The Apostolic Constitution which describes the provisions for traditionally minded Anglicans has finally been issued.
The first sentence:
In recent times the Holy Spirit has moved groups of Anglicans to petition repeatedly and insistently to be received into full Catholic communion individually as well as corporately.
Here is the press release:
On October 20, 2009, Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, announced a new provision responding to the many requests that have been submitted to the Holy See from groups of Anglican clergy and faithful in different parts of the world who wish to enter into full visible communion with the Catholic Church.
The Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus which is published today introduces a canonical structure that provides for such corporate reunion by establishing Personal Ordinariates, which will allow the above mentioned groups to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony. At the same time, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is publishing a set of Complementary Norms which will guide the implementation of this provision. [That will be the nuts and bolts document.]
This Apostolic Constitution opens a new avenue for the promotion of Christian unity while, at the same time, granting legitimate diversity in the expression of our common faith. It represents not an initiative on the part of the Holy See, but a generous response from the Holy Father [NB: this is a response] to the legitimate aspirations of these Anglican groups. The provision of this new structure is consistent with the commitment to ecumenical dialogue, which continues to be a priority for the Catholic Church.
The possibility envisioned by the Apostolic Constitution for some married clergy within the Personal Ordinariates does not signify any change in the Church’s discipline of clerical celibacy. According to the Second Vatican Council, priestly celibacy is a sign and a stimulus for pastoral charity and radiantly proclaims the reign of God (Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1579).
Some key points of the document:
- The document first lays out theological starting points.
- Note that the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith is setting up the Ordinarites.
- The Ordinariates are "within the confines of the territorial boundaries of a particular Conference of Bishops in consultation with that same Conference" and there can be more than one within those territories.
- The ordinariates are juridically comparable to dioceses.
- The CCC is the reference point for what those who belong must profess to believe.
- Other dicasteries of the Holy See oversee specific spheres of interest. For example, if there is a liturgical question, then the CDW would be involved.
- The Ordinariates can use either the Roman Rite or the books proper to the Anglican tradition that are approved by the Holy See.
- The Ordinariates can "as a rule" admit only celibate men to priesthood. Individual exceptions can be made on a case by case basis.
- The Ordinariates can incardinate and they can set up seminaries.
- They must make ad limina visits.
- They can set up their own tribunals or use the diocesan tribunals.
Loading ...
the document at the end of that link, ie
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS (FR. GIANFRANCO GHIRLANDA, S.J., RECTOR OF THE PONTIFICAL GREGORIAN UNIVERSITY)
is also interesting.
I have some initial thoughts as well as background links here:
http://subtuum.blogspot.com/2009/11/some-very-initial-thoughts-on-apostolic.html
“According to the Second Vatican Council, priestly celibacy is a sign and a stimulus for pastoral charity and radiantly proclaims the reign of God”
Huh??? “According to the Second Vatican Council”…more like, according to the entire tradition of the Church and all the Saints!! Why must EVERYTHING be referred back to Vatican II, Father?!? This isnt a particularly “Vatican II” teaching (though perhaps the specific phrasing is), and yet ITS authority is being cited once again. WHY??? Why must everything be parsed by that paradigm???? They could have mentioned ANY council, pretty much, in upholding the dignity of celibacy. Why all this constant harping over Vatican II???
At the same time, I would also point out that this statement is used a little disingenuously; just because celibacy is indeed a stimulus for pastoral charity and certainly radiantly proclaims the reign of God…that’s really neither here nor there when it comes to the question of whether it should be MANDATORY. The Perfect doesn’t need to be opposed to the Good, and trying to legislate the Ideal into existence has shown itself wrong-headed in many situations. Priestly celibacy definitely does radiantly proclaim the reign of God, but that would be true even if it were optional, so I’m not sure I follow their argument. Institutional celibacy “enforced” on the honor system…is not the same as celibacy considered in itself. They always talk as if questioning the MANDATORY nature of celibacy in practice is the same as questioning celibacy in itself as an ideal (though its not the same at all). They always speak as if the discipline were lifted, there would be no more celibate vocations (though there definitely would be).
In the Complementary Norms:
The Faithful of the Ordinariate
Article 5
§1. The lay faithful originally of the Anglican tradition who wish to belong to the Ordinariate, after having made their Profession of Faith and received the Sacraments of Initiation, with due regard for Canon 845, are to be entered in the apposite register of the Ordinariate. Those baptized previously as Catholics outside the Ordinariate are not ordinarily eligible for membership, unless they are members of a family belonging to the Ordinariate.
I wonder whether it has not heretofore been typical that any “ordinary Catholic” could walk into an Anglican Use parish and register in the same manner as in an ordinary Catholic parish.
The ecclesiological principles concisely stated in the first four paragraphs provide, precisely because of their brevity, a useful basis for discussion with Anglicans of various persuasions, I would hope. Given the complexity, both theological and historical, of any such discussion it is useful to have a concise starting point.
Even for groups for which this document has no direct relevance, e.g. evangelical Anglican groups such as the AMiA, thinking carefully about ecclesiology is important for their own internal issues.
What will the liturgy for these Anglicans look like and sound like?
After a quick glance at the Apostolic Contsitution and the Complementary Norms, the generosity and charity of our Pope of Christian Unity seems truly remarkable.
Could this be a precedent and a model for the re-integration of the SSPX?
In Christ,
I am pleasantly surprised to note the involvement of Jesuits such as Abp. Luis F. Ladaria Ferrer, SJ and Fr. Ghirlanda, SJ. (The latter’s reflection on the AC are worth reading, as mentioned by Thomas Dunbar.) Whether there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth at — ahem — certain periodicals is purely speculation.
AMDG,
I hope they approve a version of the Sarum Rite in Latin as a Forma Extraordinaria of their own!
Those baptized previously as Catholics outside the Ordinariate are not ordinarily eligible for membership, unless they are members of a family belonging to the Ordinariate.
This may leave some interesting geometry. For example, I was baptised in a Presbyterian church. But the ECUSA was the church of my youth and teens. I swam the Tiber ten years ago.
I wonder if I would be eligible.
Henry Edwards and MWindsor,
My reading is that “membership” refers to the Ordinariate itself, not parish registration.
Clearly, any Catholic will be able to worship in parishes of the Ordinariates, which will be in full communion with the Catholic Church, and participate in the Episcopal Conferences.
And from memory, I think there are any number of registered members of Atonement (AU) parish in San Antonio who are not from “the Anglican tradition”, including not a few Hispanics.
Oneros: I’ve been wondering the same thing!
That being said, this is truly wonderful news!
I’m a little concerned about eroding the Bishop’s authority – and obligations – under this arrangements.
Could priests and laity under this regime ignore the local Ordinary? I’m fine with all the other stuff, but this?
“Huh???”, says Oneros, complaining: “Why must EVERYTHING be referred back to Vatican II”. Everything doesn’t have to refer, because the Council did not deal with everything, but in this particular case the referral is appropriate for three reasons, I think: (1)Against the liberals, who claim to stand for Vatican II; (2)To make clear to the quasi traditionalists that they cannot be Catholics in a full sense unless they accept Vatican II; (3)I don’t know of any more authoritative statement than the quoted one, that is put forward by an ecumenical council.
What is said is nothing but an explicit articulation of the Western tradition and many saints, but not of the “entire” tradition or “all” the Saints, because the Eastern tradition is different and equally legitimate. It is appropriate because the Anglicanism belongs to the Western tradition.
As I read the norms, I am struck by the constant reference to cooperation with Bishops’ Conferences and local Ordinaries and the implication that some sort of eventual assimilation will be undertaken to bring the Anglicans fully into the life of the Church. The question has been raised as to whether this structure would be suitable for the SSPX, assuming they would agree to such a thing.
To me it appears that it would not be suitable, at least under present circumstances. We all know, I think, the degree of animosity that exists between the SSPX and some of the openly modernist bishops and archbishops. That would be like mixing gasoline with a spark and the result would be a conflagration of enormous proportions.
I don’t believe the Holy Father wants such a thing to occur and so I think he will arrange a structure for the SSPX which guarantees autonomy for them and insulates them from any interference by modernist bishops. Some will say, well, the Personal Ordinariate does this but I don’t see it that way.
I can think of 2 pretty good reasons for referencing Vatican II regarding the celibate priesthood: (1) this apostolic constitution (“AC”) is not about “priestly celibacy”; and (2) the Anglicans who might be interested in what the AC is addressing, should have ready access to the documents of Vatican II, which, of course, do reference the tradition, and were signed by bishops of the Catholic Church as a whole, including those Rites where the discipline regarding priestly celibacy differs from that of the Latin Rite Church.
Actually, I think the opening sentence has a lot for us to ponder. Let’s break it down
In recent times the Holy Spirit has moved groups of Anglicans to petition repeatedly and insistently to be received into full Catholic communion individually as well as corporately.
the Holy Spirit: this is His Doing, not ours
repeatedly and insistently: this has been His Doing for quite some time
individually [and] corporately: His Doing involves both individual paths to Heaven and the corporate entities [the Church] that gets us there.
repeatedly and insistently: recall the parable of the widow and the unjust judge (Luke 18:1-8 … “Then He told them a parable about the need to pray continually and never lose heart …”)
I’m sure there’s more as well….
And yet, there is no “juridical solution” that can exclude full communion with the Catholic Church, including bishops one does not like. Not even Christ could formulate a “juridical solution” for a logical contradiction.
If one wishes to be in full communion with the Catholic Church, he cannot, in principle, erect barriers to communion with the the rest of the Church, i.e., to define his own little “sandbox”.
The SSPX doesn’t have to feel all warm and fuzzy about prelates whose doctrine and praxis they do not like, and they most certainly do not have to imitate them, but it cannot co-exist juridically with no relationship to the other bishops in the Catholic Church. Here it is not a matter of what the Holy Father wants, but what Christ wants, and fostering what Christ wants is what the Petrine Ministry is all about.
“Autonomy” is a juridical concept. It is specifically acknowledged in this apostolic constitution WRT the Anglican Ordinariates. It does not mean “total independence”. The SSPX cannot “secede from the union” and still be in union with the Catholic Church. The reality and exercise of “autonomy” in union with the whole Catholic Church is called “com-munion”, as in “the communion of saints” (Apostles Creed).
“Insulation” is neither desireable nor possible. If modernist prelates were to “beat up” on the legitimate autonomy of some eventual canonically regularized SSPX, that would be an injustice which the Pope can remedy, AS LONG AS the SSPX is in full communion with the Church. Without that, the Pope’s hands are tied BY the SSPX.
How would it undermine the local Latin Rite or other Rite’s bishop-y authority, if there are people under other non-local Ordinaries’ authority in his diocese?
Welllll, if having subjects of the military archdiocese, the local Maronites, the local Ruthenians, and the local anybody elses not under his authority doesn’t undermine his authority already, how would subjects of the Anglican Ordinariate magically manage it?
In most of the US and most other countries, the local bishop already has at least one Catholic group in his diocese that is Not His Problem. And somehow, I really doubt most bishops have so much time on their hands that they are pleeeeeading to have more subjects put on their plate, particularly if it involves issues in a whole other language or tradition. (I suppose there is some temptation to be grabby, but mostly I think people forget the other groups exist.)
If anything, you might expect various groups to start suggesting to their problem children or oddly circumstanced members that they consider joining another Rite or Ordinariate where they can “fit in” more. A lot of people worship ease of administration. :(
Communion means we all believe the same thing, the Credo, if you will. It is not a personality contest but it is based upon what the Church has always held, taught and professed to be true from apostolic times. If their doctrine or praxis differs from this Credo, then they are not Catholic and no communion with them is possible. How, for example, could one co-exist with Bishop Zollitsch who recently told Meinhard Schmidt-Degenhard in an interview on German television that the death of Jesus Christ was not a redemptive act of God to liberate human beings from the bondage of sin. “Christ did not die,” argued the bishop “for the sins of the people as if God had provided a sacrificial offering, like a scapegoat.” No, Jesus offered only “solidarity” with the poor and suffering. How could one co-exist with the perpetrator of the “balloon mass fiasco”? The concept of bringing local bishops into this decision-making process is IMHO a bad idea but it has been done and we have to live with it.
In practice, the local bishop stays out of issues dealing with persons or groups who are also under another authority, for example an Eastern Catholic eparchy. While technically the local bishop does have a degree of authority over people living within his diocese, it is usually only exercised after consultation with the other appropriate authority is consulted, and usually in more extreme cases.
I thought an Apostolic Constitution was a papal document? This is signed by Cardinal Levada.
What will the liturgy for these Anglicans look like and sound like?
See for yourself:
Anglican Use Mass
http://video.yahoo.com/watch/5333606
I suspect everyone who views this video will agree that most U.S. Catholics would be very thankful for a Mass like this.
Geoffrey,
The Apostolic Constitution is a papal document. It is signed by Pope Benedict.
The “Complementary Norms”, that were published together with the Constitution, and by mandate of the Holy Father, were issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and that is why such Complementary Norms – and not the Apostolic Constitution – are signed by Cardinal Levada.
Note however, that such norms too were submitted to the Holy Father and were approved by him, as declared in the last paragraph before the date.
This division allows for the Complementary Norms to be changed, or supplemented from time to time as needed without there having to be a new Apostolic Constitution. But any change in the norms passed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will always require papal approval, too.
****
P. McGrath said:
“individually [and] corporately: His Doing involves both individual paths to Heaven and the corporate entities [the Church] that gets us there.”
I respectfully disagree with that interpretation.
I don’t think that is the meaning of what the pope is saying. Individually and corporately refers, in this sentence, to paths to full communion with the Church. Always with the Church .
There are those who convert individually, and those who convert to the Church in groups (corporate reunion). But the pope here is always referring to conversion to the Church.
He is not referring, as you put it, to supposed “individual paths to Heaven” that allegedly exist in paralell to “corporate entities [the Church] that gets us there”.
Even if there are elements of holiness outside of the Holy Church, salvation always comes trough the Holy Church (see Dominus Iesus). The teaching of the Holy Father would never contradict that.
“If their doctrine or praxis differs from this Credo, then they are not Catholic and no communion with them is possible.” -Haletype
Which might become easier for Catholics to see if, for example, the SSPX were willingly and happily in full regular communion with the Church. Right now, Catholics cannot be in full communion with the SSPX.
Communion in the Church is an associative notion, which Cardinal Ratzinger of the CDF pointed out to one of the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs who declared himself in communion both with the Orthodox and with the Pope. (Since the Orthodox he was referring to explicitly denied being in Communion with the Pope, that Patriarch’s well-meant, but not logical, assertion was empty.)
I don’t think we should read too much into the references to the local Diocesan Bishop. Take a look at what they are, and there’s nothing worrying:
“The Ordinary … must maintain close ties of communion with the Bishop of the Diocese in which the Ordinariate is present in order to coordinate its pastoral activity with the pastoral program of the Diocese.”
– Pastoral co-ordination? Sure, nothing to do with the liturgy. Anyway, wasn’t this one of Fr Z’s own “Rules for Engagement”?
Priests of the Ordinariate “should promote common pastoral and charitable initiatives and activities, which can be the object of agreements between the Ordinary and the local Diocesan Bishop”
– More “pastoral” co-ordination. Doesn’t even prevent the parishes from having their own pastoral actions as well. Come on, this is hardly allowing the Diocesan Bishop to crush all differences!
“Lay faithful … when they collaborate in pastoral or charitable activities … are subject to the Diocesan Bishop or to the pastor of the place”
– Only “when”, only “when”. And only where it pertains to the joint pastoral activity. Don’t worry about it.
“The clerics incardinated in the Ordinariate should be available to assist the Diocese in which they have a domicile or quasi-domicile … In such cases they are subject to the Diocesan Bishop in respect to that which pertains to the pastoral charge or office they receive.”
– OK, if you want to be worried, that looks a bit worrying. But it’s only control by the Bishop “in respect to” their non-Ordinariate activities. And that clause is governed by the following one, which gives the Ordinary a veto:
“In the cases treated in the preceding paragraphs there should be a written agreement between the Ordinary and the Diocesan Bishop … in which the terms of collaboration and all that pertains to the means of support are clearly established”
“The Ordinary … after having heard the opinion of the Diocesan Bishop of the place, may erect … personal parishes”
– This is possibly my favourite paragraph. “after having heard the opinion of the Diocesan Bishop”!
Bishop: “I don’t want any”
Ordinary: “I heard you; but I’m doing it anyway”.
Similarly the Ordinary, having heard the opinion of the local Diocesan Bishop, can make provisions for quasi-parishes”
Bishop: “In my opinion, it’s a bad idea”
Ordinary: “I heard you; but I’m doing it anyway”.
“Having first consulted with the Episcopal Conference and obtained the consent of the Governing Council and the approval of the Holy See, the Ordinary can erect as needed territorial deaneries”
– So the Ordinary’s own Council and the Holy See have to give consent; the Episcopal Conference only has to be consulted. Again:
Ordinary: “I’m thinking of erecting some deaneries”
Bishops: “We don’t think that’s a good idea”
Ordinary: “Thank you for your input; I’m doing it anyway”
Yes, priests of the Ordinariate have to be trained alongside Diocesan ones. But wait until they’ve got their own Societies of Apostolic Life, like the ICKSP, running their own seminaries! Then things will really start to move.
Very interestingly, the Ordinary’s ad limina visit appears to be personal, not part of the main visit by the Bishops’ Conference.
Professor:
Point taken.
How about this:
individually [and] corporately: His Doing involves both individual Anglicans, like John Henry Newman and others, and the corporate entities [like the Traditional Anglican Communion, which had publicly announced their desire to unite with Rome collectively].
But my question – if the Ordinary is not a Bishop, who will ordain priests for the Ordinariate?
Three points that interest me:
“§4. The Ordinary may accept as seminarians only those faithful who belong to a personal parish of the Ordinariate or who were previously Anglican and have established full communion with the Catholic Church.”
So most Catholic men won’t be eligible to be priests in an Anglican ordinariate. You’d have to be a former Anglican, or related to a former Anglican, or, for future generations, raised in an Anglican ordinariate. The Anglican Catholics will have to keep their own numbers up by reproduction or more conversions from Anglicanism. They can’t import laypeople or priests from the rest of the Catholic Church.
“§2. Candidates for priestly ordination will receive their theological formation with other seminarians at a seminary or a theological faculty in conformity with an agreement concluded between the Ordinary and, respectively, the Diocesan Bishop or Bishops concerned. Candidates may receive other aspects of priestly formation at a seminary program or house of formation established, with the consent of the Governing Council, expressly for the purpose of transmitting Anglican patrimony.”
So the Anglican ordinariates can’t have their own seminaries; they’ll have to be trained mostly alongside non-Anglican seminarians.
“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.”
I like that it’s not just putting up with those weird Anglicans, but treating their traditions as a treasure to be shared with other Catholics. For starters, let’s steal all those great Anglican hymns! Actually we sang one in my parish today for the Dedication of St. John Lateran: “The Church’s One Foundation”.
Rachel said “So the Anglican ordinariates can’t have their own seminaries; they’ll have to be trained mostly alongside non-Anglican seminarians.”
But the Anglican Ordinatiates can erect Societies of Apostolic Life, and Societies of Apostolic Life can have their own seminaries!
I thank Henry Edwards for his youtube link. Mass ad orientem, kneeling, on the tongue.
“(1)Against the liberals, who claim to stand for Vatican II; (2)To make clear to the quasi traditionalists that they cannot be Catholics in a full sense unless they accept Vatican II;”
But this is a document about the canonical specifics of reaching out to Anglicans. The Liberal vs Traditionalists “debate” is neither here nor there, so it seems strange that they’d insert a jab about it randomly. That’s like…getting into a whole Trinitarian controversy in a document just meant to approve the election of an abbot.
“(3)I don’t know of any more authoritative statement than the quoted one, that is put forward by an ecumenical council.”
But why do they need to quote an authoritative statement? Isnt the authority of the Pope, behind this constitution, enough in itself? Couldnt the document just make the statement that “celibacy is…” and wouldnt that stand on the strength of this document’s OWN authority, without needing to “invoke” Vatican II (or any previous statement for that matter)?
It reminds me of this episode of King of the Hill where Peggy kept saying, “In my opinion…” followed by universally acknowledged facts, like “kindling is the best wood to start a fire.” Finally, Hank just said, “It’s not ‘in your opinion,’ it’s just a fact.” It’s not “according to Vatican II” that celibacy is radiant and all that, it’s just something Catholics have always believed.
“Huh???”, says Oneros, complaining: “Why must EVERYTHING be referred back to Vatican II”. Everything doesn’t have to refer, because the Council did not deal with everything, but in this particular case the referral is appropriate for three reasons, I think: (1)Against the liberals, who claim to stand for Vatican II; (2)To make clear to the quasi traditionalists that they cannot be Catholics in a full sense unless they accept Vatican II; (3)I don’t know of any more authoritative statement than the quoted one, that is put forward by an ecumenical council.
“What is said is nothing but an explicit articulation of the Western tradition”
Exactly, so why invoke Vatican II specifically, when it is an understanding that has been around for 2000 years?
“and many saints, but not of the “entire” tradition or “all” the Saints, because the Eastern tradition is different and equally legitimate”
You’re wrong here. That was the point of my first post. The East HAS always also believed that priestly celibacy is a sign and a stimulus for pastoral charity and radiantly proclaims the reign of God…but they believe that within the context of OPTIONAL celibacy. But the entire Christian tradition has always held celibacy to be the higher path and an ideal. Hence my confusion as to what argument they are exactly making, as this statement seems to be an argument for celibacy IN SE, but not at all an argument for why it should be REQUIRED. They’re two very different things.
Those baptized previously as Catholics outside the Ordinariate are not ordinarily eligible for membership, unless they are members of a family belonging to the Ordinariate.
But it certainly sounds like they’re not cutting off the possibility; you just have to have a good reason. I’m sure there are other good reasons, too, and it’s easier just to point out the usual procedure than try to enumerate every possible pastoral circumstance.
For example, if yon Bishop Schori were to convert back to Catholicism, they’d probably be perfectly okay with her joining the Anglican Ordinariate if she argued that she converted because her parents did. (Though she wouldn’t probably be getting pontifical honors, unless she became abbess of an old enough convent somewhere with enough lands and clout back in the Middle Ages that it got pontifical honors attached. I think they’re mostly in Germany and Austria, though Kildare was the classic ancient example.)
Re: Why Vatican II?
For Anglicans and Latin Rite Catholics alike, I think the desire is to emphasize that celibacy, though an old and traditional discipline, is also a modern Vatican II discipline. Allowing married priests where appropriate is not a sign that celibacy is going to be outlawed tomorrow.
This is a message to excitable journalists first, and to excitable Catholics and non-Catholics second. Since progressive types are the most likely to assume that celibacy is hitting the dumpster (or the bin, in the case of the UK media), the document uses Vatican II as a hook to keep their little castles in the air tethered.
Considering all the times my mother has called me, shocked at what the Vatican supposedly said; and considering the fact that the whole Friday fish thing has been widely thought defunct by most American Catholics when in fact there’s just an additional alternate way to fulfill the obligation of Friday penitence… keeping the castles grounded is a Honking Good Idea.
My only question is whether it will suffice. Some people have an infinite capacity for wishful thinking.
Henry Edwards,
The Anglican Use liturgy should not have any ad-mixture from the Novus Ordo. The Novus Ordo offertory must be banished.
A genuine question concerning Rites…
Will the Anglican rite stand in relation to the Roman rite as the Roman and Byzantine rites do to one another; priests are bound to one rite or may obtain bi-ritual faculties?
Or, will the Anglican rite stand in relation to the Roman rite as the EF does to the OF, no special permission is needed?
Greg,
I read a post somewhere by Fr. Christopher Phillips, who was a member of the Vatican group that prepared the current Anglican Use “Book of Divine Worship”. He said the Anglicans preferred something like the English Missal — a wonderful Elizabethan English translation of the Tridentine missal. However, Marini I and some others of similar view were there, and insisted on mixing in some Novus Ordo elements. In fact, they tried to ditch the Roman Canon, as they had tried to toss it from the Novus Ordo back in the 1960s (and fortunately Paul VI insisted on its retention), and the Anglicans allegedly had to appeal to Cardinal Ratzinger to preserve the enviable translation of the Roman Canon that you see in the BDW (and the only one they now use, ignoring the presence of the Marini “contemporariy rite”).
At any rate, there are reports of another such group now at work, and they hope to recoup the ground lost when Marini I et al insisted on some Novus Ordo elements.
medieavalist,
The current Anglican Use is a “use” of the Roman rite, and Anglican Use priests often offer the Latin Novus Ordo and/or Tridentine Mass in addition to the Anglican Use Mass. So apparently it’s not a bi-ritual situation.
This is a day of the greatest rejoicing for all Catholics of Anglican Heritage. This Apostolic Constitution is so far beyond what any of us had hoped. I think we can imagine that in the Ordinariates the various feast days involved in these announcements and promulgations will be ranked as solemnities in the new Ordinariates; and, of course, there is plenty of time to work out the liturgical norms.
For those who wonder about liturgical practice I suspect the celebration of the Holy Mysteries and the Divine Office will have as generous and broad a provision as the Constitution is incredibly generous. Loving the Sarum Use as I do, my most fervent prayer is to see it brought back to life as the Extraordinary Form for the Ordinariates.
Some have wondered what the Ordinariates will be named, and I hope we will see something like the Ordinariate for England being named for Our Lady of Walsingham and the Ordinariate for the States named after Our Lady of the Atonment in honour of Fr. Wattson and Mother Lurana. I am simply expressing my hopes in offering this opinion. And if the Holy See sometime decided their needed to be a prelate over all of the ordinariates, I would hope his title would refer to ancient Glastonbury – heralding a reclaiming of that holy place for the Catholic Faith. These are prayers of mine representing my own opinion.
For those of us who are members of Our Lady of Walsingham Catholic Church (Anglican Usage) in Houston today is a veritable Easter Day for us. LONG LIVE THE POPE! +MANY YEARS!+
http://tonusperegrinus.blogspot.com
mpm wrote:
As far as I know, the SSPX are in full communion with the Church but lack canonical status and faculties. Presumably, this will change if and when the doctrinal discussions are completed. The PCED has said that Catholics may fulfill their Mass obligation at SSPX chapels so I believe mpm’s statement on this is in error.
The other aspect to this is the meaning of communion and one can rightly state that one is either in communion or not and that qualifications like “partial”, “full”, “willingly”, “happily”, etc, really have no bearing on the matter. And, of course, there is the meaning of “Church” and does that mean every prelate in the Church, including the Chairman of the German Bishops Conference who said Christ didn’t die in expiation of the sins of mankind, or simply with those whose doctrine and praxis conforms to what the Church has always taught, held and professed to be true from Apostolic times to now. Does it include those bishops who allow the most abhorrent and atrocious abuses in the liturgy that have been documented throughout the blogosphere and actually recorded on youtube? It is not as simple as it appears to state who is in communion with Peter and who is not.
“Allowing married priests where appropriate is not a sign that celibacy is going to be outlawed tomorrow.”
This isnt fair. Making celibacy optional is a far cry from “outlawing” it. Yet this is how the hierarchy speaks, as if celibacy will either be mandatory, or totally gone. It’s a bit odd from an Eastern perspective.
“Isn’t the authority of the Pope, behind this constitution, enough in itself?” – If that is the case why complain against some aspects of the constitution as it stands, including its recourse to Vatican II ?
It is accepted practice in all documents, particularly those of the last two centuries, to recourse to earlier authorities in order to corroborate a particular point. It is not the same thing if a pope makes a particular assertion that has its history, say: doctrine on contraception; or comes up with quite new assertion, say, the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, that is yet to settle in the Church.
As the Vatican II is an authentic articulation of the whole tradition, in all matters it had addressed, it is not necessary to have now a recourse to earlier documents on the same subject. It is in most cases sufficient to refer to Vatican II, leaving to those interested in history of the doctrine to pursue the matter further using references provided by the Council, and other sources.
“As the Vatican II is an authentic articulation of the whole tradition, in all matters it had addressed, it is not necessary to have now a recourse to earlier documents on the same subject. It is in most cases sufficient to refer to Vatican II, leaving to those interested in history of the doctrine to pursue the matter further using references provided by the Council, and other sources.”
And I think that’s what a lot of us are very uncomfortable with. Making Vatican II a new “starting point” as if it is the sum of all that has come so far. Really, why couldnt they just quote something from St Paul extolling celibacy? Scripture. It’s almost like the Vatican II documents are cited like Protestants quote Scripture to prove points. It’s a bit disturbing.
Suburbanbanshee, it’ll probably end up being similar to changing rites within the church; you can change rites, but I think the Bishop has to approve unless you’re changing to your ancestral rite, to which you’re entitled. In that case you must have baptismal records, etc., showing that parents or grandparents were baptized in another rite. Unless a formal change in rite was made, the children’s records were supposed to have been annotated to indicate the actual rite to which their parents (or father) belonged.
If the Anglican Use is merely a form of the Latin Rite, it makes sense that celibacy would be the norm, after all, the Latin Rite did not ordain married men at the time the Church of England was formed. Once I read that married Anglican Bishops could not become Bishops in the Anglican Use, it was clear that church norms are being followed.
I went to happy hour on a Friday a few weeks ago and because I refused to try chicken fried bacon, my friends told me I was 6 mos. early for Lent and tried to tell me that Catholics could eat meat on Friday and when I pointed out that was true only if they substituted another form of penance, was told that it depended where you were. Yikes!
I don’t understand why the pope didn’t consider establishing a sui iuris Anglican-rite church for the Anglicans along the lines of the Eastern Catholic Churches considering the 500-year length of the Anglican schism.
Not to mention, doing so could have cleared the confusion with regard to married priests. I don’t see the Ukrainian Catholic Church’s ordination of married men, for example, any particular threat to the Latin Church’s discipline.
I would have preferred the creation of an autonomous Anglican Catholic Church over the ordinariates.
Re: not a fair way to put it —
I was speaking to how the media and progressives see it.
Heck, there are plenty of folks out there who think all virginity should be outlawed, because it’s some sort of illness or unfair disadvantage. There was a study lately along those lines, which asked whether people had ever had sex but gave no option for whether they had chosen not to have sex. It wasn’t even a potential possibility to those pollsters.
So of course they’re always talking like if married priests are allowed in the Latin Rite, every priest will immediately run to get married and perform the horizontal mambo, and like it would be the easiest thing in the world to find a wife, to share a life working one of the hardest jobs in the world 365 days a year and 24 hours a day. Or better yet, as if priests shouldn’t be asked to be married or celibate, but rather should be allowed to sleep with whatever they please, while simultaneously, everybody should be allowed to become a priest without any training, sacrifice, or membership in the human species required. Somewhere out there is someone brooding darkly about the cruel Vatican discrimination against the ordination of bichon frise dogs and amoebas.
I mean, if they ordained amoebae, that would solve the priest shortage, wouldn’t it?
Kerry’s not Catholic either. Be serious. My cat’s more catholic than he is.
“I don’t understand why the pope didn’t consider establishing a sui iuris Anglican-rite church for the Anglicans along the lines of the Eastern Catholic Churches considering the 500-year length of the Anglican schism.” (comment above)
Because the Anglicans are not in schism. They are a separate Church. The difference between them and the Orthodox is clearly differentiated in the Cat of the Catholic Church (s. 1399 “Ecclesial communities derived from the Reformation.. have not preserved the proper reality of the Eucharistic mystery … especially because of the absence of the sacrament of Holy Orders .. “). The Orthodox have valid orders, so are different.
For the same reason reference is made in this papal document to this: “.. the ordination of ministers coming from Anglicanism will be absolute, on the basis of the Bull Apostolicae Curae of Leo XIII of September 13, 1896. “ So when the chips are down, the Church makes a clear and wholly consistent statement about their orders. They are null and void.
The interesting discussion of this very point in this blog some week or so ago reflected upon this and a contributor gave some very interesting points on Card Hume’s very ambivolent interpretation of this when some of the first Anglican clergy came over in the UK. Now we know where we stand. This is not to lack charity or to lessen the joy of this extraordinary response by the Pope. The fuzz and nonsense of so many years of false ecumenism sometimes now make the reality of Truth seem harsh. It isn’t.
The setting up of the ordinariates looks like an administrator’s nightmare: it would appear they need to wait for an Anglican previously ordained (ie Bishop or priest of the C of E) to be (ordained and) appointed unless they put in one of our Bishops pro tem: but that would seem to go against the spirit of former Anglicans building up their own Ordinariate. So it won’t be a quick process. I imagine they will have a joint (ex-) clergy structure until they can run independently.
Exciting times and such a light of hope for good people who have longed to be part of Rome for so long. At last a Pope who understands well the hurt of the Reformation, and more importantly how to deal with it, even after so long. How he deserves our thanks and prayers for success.
“Really, why couldnt they just quote something from St Paul extolling celibacy?”
A private interpretation of the Scripture is the Protestant idea. The most authoritative teaching on interpretation is proposed by Vatican II: “The office of interpreting authentically the word of God, whether scriptural or traditional, has been entrusted exclusively to the living voice of the Church magisterium ((ref. provided to Humani Generis, Denz. 2314 (3886)) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ” (DV 10).
The Scripture is a dead letter; St. Paul can be understood in various ways. That is the reason why we have so many Christian denominations. So, it has to be interpreted by the living magisterium of the time; and for us here and now it is the living Pope and the living Bishops in communion with him.
St. Paul’s teaching on celibacy is too general to be of much use in the specific context of the question of celibacy of the ex-Anglican clergy who are married and wish to be Catholic priests. We can’t phone and ask him whether they may or may not be admitted. Our Lord has provided the Episcopal College to answer the question. That is “why couldnt they just quote something from St Paul extolling celibacy”.
“Vatican II”, in its time, was not “a new ‘starting point’” but the fresh articulation, “the sum of” what “has come so far”; yet not “of all” generally, but of those subjects it has addressed. This can be traced back by perusing the references, which it provided both to the earlier documents and to the Scripture.
The subsequent, more comprehensive articulation of all is the CCC, in which the documents of the Vatican II abound, because there is no need to go back when the subject under consideration is better articulated by the Vatican II. And the acceptance of the CCC, which the SSPX dismisses as being the “catechism of Vatican II”, not of the Catholic Church, is a condition for the Anglicans if they wish to join the Church.
Do we really need to “quote Scripture to prove points” as the Protestants do? Or to ignore Vatican II and, to prove the points, quote the arbitrarily selected set of preconciliar documents, as the SSPX would lake to have it?
“I don’t understand why the pope didn’t consider establishing a sui iuris Anglican-rite church for the Anglicans along the lines of the Eastern Catholic Churches considering the 500-year length of the Anglican schism.”
I do not understand it either. One can only speculate.
The Eastern Churches are real Churches in apostolic succession, and those of their sections that have reunited were led by their bishops. The Anglican Communion is not the Church properly so called and has no bishops properly so called.
Perhaps the present solution is taken as a test case in order to see how genuinely Catholic is the mentality of our new brethren, and how viable they are.
On the other hand, how mature is the Catholic community to receive them. Will an ordinary Catholic really consider “their” Mass as “his own” Mass, their tradition as his own tradition? Will the Catholic bishops consider them as a temporary halfway house to be absorbed as soon as expedient, or sustain them in their identity? (One thinks of tragic experience of Eastern Catholics with their Latin brethren throughout the history, and even now.)
I envisage great problems in due course. Contraception, for example. Supposing all the members of the Ordinariates accept the Catholic doctrine from one side, while aware at the same time that many “Catholics”, the bishops including, do not accept the doctrine, and yet are “in full communion”.
I really do not know….
Comment by vincentuher — 9 November 2009 @ 5:01 pm
A deep, heart-warming series of considerations! Thank you.
Comment by haleype — 9 November 2009 @ 5:09 pm
A) I’ll stand by what I wrote. I’m not “condemning” the SSPX, but rather simply pointing out the simple fact that one cannot both 1) be fully in the Church, and 2) not be fully in the Church!
I know what the PCED says about fullfilling one’s Sunday obligation. The CCC tells us that Catholics may fulfill that same obligation at an Orthodox church, although a given Orthodox parish might regard that as violating their customs, so one doesn’t see it happen very much in practice. The Orthodox Churches are not in full communion with the Catholic Church, and because, as you say, the SSPX has “no canonical status and faculties”, neither is the SSPX.
It’s that simple.
B) With respect to Catholics, including hierarchs of whatever eminence, who appear to us to be heretics or schismatics, two things: 1) No amount of abuse justifies “abusing” in ways that one personally regards as “small” or “trivial”; and 2) The question of what to do about it is not mine to answer: it gets into that whole “pay grade” thing.
I envisage great problems in due course. Contraception, for example. Supposing all the members of the Ordinariates accept the Catholic doctrine from one side, while aware at the same time that many “Catholics”, the bishops including, do not accept the doctrine, and yet are “in full communion”.
Comment by Ogard
They’re not in full communion. Ecclesial Communion is both visible and invisible. It is possible to be in visible communion but not invisible communion. Anyone among bishops, priests, religious, and laity who denies doctrine is not in full communion because they lack the invisible aspect.
Ad MPM: “The CCC tells us that Catholics may fulfil that same obligation at an Orthodox church”. If by the “same obligation” you mean the Sunday Obligation, the assertion is not in the CCC. Something like it had been in the Ecumenical Directory approved by Paul VI, but it was left out from the Directory approved by JPII.
In the former it was formulated thus: “A Catholic who occasionally, for reasons set out below (cf.n. 50) attends the holy liturgy (Mass) on Sunday or holiday of obligation in an Orthodox Church is not then bound to assist at Mass in a Catholic Church.”
The implication is not that one thus fulfils his Obligation, but that he is released from fulfilling it. The reasons given in n. 50 were: obligation “arising out of a public office, blood relationship, friendship, desire to be better informed etc.”
This didn’t/doesn’t apply to the reception of the Holy Communion for which special rules are laid down, nor were/are Catholic restrictions placed upon attendance of the Liturgy in the Orthodox Church, provided one fulfils his Sunday Obligation in the Catholic Church.
Ad MPM AND ROBTBROWN: yes, there is such a thing as the degree of communion. It is the togetherness in doctrine, worship, and government, and each can be almost fully broken, and minimally broken. One cannot claim that the SSPX are in full communion of doctrine when they reject much of Vatican II and post conciliar teaching. They are not in communion of government, because they de facto violate the Canon Law. Nor are they in communion of worship, because they refuse to have anything to do with the central act of worship of the Church. They even refuse to participate in the Tridentine Mass, and discourage people from participating, unless it is one of the Masses in their Centres, which in some places they even call “parishes”.
John Hepworth, the “Primate” of the Traditional Anglican Communion, has said that one of the signal differences between the Roman Catholic heritage and the patrimony of Anglicanism is that the life of the Roman Catholic parish is associated particularly with the pastor, whereas in Anglicanism, the pastor AND his family, particularly his wife, are in a sense the pulsing heart of parish activities. It is for this reason that John Hepworth welcomed what he foresaw as provision in the Constitution for the indefinite continuation of a married presbyterate in the Anglican ordinariates. (He was writing as soon as the Constitution was announced on 20 October, and according to reliable report was briefed on it before the announcement, which is why I say he “foresaw” such provision.)
Article VI, Section 2 of the new Constitution says that the Ordinary can seek permission from the Roman Pontiff for admission of married men to the presbyterate on a case by case basis, “according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.” Then in Article 6, Section 1 of the Complementary Norms, we read that “In consideration of Anglican ecclesial tradition and practice, the Ordinary may present to the Holy Father a request for the admission of married men to the presbyterate in the Ordinariate …” The language in the Constitution could be read as implying that the ordination of married men who have not previously been Anglican ministers will be a relatively rare event. But the mention of “objective criteria” and the language in the Complementary Norms (especially that plural word “men”) appears to allow just what John Hepworth said he foresaw: The continuation into the indefinite future of a married presbyterate in the Ordinariates for the sake of maintaining the usual way of life of an Anglican parish.
But it should be noted, too, that Article IX of the Constitution requires that lay faithful who wish to enter the Ordinariate “must manifest this desire in writing.” Take this in conjunction with Article 5, Section 1 of the Complementary norms, which mentions that the lay faithful of the Ordinariate “are to be entered in the apposite register of the Ordinariate,” and that “Those baptized previously as Catholics outside the Ordinariate are not ordinarily eligible for membership, unless they are members of a family belonging to the Ordinariate.” In this way, the Ordinariate really does take on one of the essential practical characteristics of a sui juris church or rite, that one cannot simply change rites on one’s own will. Anyone will be able to attend Mass regularly at an Ordinariate parish, and perhaps they can even be on the parish roll. But they will not be able to be members of the Ordinariate unless they make a petition in writing to the Ordinary and he enters them in the register of the Ordinariate.
From all this, it seems to me that married priests will not be a temporary or transitional thing in the Anglican Ordinariates, but must be expected to continue, and that ordination of married men to the presbyterate will be pretty much routine, even though such ordination by law will always be under the permission of the Roman Pontiff. At the same time, those Roman Catholics who have no color of title, as the lawyers put it, to the Anglican heritage will not be able to enter the Ordinariate at will. A married Roman Catholic who “feels called to the priesthood” will not be able to gain his desire by hopping over to an Ordinariate parish and making himself at home for a while.
I am myself a member of an Anglican Use Parish. I am a cradle Catholic, but my wife converted from the Episcopal communion many years ago. When the Anglican Ordinariate is erected for the United States, my wife, it seems, will have to petition in writing for membership in the Ordinariate and it appears from the provisions of the Constitution and the Complementary Norms that she will be accepted pretty much automatically. But only if she does that can I then petition to be a member on the ground of my familial relationship to her. As I read the documents, it will then be technically possible for me to be ordained to the presbyterate for the Ordinariate. As a practical matter, I very much doubt that I would be accepted even if I discerned a vocation to the priesthood. I should think that only those who have been reared in the Anglican tradition will be accepted for ordination.
The Anglican most definitely are both schismatic and heretical.
The Church defined the formation of the Church of England in the 16th century as a schism.
Perhaps the Anglican Church doesn’t fit the neat legal definition of “Church” in the sense it has been formally defined since Vatican II.
But at least externally the Anglicans have maintained Catholic forms of church governance better than any other Protestant Church with exception of the Scandinavian Lutherans.
Due to this historical fact, I think the Anglicans should have been granted the same status as the Ukrainian Catholic Church within the Catholic communion as a concession to Anglican self-identity.
Allowing the Anglicans to have a major archbishop who was subject to papal confirmation and allowing them to appoint their own hierarchy would have been a gesture that some of the more recalcitrant traditionalist Anglo-Catholics would have welcomed.
Also, I would have loved to have seen the restoration of the Archbishopric of Canterbury, which has been vacant since 1558.
To make clear to the quasi traditionalists that they cannot be Catholics in a full sense unless they accept Vatican II
Ohh please. More fallacy. One can be in perfect communion and not accept the “teachings” of Vatican II, whatever they may be.
So many people think of the SSPX as some seperated, protestant sect or that they are in Schism. Both of these ideas have been declared many times by Ecclesia Dei to be false. The SSPX are more rightly called disobediant Catholics. They are so much closer to the Church that the Anglicans are that is is laughable that people think they need a seperate structure.
The SSPX want the “modern” church to explain how certain “teachings” of Vatican II can be reconciled with long standing teachings of the Church before VII. The SSPX don’t deny that Vatican II happened. They take issue with what came out of Vatican II. They want the Church to be true to her origins.
The SSPX bishops are TRUE Catholic bishops. The SSPX priests are TRUE Catholic Priests. They are not formerly married/Divorced/re-Married fallen away Catholics who need to be personally examined on a one by one basis to see if they need to be conditionally ordained.
The mere fact that some people put the SSPX in this light shows how much these same people hate tradition or just palin don’t want to know.
“One can be in perfect communion and not accept the ‘teachings’ of Vatican II, whatever they may be.”
He can’t, because the communion is, by definition, a sharing of the same thing (in Catholic doctrine: faith, government, worship), togetherness, of all those who are in communion. If one rejects a particular aspect of it, he can’t insist that he is in communion with another who accepts that particular aspect. Two at least are necessary for the communion to exist, and each has to accept another fully for the communion to be a full one.
The Pope accepts the teaching of Vatican II. As the Cardinal Ratzinger, he was a crucial figure in composition of the CCC, in which the references to Vatican II multiply outnumber any of the previous documents. On the other hand, the SSPX reject the CCC because it is “the catechism of Vatican II” – the catechism, which the Pope accepts (and insists that it be accepted by the Anglicans), and the SSPX reject in all those points that are unacceptable to them. So, it is non-sensical to insist that they are in full communion of doctrine with him, if he doesn’t consider himself to be in full communion with them. And the latter is implied each time when a document/statement is issued about the SSPX: it is always about the restoration of “full communion”.
The SSPX are not “some separated, protestant sect”, but they are nevertheless a sect. Not indeed so separated as the Protestants are – the latter are not fully separated either (see UR n. 3) – but “only” to the extent that they are separated in doctrine (say 10%), government (say 90%), and worship (100%).
“or that they are in Schism”. They are not in full communion of government and worship, and that is what the schism is all about.
Indeed those Anglicans who accept the CCC are already in full communion materially, awaiting only a canonical procedure to go through. A degree of their communion with the Church is certainly higher than that of the SSPX, who are yet to accept the CCC.
Ad MPM AND ROBTBROWN: yes, there is such a thing as the degree of communion.
I never mentioned degree. I said that communion is both visible and invisible, a distinction which is found in the SCDF document re Ecclesial communion.
It is the togetherness in doctrine, worship, and government, and each can be almost fully broken, and minimally broken. One cannot claim that the SSPX are in full communion of doctrine
I never mentioned the SSPX, but see below.
when they reject much of Vatican II and post conciliar teaching.
They are not in communion of government, because they de facto violate the Canon Law.
I don’t deny that, but let’s not stop there.
In so far as Sacrosanctum Concilium says that clerics are to say their office in Latin, providing for a few exceptions, most clerics (esp. bishops) who say their office in the vernacular are also not in Communion of government. Further, those in charge of formation since c. 1970 have not been in Communion because they didn’t mandate the study of Latin.
Nor are they in communion of worship, because they refuse to have anything to do with the central act of worship of the Church.
Communion is not to be reduced to the here and now–thus the Credo refers to the Communion of Saints. Thus any priest who refuses to have anything to do with the 1962 Missal is also not in Communion with the Church.
And of course, a very good argument can be made that the liturgical changes by Paul VI indicate that he was not in Communion with his predecessors, incl PV and JXXIII.
They even refuse to participate in the Tridentine Mass, and discourage people from participating, unless it is one of the Masses in their Centres, which in some places they even call “parishes”.
Comment by Ogard
The same has been true for years of Novus Ordo priests and bishops.
To those who claim that the SSPX, (and for that matter independents recognize the Holy Father as the Vicar of Christ and even the local bishop in their Masses), are not in full communion I ask this one question: What is it that the SSPX and independents must accept, in doctrinal and theological terms, that is outside of what Holy Mother Church has always held, taught and professed to be true from Apostolic times to now? And, may I suggest that you limit your response to dogmatically defined doctrinal issues which invoke the mantle of infallibility as defined by the First Vatican Council. No “nice to have” pleasing suppositions or proclamations here but infallible statements which, if one does not readily accept, may lead to one’s eternal damnation.
You see, my friends, this is central to the doctrinal discussion currently underway between Rome and the SSPX and the issue has never been addressed in this context – what is infallible teaching and what is not. I’m not talking about assent here on things not dogmatically proclaimed as infallible but the core material, if you will, that defines us as Catholic in our belief, in our Credo, if you will. That, to me, defines one who is either in communion or is not. The other disagreements that can and do exist among theologians are a subject for analysis and debate outside the context of infallibility.
Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus.
Ad robtbrown. “that communion is both visible and invisible” is not disputable, but the Invisible is known to God alone; to us only in so far as it is revealed, say that the Church is a Body of Christ, or in so far as it is Visible, i.e. can be visibly verified: if one professes the faith of the Church, worships, i.e. participates in the liturgy of the Church, and submits himself to the government of the Church. All these three elements could be defective in various degrees; thus – the degree of communion.
UR 3: “Succeeding ages have seen the birth of great quarrels, and communities of considerable size have broken away from FULL (my emphasis) communion in the Catholic Church.” Comment: the communion was never fully broken but always partially. The text goes on further down: “Men who believe in Christ and who have duly received baptism, are established in communion in the Catholic Church, even if he communion be incomplete.”
Although I don’t think that the examples given are adequate, it is true that numerous examples can be given of nominal Catholics, hiearchs and others, who are not in full communion in one or another aspect of the doctrine, government or worship – which all proves my point. i.e. that there is such thing as a defective communion. After all, an Orthodox who believes in Real Presence and Sacrifice is in full communion with the Church in that particular point, and more so than a nominal Catholic theologian who doesn’t believe it. The Anglicans who accept the CCC are another example, and can be compared with the defective communion of the SSPX.
With regard to Paul VI, while I think that he was misguided, mistaken and naïve in his ideas about the liturgy, he was entitled to reform it if he judged that (a)he was not absolutely bound by the policies of his predecessors, and (b)the reform would bring good fruits to the Church. There can be no question that his doctrine was sound, and explicitly articulated in the Introduction to the NO. Why he embarked on his liturgical adventure, I don’t know. He might have known better than anyone else what was in stock in the affluent section of the Church if he didn’t opt for the change. The debate during the Council, and the DIY changes that were spreading at that time, might have indicated to him that the reform is the only way of somehow channelling the whole process, which would have otherwise gone out of hand.
To St. Thomas, however, there are two aspects to being in union with the Church, as he mentions here:
Again, this is not to accuse SSPX of being in schism; the fact that they are working with the Pope to get back into full communion is testimony to their intentions.
But even if they were in schism, it would not mean that they were heretics (as Aquinas teaches in this same treatise on Faith). Schism does not imply heresy along with it.
I also must say that what moves me to continue in this apparent “rabbit hole” is to head off any potential objective scandal, which I take to be anyone coming away from these posts thinking that it is OK to disobey the authority of the Church as long as one has a “good reason”.
Ad haleype. “What is it that the SSPX and independents must accept, in doctrinal and theological terms, that is outside of what Holy Mother Church has always held, taught and professed to be true from Apostolic times to now?”
Answer: Nothing, provided it icludes what the Church holds, teach and professes NOW.
“And, may I suggest that you limit your response to dogmatically defined doctrinal issues which invoke the mantle of infallibility as defined by the First Vatican Council.”
Answer: We don’t know which doctrines, specifically, are implied in the suggestion. In fact, I doubt that a universally accepted list of such doctrines exists at all. But regardless of this issue, a Catholic is under MORAL OBLIGATION – it is traditional doctrine in approved authors – to accept all teaching of the Magisterium, regardless of whether they are under “the mantle of infallibility”, and this includes the magisterial interpretation of the latter. It is only the matter of what kind of assent is expacted, not whether the assent is due.
The magisterial interpretation, for instance, of the “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (Ad mhm, above) is in LG 14, repeated in the CCC and on many other occasions.
The Canon of the Dogma of Primacy demands of us assent to the “full and supreme power of jurisdiction over te whole Church, not only in matters that pertain to faith and morals but also to the matters that pertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world”, and this extends “over each and every church or over each and every shepperd and faithful member” (except the SSPX, of course).
And in the body of the document: all (except the SSPX) “are bound by a duty of hierarchical subjection and of sincere obedience, and this not only in matters that pertain to faith and morals, but also in matters that pertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world”. The paragraph ends thus: “This is the doctrine of the Catholic truth; and no one can deviate from this without loosing his faith and his salvation”.
Comment: by the referral to the “discipline and government”, and by not limiting the Primacy to the infallibly proposed teaching on faith and morals, the dogma evidently does not meet the “I suggest that you limit your response to dogmatically defined doctrinal issues”.
The question of “what is infallible teaching and what is not” is not only “the issue” that “has has never been addressed in this context” or any other for that matter, but it cannot be addressed at all, because, to hold water, the answer itself would have to be proposed infallibly, on the basis of criteria which have never been defined nor could they be defined. We are running in circles…
mpm said:
Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus. with the clear implication being that the SSPX was outside the Church or at least not in full communion with it. This is in direct contradiction to the analysis of the situation by Cardinal Hoyos, formerly Head of the Ecclesia Dei Commission. Further along it is written:
Ogard,
I admit not to being a great fan of the concept of Communion. On the other hand, it is much used now in official documents, so I have to deal with it.
Re the SSPX: The notion of Full Communion is being used jurically, i.e., the Society lacks canonical status.
That seminaries have not formed their men in Latin, and for that matter, theology, is not a matter of invisible communion but rather visible. Ditto the lack of Latin in the Divine Office.
I disagree with your comments on Paul VI. I agree that he had the juridical authority to promulgate a new rite. On the other hand, as you have noted, Communion is not circumscribed by juridical authority. His de facto suppression of the 1962 Missal and universal permission for vernacular liturgy manifest a deficiency in Communion with PV and JXXIII.
IMHO, Paul VI was a syncretist, trying to combine Catholic doctrine with Protestant notions. Perhaps he was so interested in the lost sheep that he ignored his flock. Or perhaps he was trying to make the Vatican the clearing house for international politics.
Whatever his motivation, his plan was a dud.
The question of “what is infallible teaching and what is not” is not only “the issue” that “has has never been addressed in this context” or any other for that matter, but it cannot be addressed at all, because, to hold water, the answer itself would have to be proposed infallibly, on the basis of criteria which have never been defined nor could they be defined. We are running in circles…
Comment by Ogard
See Vat I Pastor Aeternus and Vat II (LG) for the criteria.
Also: Some time ago I noted here that IMHO LG expanded the authority of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium to secondary objects of infallibility (tenenda).
Vat I already extended papal authority beyond primary objects of infallibility (credenda) to secondary objects (tenenda).
Ad rotbrown. “See Vat I Pastor Aeternus and Vat II (LG) for the criteria.”
Answer: Pastor Aeternus lays down criteria as to what it means: “ex cathedra” in the context of definition of papal infallibility. They are not applicable to other definitions. What is defined is the infallibility, not the criteria of infallibility as such. And in any case, other Vatican I definitions do not contain these criteria, and yet they are generally accepted as infallible. As for LG, it is certainly not a definition of the criteria.
There is plainly no definition laying down the criteria for a definition as such and ending with an anathema. Any attempt to construct it would be circular.
“Some time ago I noted here that IMHO LG expanded the authority of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium to secondary objects of infallibility (tenenda).” Vat I already extended papal authority beyond primary objects of infallibility (credenda) to secondary objects (tenenda).”
This is not about criteria but about the object; so it is irrelevant to the dispute. But once mentioned, Vatican II has completed what was formally missing, or better: clarified what was implicit in Vatican I. The latter affirmed that the primary object can be infallibly proposed by the solemn decree (Ecumenical Council) or by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium (Denz. 1792/3011). The Dogma on Infallibility added the pope alone, and, as you say, expanded the object to include the secondary object. The draft of the Vatican I Constitution proposed the expansion of the object to include the secondary object, to “the Church”, without further specification. It is covered by the phrase: “and as far as the office of guarding it demands”. As the Draft was made before the definition of Infallibility, it couldn’t have referred to the pope, while in Denz. 1792/3011 “by the Church” is meant to refer to both, to put it briefly, solemn and universal/ordinary, propositions. However, in this statement no secondary object is mentioned.
The Vatican II expansion is logical. If both the conciliar definition and the UOM can be infallible in matters that are contained in Revelation; and if the pope can be infallible both in matters that are in Revelation and those that come under the secondary object, it would make no sense to insitst that the Conciliar definitions or the UOM propositions, which are impossible without pope, couldn’t propose infallibly the matters pertaining to the secondary object.
This particular Vatican II clarification is very important when it comes to the whole body of the Church’s moral doctrine, hardly any of which was defined, and much of it is not in Revelation. More specifically, doctrine on contraception, because the Onan passage is neither here nor there, while it is the only biblical place that can be used. But with the infallibility of the UOM expanded to the secondary object, there is no problem. See: Ford and Grisez: Contraception and Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium, Theol. Studies, 39, no.2, 1978, pp 258 –312.
The “magisterium” proposes such things as Ecumenism, Collegiality, the Old Covenant with the Jews still being in effect and the efficacy of other religions. Catholic Churchmen openly conduct services with non Catholics and give the impression that this practice is perfectly OK. The SSPX has questions on all these and more. Does that put them outside the Church and do these notions carry the mantle of infallibility? How does the doctrine of “Extra ecclesiam, nulla salus” correspond to ecumenism or the Old Covenant still being in effect or the efficacy of other religions? How does the proposition of collegiality correspond to the notion that the Holy Father is the Vicar of Christ, Pastor of the Universal Church, and Supreme Legislator? To imply that novel statements by churchmen following Vatican II do not conflict with previously held doctrines and dogmas is disingenuous to say the least.
To further imply that the SSPX is outside the Church or not in full communion because it challenges these notions is ridiculous to the extreme. The participants in the discussions have much work to do but the simple fact is the Holy Father could with one stroke of his pen give faculties to the SSPX and other independents to work in the Lord’s Vineyard for the salvation of souls. He does not; the SSPX and independents are further ostracized and minimalized over the status and faculties question; meanwhile the Church suffers agonizing losses and horrible abuses too numerous and too atrocious to name. High ranking churchmen with canonical status and faculties make unbelievable statements like Christ did not die in expiation of the sins of mankind but in solidarity with the poor or that Christ didn’t really know he was God. But, the SSPX is not in full communion. Give me a break!
Thanks to all who shared with me their views in this Post. I will, however, be away during November.