The wonderful and persistent Anna Arco has this about traditionally-minded Anglicans:
It looks like the first moves towards establishing an ordinariate in the United Kingdom have been made by the Traditional Anglican Communion in this country. According to Anglo-Catholic, the group–which is small in Britain– has made a formal request to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
This is part of their letter stating that they will take up the new canonical structure offered in the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus, published last year:
We therefore request that:
1) That the Apostolic Constitution be implemented in the United Kingdom and a Personal Ordinariate be erected.
2) That we may establish an interim Governing Council.
3) That this interim Council be directed by the Holy Father to propose a terna of names for the appointment of an Ordinary in a UK Ordinariate.
While we cannot speak for other groups of Anglicans in the United Kingdom, we shall be delighted if others apply for acceptance under the terms of Anglicanorum coetibus.
NB: It is important not to confuse the Traditional Anglican Communion with traditionalist groups in the Church of England. TTAC counts as a continuing Church and is not in Communion with Canterbury.
Benedict XVI is the Pope of Christian Unity.
Loading ...
Anglicanorum coetibus is one of the greatest things to happen to the Catholic Church in centuries. The members of these Traditional Anglican Communions that have sought reunion with the Holy See have realized and understood where Protestantism has led – first, from dissension with Rome, to a “do it my own way” methodology, and finally to believing nothing of significance but bowing down to popular culture.
To paraphrase – the TACs who seek reunion have understood that it was from Rome that they originated and it is to Rome where they want to return.
In 100 years or less the only “Anglicans” will be Catholics. I think the rest of the “Communion” will have withered away. It may happen in my lifetime and I’m 46.
Its gonna be interesting to see how this plays out in the long run, especially since in England unlike the states one has to take geopolitical factors into account, although I sense that the ‘womeyn bishops’ factor is rapidly tearing the COFE apart.
Praise be to God! It will be interesting to see how many more will follow suit.
Great news!
I will send my hubby a link to this.
Hope it will happen in our lifetimes as well.
I’m curious to see how they will celebrate their ‘new’ liturgy, but praise be to God.
Penguins fan,
I think you’re absolutely right.
And as in many other aspects of civilization, wherever the West is going, England is going to get there first.
So we’ll get a preview of what may happen to the American Episcopalians (although not being an Established church they have a lot shorter distance to travel to oblivion and may actually disappear before the Anglicans).
As to liturgy, I think some will go with the beautiful Anglican Usage,which I attended in Houston. It is a reverent and prayerful liturgy in English,of course. If anyone has time, please go to Our Lady of Walsingham’s website http://www.walsingham-church.org/wc/Welcome.html
PS make sure you click on photos. The community is great. And the Church lovely.
The sister parish (also in TX) Our Lady of the Atonement has two complete videos of Masses online here and here.
I really like their choice of music – good old German Catholic hymns, and the better Anglican ones. And notice that the congregation is singing like mad, AND genuflecting as the processional crucifix comes by.
I’m telling you, these High Anglicans are going to be the modernist Catholics’ worst nightmare. Which is why the English Catholic hierarchy is – shall we say – lukewarm about welcoming them.
can someone point me to a z post or some other didactic source which explains the difference between a “use”, and “ordinariate” and, whatever it is that the Eastern liturgies are? are the Eastern Liturgies ordinariates? I’ve seen in some places they are called “rites” which generally is immediately followed by a comment condemning the use of “rite” but for what reasons I do not know and what should be used instead i do not know. are they, instead, uses?
i’m sorry. just a question from a cradle Catholic who discovered, only a year ago, that something other than Roman Catholicism, existed in our Church.
Lux, I’m not sure if there’s a good, handy reference guide out there (perhaps I should sit down and write one!). In any case, here’s a handy primer:
The Roman Catholic Church is actually composed of 23 (or 22, depending on your source) Churches sui iuris – that is, Churches of their own law, of which the largest, by far, is the Latin Church. These were formerly called “Rites,” but since the 80’s, the term “Church sui iuris” has been the term used, since a “rite” only refers to the liturgical practice, whereas the Churches are distinguished, not only by their rites, but also by their governance structures.
In the Eastern Churches, particularly those which follow the Byzantine liturgical tradition, there is a tradition and tendency to have Churches separate off based on language and nationality. Hence, the Romanian Church sui iuris and the Bulgarian Church sui iuris use the same liturgy, but in their respective languages.
In the Latin Church, there has not been a tradition of breaking off based on language, in no small part due to the fact that Latin was the liturgical language of the Latin Church for centuries, with few exceptions.
However, in the Latin Church, different ritual traditions developed before the Council of Trent. Thus in Toledo, the Mozarabic Rite and in Milan, the Ambrosian Rite developed as separate “rites” still fully within the Latin Church. Many religious orders (the Dominicans, the Carmelites…) also had their own rites, but were still within the Latin Church.
In addition to these separate rites, there developed, over the course of centuries, some “uses,” of the Roman Rite, which were usually not as differentiated from the Roman Rite as were the Mozarabic, etc.
In the 80’s, an Anglican Use was crafted – based on traditional sources – to accomodate and assist those Anglicans converting to Catholicism who wished to maintain some of their liturgical tradition. This was limited (unfortunately, in my opinion) to the United States, and even there, only in a few places where bishops were sympathetic.
An ordinariate is something else entirely – it is a type of jurisdiction, similar to a diocese. Whereas a diocese is primarily territorial, and ordinariate holds jurisdiction over a defined group of people. It is headed by a prelate who may not necessarily be a bishop, but has much of the same authority that a bishop has. He has “ordinary” power (that is, not delegated power from someone else, but power he can wield in his own name). The proposed Anglican Ordinariates will be a jurisdictional structure that will allow them a certain freedom to act – under the authority of the Bishop of Rome, of course, as every Catholic is.
The Anglican Ordinariates will have their own liturgical use – or uses.
I hope that’s clearer than mud – it’s a complicated topic.