The Failure of the Ordinariate?
September 28, 2012 41 Comments
Mr Christian Clay Columba Campbell after giving up The Anglo Catholic blog has a new blog. Sadly, his sentiments and tone remains unchanged:
From a recent comment by Fr. Phillips of Our Lady of the Atonement on Rorate Cæli:
When our parish was established a little over twenty-nine years ago, it was the first of the “Anglican Use” parishes. Although we would like to be part of the Ordinariate in this country, we will be waiting until it is more closely conformed to Pope Benedict’s vision. Speaking for myself, I’m not interested in returning to a form of Episcopalianism, even if it is in communion with the Holy See.
This is exactly what I said at the inauguration of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter. The Ordinariate, as it is evolving, is not, according to the letter or its spirit, a faithful reflection of the Holy Father’s express will in the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum cœtibus. I am not happy to have been the first to make the observation that the purpose of this Ordinariate seemed to be to recreate The Episcopal Church circa 1990, simply without women — or (at least openly) homosexual — bishops. The Ordinary seems a thorough Modernist and is an avowed enemy of Catholic Tradition. While the Rorate Cæli post suggests that Cardinal Wuerl is pulling the strings, I am certain that the Ordinary need not have been unduly pressured to adopt the same positions. After all, it should not be forgotten that Monsignor Steenson is on record as saying that it was only possible for him to become Catholic because of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council!
He rambles on here.
About Fr Stephen Smuts
And of course Mr. Campbell is the only authorized interpreter of the Pope’s thoughs and aims! LOL.
The authorized interpreter of the Pope’s intentions are those duly appointed by him: Mgr. Steenson as head of the ordinariate, and Cardinal Wuerl as Bishop-liaison between the ordinariate and the episcopal conference.
Methink those traddies (including the Rorate Caeli folks and Mr. Campbell) have no consideration at all for the anglican patrimony and wanted to hijack the ordinariate in order to make it a mere reservoir of supply priests for the TLM. As Mgr steenson is preventing this to happen, they are angry.
Another example of why I like the TLM but not so those who attend it!
+ PAX et BONUM
Mr. Campbell has fallen in with the SSPX and should duly be ignored as far as the Ordinariates are concerned.
Mr concern would relate to Fr Phillips’s remarks which are, at the very least, deeply unhelpful to the work of the Ordinary and the Ordinariate. I cannot guess at the reasons behind this and I accept he does express his best wishes to the Ordinary, but involving himself in the discussion on such frankly unbalanced blogs is not what one would have expected of him.
I pray that his care for 3,000 souls will take him away from such public spats in future.
Fr Barry, it was far from my intention to be unhelpful to the Ordinariate. I have made my support for Anglicanorum coetibus abundantly clear from the day it was announced.
Perhaps it is because of my thirty years in the Catholic Church that my phrasing was as sparse as it was, assuming my point would be understood. I think most of the readers of the blog where the comment was made originally got the point — it is the difference between the episcopal model of the Church and the Catholic papal understanding. I explained my meaning on Deborah Gyapong’s blog, “Foolishness to the world,” and I hope it is helps:
—————————
“I do not think the celebration of the Extraordinary Form within Ordinariate groups needs to be encouraged. I offered it at Our Lady of the Atonement some years ago (when it was called the “indult Mass,” and I did it at the request of my archbishop. The group it attracted seemed bent on making it a difficult experience (I won’t go into details), but we transitioned into what is now called the Ordinary Form, and that form of the Latin Mass is celebrated on Friday mornings with our students, and on Sunday evening as one of our regular Sunday Masses. All our other Masses (13 out of the 15 in a regular week) are celebrated according to the BDW. I say this because the Latin Mass (in whichever form) is part of our Western heritage. If the Ordinary Form is simply a revision of the Extraordinary Form (which I accept, although hard-core traditionalists might not), then I’m lost in the logic that would say the Ordinary Form (whether in Latin or the vernacular) can be used in the Ordinariate, but the Extraordinary Form cannot. Of course, I don’t need to understand the logic because it doesn’t affect me.
What does affect all of us, however, is the fact that it has been forbidden to Ordinariate groups. This is what I was referring to, when I used the term “episcopalianism.” As Catholics, our bishops (ordinaries) act in union with the Successor of St. Peter. Local ordinaries cannot decide on their own whether or not they will follow papal directives, and certainly the Ordinary of the Chair of St. Peter is bound by what is contained in Anglicanorum coetibus. In that foundational document it says (III), “Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.”
The phrase could not be clearer: “Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite…” I make the point with all due respect to the Ordinary (about whom there are many things I truly admire), but to take a decision contrary to what is stated plainly in an Apostolic Constitution from the Holy Father himself is, I would submit, a reversion to “episcopalianism,” in which the local bishop is quite free to do that sort of thing because he has no Pope to whom he owes obedience.
This is the only reason I have weighed in on the issue. I am not carrying water for Rorate Caeli, and I am not encouraging a wider use of the Extraordinary Form within the Ordinariate; but as a Catholic priest, I am concerned about upholding our Catholic understanding of the relationship between a particular jurisdiction and the universal jurisdiction of the Holy Father.
In brief, for me this is not an Ordinariate issue (which would be none of my business); rather it is a Catholic issue.”
—————————–
I can only repeat my unswerving support for the Ordinariate, and making a critical observation might well be helpful in the long run. The Ordinariate is a Catholic jurisdiction, and it needs to operate as such. That was my only point.
God bless you, Fr. Phillips, you should’ve been the ordinary! (But let us accept the will of God and work with what He has given us.)
I too am a little more comfortable now than after reading your original comment on Rorate, embedded as it was in much anti-Ordinariate invective. I think it is time that the Ordinariates presented their draft of a new Anglican Use mass and then allowed for discussion on this before a final form is decided on.
The BDW allows for two Anglican Use mass forms, BOTH in the vernacular. I suspect that it would be more acceptable if the new Ordinariate Ordo should also allow for two, BOTH in the vernacular. This is most certainly the Anglican patrimony. A Latin mass, whilst being specifically permitted by AC, should not be the norm (one or two out of fifteen sounds about right). I think that Msgr. Steenson could probably agree with that too.
So, Liturgical Commission, pull your socks up and give us the draft asap.
David Murphy
Given CDF’s oversight of the Ordinariates, I find it amazing that there is this clear assumption that Msgr. Steenson is acting against their wishes or without their consent. Has anyone given any consideration that Msgr. Steenson may be acting with their full knowledge and consent, particularly since the Ordinariates were not even conceived of when SP was issued? Maybe since the Ordinariates are a completely new thing with their own liturgy, CDF has made an exception for them. I’ve got to think that if Msgr. Steenson was “going Episcopalian” (code for going rogue, I think) that someone with oversight of the Ordinariate would have intervened by now.
Well, wayfarer, there appears to be no problem with, nor discouragement of, the use the OF Mass in the English or the Australian Ordinariates, and (as per your assumption) there seems little reason to think that the CDF would have one “liturgcal policy” for one ordinariate, and an opposed one for the other two.
David Murphy wrote:
“I think it is time that the Ordinariates presented their draft of a new Anglican Use mass and then allowed for discussion on this before a final form is decided on.”
At one point it was believed that there would be one “Anglican Use Mass rite” for England, and another for use everywhere else. The English submitted their proposal over a year ago, and it was rejected; the “others” never submitted theirs, or at least not yet — and more recently it has emerged that the Roman authorities desire one single rite for use everywhere. Also — but I may be mistaken here — I believe that it has already been indicated that those Ordinariate congregations who wish to use a “contemporary English” rite should expect to use the recent new translation of the Roman Rite (perhaps with some Anglican bits added?) in the future.
Dr. Tighe, I think that the situations of the different Ordinariates are fundamentally different, necessitating different treatment. My understanding is that neither England nor Australia were using the BDW, so that the “prayerbook” tradition that is very much alive and well in the US is very different in the other Ordinariates. Thus it would make sense following the tradition found in both the BDW and the BCP that the US Ordinariate would have its “modern” liturgy as the OF, and its “traditional” Anglican-based liturgy of the BDW. This is in keeping with what Episcopalians/Anglicans in the US are used to.
My understanding is that at least in England, they have not been using prayerbook liturgies for many years, but rather they have been using the OF. The BDW would be rather foreign to their current practices. So for them, the “modern” liturgy would be the OF, and the “traditional” liturgy would be the EF. Even though they are all Ordinariates, I think the expression of Anglicanism, certainly liturgical Anglicanism, has been very different between the three, thus it is rational that Rome would recognize this and legislate accordingly.
“Monsignor Steenson is on record as saying that it was only possible for him to become Catholic because of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council!”
So this makes him a “Modernist” does it? CCCC is out of his depth when it comes to theology and church history. He needs to keep his ignorance to himself.
You should ask my colleagues and professional acquaintances if they think I’m out of my depth. Please point out one single significant error in my expression of Church history or theology. You have three years’ archives of The Anglo-Catholic to peruse.
The Ordinariate is suffering a number of growing pains that have to be expected from a) having very little in the way of infrastructure or resources; b) having a membership, clerical and lay, drawn from a wide variety of sources; and c)fitting into a larger structure that has seen nothing like it before. It would be odd indeed if there were not lots of distress and annoyance all round. But the time to say it is a failure is ten, twenty, or even fifty years hence. Is it, at this moment, everything I hoped it would be? No. But things (especially in the Church) are rarely as I hope they will be – and just perhaps, sometimes my hopes themselves are incorrect.
I agree with both Fr. Douglas and Mr. Coulombe! Vatican II, save some real aspects of the Pastoral section on non-Christian religions, (leaving Judaism aside there), is an advance generally theologically. But yes, there are real problems, with as I said, portions of the Pastoral on non-Christian and pagan religions in Vatican II. As an Evangelical reformed Anglican, I like some of the Paleo-orthodox evangelical ideas…Stanley Grenz (RIP), Robert Jenson and of course Thomas Oden. And ecumenically there are Roman Catholic scholars here, too! But, I draw the line myself with the “emergents”.
And yes, it is way too early to make lasting judgments about The Ordinariate’s; and I am one that will never go there. But, again we simply must have some real ecumenical action there; both the “Catholics” (Anglicans) therein, and I hope Evangelicals like myself and others. Yes, this will be down the road, but we should pray and engage! Again, our war today is simply the culture of postmodernity, and not so much with each other! I am one of those that believes that Radical Islam is the new face of Antichrist, and will certainly be involved in the eschatological end!
You should never say “never”!
@Joseph: Never for me, really does mean “never”! My last Roman Catholic days were in my 20′s, I will be 63 late next month. You forget I am a Martin Luther guy!…even as an Anglican.
Btw, when Ratzinger/Benedict goes, the next pope could make or break the RCC! I am always amazed at the ecclesiastical nature of many on this blog, but their lack of biblical and theological desire, seems apparent! Of course there are some biblical and theologically minded Roman Catholics, and even a few Anglo-Catholics 
… but sadly not many show up here! Indeed it appears the press or push here is always toward “rubrics” and Judaization!
@ Joseph
One just has to keep praying.
@irishanglican
“You forget I am a Martin Luther guy!” -
No, we couldn’t if we tried.
” Of course there are some biblical and theologically minded Roman Catholics, and even a few Anglo-Catholics
… but sadly not many show up here! ”
What does this suggest to you?
@Stephen: First, I am glad that my love for ole Dr. Martin Luther is “apparent”! His doctrine of the “theologia crucis” (Cross), has helped shape my Pauline understanding for many years!
To answer your question, I am afraid that many that comment here, both Roman Catholic and Anglican, simply don’t seem to know ‘the Gospel of the Grace of God’! Sure they know about Jesus, and lots of “church” stuff, perhaps. But the Good News and the Gospel of Jesus Christ? I fear not! Of course this Gospel is not a mere formula, but it does have some biblical and even ontological reality, but this is quite centred in the “Person” and “Work” of Christ Himself! And it is here that St. Paul, himself, quite understood and gave “revelation”! (1 Cor. 2: 1-5, etc., really the whole of chapter 2!) And it is here too that the great Reformer Martin Luther, came to see and understand Paul’s Gospel…”solemnly testiying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Acts 20: 21) It’s not rocket science, but ‘faith, hope and love’… in a Crucified but Risen Redeemer: “Christ Jesus”! Simply have we meet HIM, and fallen in love? But a love that is biblical and sustained always by Grace!
@Mourad: Yes, I pray too! We will have to see who prayers have both truth, and God’s good answers! Btw, we may not see this until eternity? My question to you, is simple: Do you love the “Person” of Jesus Christ? Just forget the visible church for the moment, and how about the “invisible” church? Of which “Christ Jesus” is HEAD! And this really is an existential reality!
I seem to recall that St peter said “never” and looked what happened to him!
@irishanglican
” I am afraid that many that comment here, both Roman Catholic and Anglican, simply don’t seem to know ‘the Gospel of the Grace of God’! Sure they know about Jesus, and lots of “church” stuff, perhaps. But the Good News and the Gospel of Jesus Christ? I fear not!”
To quote that other great Reformer, Oliver Cromwell: I beseech you in the bowels of Christ: consider that you may be mistaken.
“Yes, I pray too! We will have to see who prayers have both truth, and God’s good answers!”
I feel that I am watching a mystery play enacting a parable. Just to help those of us who are slow on the uptake: which of you and Mourad is the pharisee, and which the publican?
@Stephen: It often happens when a pastor-teacher is seeking to press home biblical and theological truth, he will get your reply. That is very sad, it is like hiding from truth to my mind. And proper Christology and the Atonement are always central in the true Gospel!
Btw, here’s a book that should turn some heads! I certainly believe in the subject matter, the hour is much later to my mind as to the Eschatological End! The Mideast Beast, The Scriptural Case For An Islamic Antichrist, by Joel Richardson (WMD Books, 2012). And note I lived in Israel in the late 90s. For those interested, see Amazon Books.
PS..I am not supporting everything in Richardson’s book and books, but I certainly do agree that Radical Islam will be central in the escatological end, and I feel we are certainly approaching that end! Of course Modern Israel will be in the centre.
It is now quite some time since Our Lord founded His Church and entrusted its governance to St Peter, the Apostles and their successors. While we are assured of the survival of the Church, there is no guarantee that every papal or episcopal initiative will be crowned with success nor even that every person placed in a position of authority in the Church will be as holy or as competent as one would like. In other words, the governance of the Church has been entrusted to fallible and sinful humans – yet it will survive.
As with any other papal initiative, time alone will tell whether Anglicanorum Coetibus will prove to have been a success. It may be that with time and experience the Apostolic Constitution or the Complementary Norms, or the choice of Pastors will require modification.
Everyone is free to offer opinions on the wisdom and practicality of the the initiative or of particular decisions taken and over the months there has been no shortage of opinions expressed publicly and probably still more expressed privately.
It is for those concerned with the implementation of Anglicanorum Coetibus, and not for me to decide what weight is to be given to such expressions of opinion but I would suggest that the CSP Ordinary might safely give little weight to the intemperate views of Mr Campbell who has hardly been in the Church for 10 minutes, while, on the other hand, Father Phillips is someone whose opinions the powers that be might be well advised to heed.
After all, Father Phillips made the transition from Anglican clergyman to Catholic priest in 1983. His near 30 years’ experience in the priesthood should count for a great deal, not least because he played an important part in the development of the Book of Divine Worship as an interm rite for the Anglican Use, founded an Anglican Use Parish under the Pastoral Provision with just 18 members which, by God’s Grace and hard work is now an extremely successful Parish with an outstanding school. He has been a good friend and mentor to many in the OLW Ordinariate and, I expect, in North America too.
And, for what it is worth, on the particular issue I think he was right to express concern.
The text of Mgr Steenson’s statement is On the Latin Mass is here. Insofar as it states that those ordinariate clergy who wish training to celebrate in the EF, should feel free to obtain that training with the assistance of diocesan programees, that is perfectly orthodox and commendable.
But priests of the Ordinariate are fully Catholic priests of the Latin Rite. The Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificium would therefore apply and therefore the words of Mgr Steenson’s statement “But as the Extrordinary Form is not integral to the Anglican patrimony, it is not properly used in our communities.” seems to me to be over broad.
Certainly, clergy of the OLW Ordinariate qualified to do so have celebrated using the EF on special occasions and I think that the general proposition that the use of Latin is to be encouraged as part of the heritage of the Latin Church applies just as much to Ordinariates as it does to other constituent parts of the Latin rite. However, these are early days and I am sure the nuances will get sorted out.
Btw Mourad: It is interesting how you seek to humanize the RCC, warts and all, but when it comes to the history of Anglicanism, you look only at the so-called High Church or Anglo-Catholics, and only then with great distain and that sense of Roman Catholic superiority! (I too grew-up in that old RCC). I know its because this is all that you know or can approach, personally. But, in fact the history of Anglicanism, CoE, Ireland, Scotland, Down Under, and even America… has had some lasting classic Evangelicalism! And it would be a very interesting scene to see how many High Church or Anglo-Catholics have come thru the Anglican Evangelicalism! But sadly, Roman Catholics as a whole don’t have this past, perhaps this is one of the reasons some Roman Catholics are somewhat drawn to the Ordinariates?
By way of a complement to some of the other observations: Over on the “Foolishness to the World” blog Father Barry (who posted above) said this:-
“I think things are better than others may have expected – whilst the timescale was too slow for some, the increasing number of members of the TAC who have entered (or are in the process of entering) the Ordinariates has shown that there was never any intention to exclude this redoubtable group of people. History will doubtless show that there were a few mistakes made, false impressions given and a number of people who have felt left behind. That is the way of things when one attempts to take a bold step for Church unity. I believe that years from now the implementation of Anglicanorum Coetibus will be seen as a defining moment for western (as in Latin Rite) Christianity when so much of the Anglican world has moved away from historical understandings of sexuality, marriage and sacramental order.
Looking from this side of the Atlantic, the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter looks like it may become a real success with the hard decisions faced from the beginning leading to true fruition for Anglicans/Episcopalians in North America. In the meantime, the number of priests in the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham now stands at 80 and a framework is growing to welcome those who may presently feel as if they are no longer able to remain in the Church of England. Will it happen? I don’t know, but I choose to trust in God’s plan.
I agree with that sentiment. That was followed by EPMS who wrote:-
“Between four and five hundred CofE priests coverted to Catholicism in the wake of the ordination of women in 1994. I would regard these eighty as late addition to this number. The number of laypeople joining them in both instances has been negligible: the OOLW now has a priest for every 10-20 lay members. There can be no intention to focus the ministry of these priests on the “Anglican Patrimony”; they would be tripping over one another. Meanwhile the Church in the UK is in desperate need of manpower. Clergy educated at no expense to the Church, speaking English rather than Vietnamese as a first language are a godsend.”
There is a basis of fact in that statement too. It is absolutely true that the Church derived great benefit from the influx of CofE clergy after the CofE decided to purport to ordain women. It is also true that, at present, the OLW Ordinariate has groups of varying sizes some of which are self sustaining and some of which are not. And yes, the additional manpower available from the Ordinariate is welcomed by the Diocesans. There are several parish churches which might have had to close wre it not possible to combine the function of Ordinariate Pastor and Diocesan Priest in Charge.
As the CofE moves further and further towards the “it doesn’t matter what you believe” stance of the TEC, one is seeing a flow of receptions into Orinariate Groups, but the plain fact is that in England today the majority of the Christian population is Christian in name only. We are in dire need of re-evangelisation.
I posted elsewhere on this blog part of an address by the newly conscrcrated Bishop of Portsmouth, Mgr Philip Egan, and I am very pleased to note the address was also was picked up by Roccfo Palmo, Whispers in the Loggia blog: “There Is A Way – And It’s The Truth”: In England, A Call for “Conversions” . It is well worth a read.
Commentators in the CofE have not been slow to pick up on Mgr Egan’s message and to ask themselves whether the next Archbishop of Cantebury should be saying the same. One of the great things about the priests who have by God’s Grace joined the OLW Ordinariate is that many are ready, willing and able to participate in the “New Evagelisation” which England needs. They were filling CofE Churches while other CofE churches were languishing.
So I am hopeful that by God’s Grace the OLW Ordinariate will play its part in bringing England back to the Faith of our Fathers, the Holy Faith.
I actually do pray that the movement of Anglicans into the Ordinariate, and their Anglican Patrimony can be used by God in a sort of Evangelical renewal for the RCC! But again, I am one of those that does not see the Church or culture surviving that long spiritually in this world of postmodernity and Muslim radicalism! The handwriting is on the wall, i.e. ‘the Signs of the Times! ‘ ..now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over then? I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith (the faith) on the earth?” (Jesus, Luke 18: 7-8) And btw, GOD defines “justice” and the “elect”, by the Gospel itself!
I keep hammering this aspect… “It pleased God,” says St. Paul, “by the foolishness of “Preaching” to save them that believe.” (1 Cor. 1:21) And the word here translated “preaching,” Kerygma, signifies not the action of the preacher himself, but that which he preaches, i.e. his “message”! And Word & Sacrament are always closely connected! And it is not merely giving “information”, though the sermon contains it, but the prophetic power and voice of God! Such is “biblical” preaching, in “spirit and truth”! And again, in the “kerygma” God Himself is present in judgment and grace! And simply but profoundly preaching proclaims the great facts of the Gospel: the life, death, resurrection and exaltation/Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ!
May we again see and recognize the Gospel of God In Christ!
The SSPX are still a force to be reckoned with; Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope of Christian Unity! They will be brought back into the fold, either with this pope or the next. GOD WILLS IT!
Also, the Ordinariates. Them too.
But wait a moment here. My wife and I are going through RCIA on what we’d originally thought was a Plan B after the St Mary of the Angels fiasco. We’re finding, though, that the RC Church has a broad spectrum of liturgy. One thing I notice on this blog is that while everyone has an opinion about the Ordinariates, few will ever be geographically close enough even to attend an Ordinariate mass, ever. Others aren’t Catholic, and this probably doesn’t affect them directly. Others are already Catholic, and it probably doesn’t make much difference to them if they attend a BDW mass or something more mainstream.
So as I’ve said before, I’m one of a small number of people who were directly in the path of this development. What I see in trying to reason this whole thing through is that even if we stayed with an Anglican or Episcopal denomination, there’d be differences among individual parishes — if we had to relocate and join another church, or if we got fed up with our current parish and went across town, we’d find differences, some pretty major, even within TEC, say.
As far as we can tell, and our RCIA instructor has clarified this, the amount of Latin in the mass in a given parish varies, even if they aren’t specifically going for EF or whatever. Augustinians do things one way, Paulists another, Jesuits another, Opus Dei another, etc etc. So I’m scratching my head over what people are expecting from the Ordinariate — if all they want is a high church transplant into the RC denomination, well, maybe, maybe not, but my guess is you’d have to look at any individual parish anyhow.
So to some extent this discussion is talking about an idealized “Ordinariate” that mostly doesn’t even exist, since there are still just a single-digit number of parishes that do other than meet between masses at an RC parish anyhow.
Has the Ordinariate “succeeded”? What does that mean? If what’s expected is that it’s set up a career path for married straight male ex-Anglican priests, I guess so — half a dozen posts for them in parishes, plus others in the bureaucracy. Has it set up a TEC style old-boy network? Sure has, by all accounts. Is it an in-group? Probably. I’m interested in Fr Phillips’s comments on trying to have an EF mass, with some people trying to make it into a difficult experience. It’s hard for me to avoid thinking that there’s a significant Ordinariate faction that wants to make things difficult there, too, plus people like Fr Smuts, with no serious likelihood of ever going into an Ordinariate himself (or, like many others here, with no serious likelihood of even attending a BDW mass), rooting for it to happen!
I’m beginning to see it’s just an easier and better process, with less likelihood of spiritual distraction and risk of pride, simply to become a Catholic.
@John Bruce: I am one of those surely that won’t go back to Rome, but I am certainly friendly with some Roman Catholic people, both priests and laity. Since I live in S. Calif. right now, I know several in the Ordinariate, as too just the regular RCC, not to mention extended family in both Ireland and England, that are Catholic. As I have written, we have much more in common than not as simply Christians, whatever our historical label, though of course some are certainly better than others. As in fact we can see with the basic ideas of many Christians, especially those who see certain Ecumenical Creedal ideas: EO, Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed, etc. There is even some Baptists here. The point is Christ & Christology, the Trinity, and yes the Death of Christ as vicarious and substitutionary (though the manner exactly of the latter, is theological). But indeed the “Person” and “Work” of Christ should always be our desire and measure! And as I have said, in the last.. Luther is really both Catholic & Reformational, noting too like The Schmalkald Articles, with Melanchton, etc. And simply the SA is the trinitarian, creedal faith of the church. Here really is what we could call a “catholic evangelicalism”. So my point is, with Luther & Lutherans, who surely believe in the eucharistic real presence, the case or issues between Roman Catholicism and Luther, are in other areas generally. Papacy, authority, faith and even morals. But, with Vatican II these have somewhat been narrowed to degree. But, sadly when one like myself sees and engages with people from the likes of this blog, I won’t mention personal names (they are obvious), I can see at least that many older Catholic ideas emerge, which as those with the Reformed too, simply press us back into our theological debate. Which we should respect in both, but seek more of a dialogue, together. This was the path of a Barth and a Von Balthasar! And Barth was even friends with the great Orthodox, Georges Florovsky. Would that we in the Visible Church today would take note! No one surrendering their theological differences, but remembering that they were really all, at least these… Christian Brethren, and all “Catholic”!
@ John
I am, of course, very pleased to learn that you and your wife are persevering with the RICA programme, and I hope that very soon you will be welcomed into the Catholic Church.
One of the things that many persons received ito the Ordinariate in England remark about after their reception is the feeling of being tuly in communion with all other Catholics – the knowledge that they can walk into a Catholic Church almost anywhere in the world attend the Mass and receive the sacrament with full assurance. Yes, of course, different Churches feel different. Solemn High Mass in an Abbey with Gregorian Chant, is always going to be very different to the 10 o’clock NO mass in a suburban parish. What you get in a particular parish may depend on the ethnicity of the parishioners, or the particular predelictions of the clergy.
It is most certainly much too soon to be able to say that the Holy Father’s Ordinariate initiative has “succeeded”. In the sense that in England, over 1,000 individuals and around 80 clergy have been received in 18 months, that is quite a good beginning. But only a beginning.
Anglicanorum Coetibus is, of course, intended to facilitate the the reception of Anglicans. The time may be particularly propitious. In this regard, I was interested to read an article by Professor John Millbank who is Director of the Centre for Theology and Philosopy at the University of Nottingham After Rowan: Priorities for the Anglican Communion in which there was this passage:-
“But perhaps even more urgent for the Church in England than addressing this issue is the need to amend the growing incompetence and theological incoherence on the ground. There are three crucial elements that stand out:
Almost ubiquitous liturgical chaos, where many evangelicals and liberals alike have little sense of what worship is for.
The increasing failure of many priests to perform their true priestly roles of pastoral care and mission outreach, in a predominantly “liberal” and managerialist ecclesial culture that encourages bureaucratisation and over-specialisation. This has often led to a staggering failure even to try to do the most obvious things – like publicising in the community an Easter egg hunt for children in the bishop’s palace grounds! To an unrecognised degree this kind of lapse explains why fewer and fewer people bother with church – though the underlying failure “even to try” has more to do with a post 1960s ethos that assumes decline and regards secularisation as basically a good thing, or even as providentially ordained since religion is supposedly a “private” and merely “personal” affair after all.
Perhaps most decisive is the collapse of theological literacy among the clergy – again, this is partly a legacy of the 1960s and 70s (made all the worst by the illusion that this was a time of enlightening by sophisticated German Protestant influence), but it has now been compounded by the ever-easier admission of people to the priesthood with but minimal theological education, and often one in which doctrine is regarded almost as an optional extra.”
As the “1960′s ethos” which Professor Millbank delores continues to drive Anglicanism in the so-called “advanced democracies” away from from what it retained of Caholic teaching, I would hope that many Anglicans would want to explore reunion with the Catholic Church. If the Ordinariates make that process easier – that’s to the good, but the important thing is that we make former Anglicans welcome.
Milbank is sometimes described as a metaphysical theologian in that he is concerned with establishing a Christian trinitarian ontology. He relies heavily on aspects of the thought of Plato and Augustine, in particular the former’s modification by the Neoplatonist philosophers. Myself, I see him as postmodern Anglo-Catholic, even with his so-called “Radical Orthodoxy”, and lacks the classic aspect of historic Evangelicalism!
Btw, just a point for our theological thinkers, but how can postmodernity really be critical of modernity? (i.e. one of Millbank’s, thesis or hypothesis lines) Indeed both modernity and postmodernity are ‘birds of a feather’!
Milbank is an ardent proponent of WO, anf, while he opposes “gender neutral marriage,” he favors the Church blessing same-sex “partnerships” (which should more properly be termed sodomitic pseudogamy), so while I can see how the title “radical” is deserved, I cannot say the same for “orthodoxy.” But, then, as a Catholic I do not believe that to be orthodox in one area (e.g., Christology) but heterodox in another (e.g., morals) entitles someone to be termed “orthodox” full stop.
Yes, of course Millbank supports WO, all those who get favor today within the CoE do so, as even NT Wright! Not to mention Millbank was a student of RW. And I used the term “Radical Orthodoxy”.. as do some others, as even Millbank for his so-called theology in places. But indeed Millbank is actually “radically” modern and postmodern! The two terms are really father and son, of course landing theologically in his verson of postmodernity.
Finally, without classic Evangelical theology, generally speaking, there can be no biblical-theological Faith!
Btw, here is a nice link…
http://www.equip.org/articles/evangelical-catholics/
Fr. Robert,
Concerning Milbank and RW, you might find my two comments here of interest:
http://sarumuse.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/after-rowan/#comments
@William: Thanks to share these! Indeed it is always a sorry affair when we think that logic and modernity/postmodernity can somehow help or really trump God’s Word and Revelation, as too God’s proper place of “tradition”! It is very sad today to see the grave sins of sexual deviation, both homosexual and just general “porneia”; and even now in the “Church” itself, i.e. clergy! Truly we live even more so in the day of “apostasy”, as St. Paul himself, wrote! (2 Tim. 3 ; 4: 3-4, etc.) As the Hebrew writer, wrote.. (Heb. 13: 4). Also 2 Thessalonians chapter Two should be read here, noting especially verses 9-12! Sober and even frightful words! – But again thankfully seeing verses 13-15, etc.
Lord help us to believe and even tremble before You & Your Word!
So, um, Mr. John Bruce, will you be confirmed at the Los Angeles Cathedral next year, or what?
I suppose for me, I still mourn the loss of the place of Latin in the LATIN RITE of the Church. Folks should at least hold Latin lessons. It’s a part of our heritage.
But in general, yes, being Catholic doesn’t mean only being of the Latin Rite, so you have some room to express your Catholic faith to some degree of difference without really deviating from orthodoxy.
God Bless.