t identify themselves that way in normal public discourse. And using other profanity isn’t appropriate here, either. So what gives, sir?
LBS has parried this comment many times before, though not generally when it has been made in such a transparent attempt to deflect the discussion from the poster’s own solecism.
Excuse me, so B***** H*** is apporopriate here as well? I don’t think it’s a deflection to ask for ordinary standards of civility.
Like other followers of blogs dealing with Ordinariate matters, I have come across Mr Bruce’s posts before. It is plain that he was very much an interested party in the St’Mary’s litigation.
It was sad to learn recently that ACA ArchBishop Falk (who consecrated Bishop Moyer in the ACA) and played a crucial role in the establisment of the so-called “Patrimony of the Primate” as a vehicle for those wanting to join the Ordinariate eventually decided to remain an Anglican.
Interestingly, the Archbishop gave evidence in the St Mary’s Hollywood saga and the Declaration of Archbishop Falk in the St Mary’s litigation is not only supportive of Father Kelley but also sheds a lot of light on what went on in the ACA at the time.
One of the problems facing any religious organisation is the issue of how the property of the church, mosque, synagogue, temple or other place of worship is to be held. Ownership of property is determined by the civil law of the place where the property exists and land has to be registered in the name of a real or a legal person. So, the title deeds (or equivalent) can be held in the name of an individual or individuals or in the name of a corporation having legal personality, but not in the name of an collection of unnamed individuals. So, for example, suppose a church is called, say, “The Happy Clappy Church” (“HCC”) and say it has a membership of 1,000. How is it to hold property? If it has a recognised officeholder, say a bishop, it may be possible to constute that office as a “corporation sole” and vest property in that “corporation sole” so that each sucessive officeholder legally has title to the property. That is a solution which has been used in some US RC dioceses. An alternative is a trust. Members of the Church sign up to a deed which establishes a trust and sets out who are the original trustees and how they are to be appointed and replaced and what the objects of the trust are. That is the usual means of holding property in UK Catholic Dicoceses and it is the usual vehicle for many other faiths. Suppose the HCC has a church in Podunk which is held by the HCC Trustees for the purposes of the HCC. Then suppose that 90% of the parishiones of HCC Podunk decide they want to join another church not part of the HCC and take “their” church building into the new church. Not possible. “Their” church is not owned by them but by the trustees who are under an enforceable duty to ensure it is used for HCC purposes. the 10% get to keep the Church and the 90% have to find aother place to worship until they can build a church of their own.
As parishes and even whole dioceses in the US Episcopal Church have decided that they can no longer remain part of the Episcopal Church, there has been a prodigious amount of litigation between the TEC leadership and its dissidents whith the TEC determined to keep hold of the assets (buildings and endowments) and using the civil courts for that purpose. In the case of St Mary’s it seems that the ACA is not immune from the virus afflicting the TEC and the ACA moves seem very much directed, not to the care of the souls of the majority of the parishioners, but towards getting control of a valuable piece of real estate in an iconic location and not inconsiderable other financial resources.
Part of the problem seems to me to be that when the ACA was developing its concept of the “Patrimony of the Primate” for churches which might elect to join an eventual ordinariate, insufficent attention was paid to ensuring that the legal ownership of the land and buildings of the various parishes was properly vested so as to be immune from civil litigation.
Mr Bruce now castigates the Ordinary for not affording “pastoral protection”. It is wholly unclear what he means by that.
Does he mean that the Ordinary should intervene in the legal proceedings? It is tolerably clear that the Ordinary has no locus to intervene in the legal proceedings which are, in fact, the consequence of the failure (or inability) of the leadership of the parish to make the civil legal status of the parish assault proof.
Or does he think that The Rt Rev Mgr Steenson and The Rt Rev Brian March should face off (presumbably in full pontificals) at 4510 Finley Avenue for some kind of ecclesiastical high noon?
[ I suppose one or other of the particpants could have as his second the Lone Star Parson - God, Guns, Church & Country Life in Texas and perhaps Irishanglican could also volunteer his disinterested support services].
I think Mgr Steenson’s statement Statement on St Mary of the Angels takes entirely the right approach. If St Mary’s parishioners want pastoral care, the Ordinariate is open to them. Bu the owneship of the property and he endowments is a matter for the Courts of the State of California and the Ordinary should keep out of that matter.