Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Further to my earlier posts ....
ZENIT have carried two reports about the response from Anglicans to the announcement of the forthcoming Apostolic Constitution. The response of the primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion is perhaps of most significance, indicating I think a much deeper consideration of what is intended by the idea of an Anglican ordinariate than responses from members of organisations like Forward in Faith. In particular, its references to a petition of two years ago, and to the reaction of the Archbishop of Canterbury, suggest to me (correction, if necessary, in the comment box please) that this is more the intended direction of the Vatican's generosity than any other.
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
The Anglican tradosphere - and the question of celibacy
I am sometimes inclined to describe to those Catholic blogs that to a greater or lesser extent promote the extraordinary form of the Liturgy as being the "tradosphere". I have just stumbled across what might loosely be considered its equivalent for the Church of England.
This is where I began: Musings of a City Priest. The references in this post to "continued reception" of the news of the Apostolic Constitution set me to pondering the use of the same phrase with regard to matters of doctrine and not just of discipline. Is there any real sense of accepting an idea of a Magisterium with an authority to teach?
From where I went to Richborough: Ancient Richborough. I link to this particular post - because, despite its claim to Anglo-Catholic credentials, it is totally and utterly Anglican. It is also quite inadequate in its omission of separation from the See of Rome as being part of the historical origins of the C of E. And it is to totally misunderstand the implications of the new movements in the Roman Catholic Church for a renewed witness to the life of the evangelical counsels. The post And pigs might ... is equally thorough in its Anglicanism. One could be forgiven for taking it as reading the provisions of the forthcoming Apostolic Constitution as being a mere version in the Roman Catholic Church of what they rather hope they could have within the C of E; and that they will avail of it if the C of E don't play ball.
Fr Hunwicke is, I believe, notorious in the Anglican tradosphere. If this is anything to go by, I am not at all sure that he has really got what an Anglican ordinariate is likely to be about:
St Peter's London Docks interested me because this particular post seemed to be struggling to identify a specifically Anglican patrimony that could be taken over into an ordinariate. The Church building might well be a patrimony of a sort, but it can hardly be the essence of such a patrimony; and the prayer and devotion can surely be transferred to a new building.
The point I particularly notice: married clergy being seen as part of the Anglican patrimony that will be accomodated in an ordinariate. I think my concerns already expressed about the witness to celibacy which, though a discipline of the Church rather than a doctrinal requirement, is nevertheless part of the nature of the Church's witness to Christ, appear quite justified.
This is where I began: Musings of a City Priest. The references in this post to "continued reception" of the news of the Apostolic Constitution set me to pondering the use of the same phrase with regard to matters of doctrine and not just of discipline. Is there any real sense of accepting an idea of a Magisterium with an authority to teach?
From where I went to Richborough: Ancient Richborough. I link to this particular post - because, despite its claim to Anglo-Catholic credentials, it is totally and utterly Anglican. It is also quite inadequate in its omission of separation from the See of Rome as being part of the historical origins of the C of E. And it is to totally misunderstand the implications of the new movements in the Roman Catholic Church for a renewed witness to the life of the evangelical counsels. The post And pigs might ... is equally thorough in its Anglicanism. One could be forgiven for taking it as reading the provisions of the forthcoming Apostolic Constitution as being a mere version in the Roman Catholic Church of what they rather hope they could have within the C of E; and that they will avail of it if the C of E don't play ball.
Fr Hunwicke is, I believe, notorious in the Anglican tradosphere. If this is anything to go by, I am not at all sure that he has really got what an Anglican ordinariate is likely to be about:
I regard as significantly positive the willingness of Rome to allow married Anglican bishops to continue to exercise episkope in the guise of prebyteral Ordinaries. The Holy Father, as in the matter of Summorum Pontificum, has not just given the minimum.
St Peter's London Docks interested me because this particular post seemed to be struggling to identify a specifically Anglican patrimony that could be taken over into an ordinariate. The Church building might well be a patrimony of a sort, but it can hardly be the essence of such a patrimony; and the prayer and devotion can surely be transferred to a new building.
The point I particularly notice: married clergy being seen as part of the Anglican patrimony that will be accomodated in an ordinariate. I think my concerns already expressed about the witness to celibacy which, though a discipline of the Church rather than a doctrinal requirement, is nevertheless part of the nature of the Church's witness to Christ, appear quite justified.
Missionary training base up for sale
St Joseph's College in Mill Hill, north London, is being marketed by Knight Frank on behalf of its owners, a private consortium, and is expected to generate significant investor interest.
The building, built in the 1860s and a training base for missionaries until 2005, has planning permission to be converted into a five-star retirement development. Emma Cleugh at Knight Frank said it was an "incredibly rare" site.
from the Business pages of today's Daily Telegraph. The St Joseph's Missionary Society sold, and moved out of, the property at the end of 2006. The developers who bought the site off them have now put it on the market again.
Monday, 26 October 2009
Christians should wear crosses - and Lourdes Magazine October-November 2009
By a happy coincidence, the October-November issue of Lourdes Magazine arrived today. It has as its theme and cover story: "Learn to make the Sign of the Corss with Bernadette". This is to be the theme for the pilgrimages of 2010, and the magazine has dedicated this particular issue to the theme with the idea that it can be used to prepare for next year's pilgrimages. At the date of posting, there is nothing about the 2010 theme on the Lourdes website, but I expect that something will appear sooner or later.
In his editorial, Francois Vayne writes:
It seems to me intuitively that when we make this Sign, it is as if the shadow of the Cross covers us in the same way as it covered Mary at the instant the Crucified Christ gave up His Spirit. This fruitful shadow, that of the Spirit, associates us with the compassion of Mary, Mother of the new humanity.
A meditation entitled "You belong to Christ" echoes the words of the Bishop of Lichfield ("The mark of a real Christian community is not so much the lapel badges and crosses we wear as the spontaneous, generous and practical love we show to the world") , that the cross should be more to us than just a badge. Yes, it is a badge or a sign that we wear and express; but it is a badge and sign of a deeper reality.
The cross is not a badge. May it become more than a symbol for you: you are a Christian, you belong to Christ. Let the Cross dominate you life. It shows the descent as much as the ascent - the ascent which is effected in the same measure as the descent is extended downwards. It seems to want to say to you: don't look up so much, where you are seeking to flee. Come down, come down, become more silent, more docile, do not recoil in the face of suffering, ridicule, humiliation; a hand is holding you at the other end, and hoisting you up, without you even knowing it.
In an article intended to help parents pray the Sign of the Cross with their children, we find the following as a caption to one of the illustrations:
I am a child of God. When I make the Sign of the Cross, I trace over me the Cross of Jesus, the Saviour. When I touch my forehead, my heart and my shoulders, it is He who marks me with His Love.
Sunday, 25 October 2009
From the Newsletter
In this particular parish (not my own), the tabernacle is placed in the back wall of a side chapel, below a stained glass window depicting Eucharistic imagery. The tabernacle itself is a very worthy piece of work, the doors being very secure, prominent and decorated with Eucharistic imagery. Because there is no altar in this side chapel, the people can approach the tabernacle itself. The flooring of the chapel is, again, made of worthy materials. One might have asked for a tabernacle veil, but I do find the arrangement of the chapel a good one.
TABERNACLE: A custom has sprung up of touching or kissing the doors of the Tabernacle. Please do not do that because it is lacquered brass and such contact with the doors will blacken them. The makers recommend only cleaning with a very soft duster once a week.Recalling Pope Benedict's catechesis on adoration ("ad oratio", to the mouth, an embrace or kiss), I would have a lot of sympathy for the piety shown in this action of touching or kissing the tabernacle. The arrangement of this chapel allows it, and there must be very few churches where it is possible. I can't help but feel that some way can be found of repairing any damage to the tabernacle without needing to discourage this practice, presumably by a relatively small number of people.
Saturday, 24 October 2009
Anglican Ordinariate ... or Catholic "flying bishops"?
I haven't really known what to make of the announcement earlier this week of a forthcoming Apostolic Constitution to allow for "ordinariates" for Anglican converts. In some ways, we cannot be sure of the full implications until we see the details of the Apostolic Constitution itself.
The fullest explanation of the juridical implications as they have emerged so far is, I think, this one. From a canon lawyer, of course. It is an interesting exemplification of the idea that Canon Law is "applied ecclesiology"! Fr Boyle's post also includes links to some of the other coverage on the blogs. There is also some useful comment at Valle Adurni, particularly among the numbered points towards the end of his post.
My own thoughts:
1. I recall a lunch time conversation once with an Anglican priest, who expressed the feeling that he felt very unwelcomed by the Catholic Church's discipline that did not allow non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion if they attended Mass. This contrasts with the Anglican rule which is that, provided you are in good standing with your own denomination, you can recieve at an Anglican service. Taking the opportunity of a mouthful of food to think on my feet, I responded along the lines that, for the Roman Catholic, communion is not just social but about what is believed to be true and right (and, I would want to add with the benefit of hindsight, about a physically visible communion with the Bishop-in-communion-with-the Holy See). The problem with the C of E is that talking to one part of it is not talking to the whole, so the idea of "communion" as in "the Anglican communion" is at root a social idea - no other underpinning idea of "communion" can be held across all its different parts.
2. Another conversation I had some time ago with a convert to Catholicism from Anglicanism painted a picture of ideas of "corporate" moves to Rome along the following lines. "Are you going to join?" "No." "Oh, well, I won't then". Or, in reverse: "If you join, I will. Shall we ask Sheila (name made up!) if she is going to join as well?" It was a rather jolly picture of tea and cake in the parish hall; again, rather more to do with the social than with religious conviction. So I ended up not at all convinced by the possibilities of whole Anglican parishes converting and retaining their parish identities in the Roman Catholic Church.
3. Again, some time ago I visited a "high Church" Anglican parish - and, almost physically, felt a sense of "acting" like Rome, but, at heart, remaining totally and utterly Anglican in spirit. It's the very idea that the same Church can contain completely contradictory beliefs with regard to teaching and morals and consider that normal. The "high Church Anglican" / "Anglo-Catholic" is in this sense as thoroughly Anglican as the "broad Church" / "low Church" Anglican.
I know this doesn't sound very welcoming to Anglicans who are looking to make use of the new possibilities created by Anglican Ordinariates. And I know it does not fairly represent those Anglicans who genuinely search for truth, and are more and more coming to see that truth of Christian revelation in the Roman Catholic Church. But I think it does lead me to two conclusions:
4. The process of establishing an Ordinariate is, if I understand it correctly, to be undertaken by the Roman Catholic Church - the Holy See in consultation with the relevant Bishops Conferences. I have not understood it to mean that organisations such as the Traditional Anglican Communion (though they may have more claim to the possibility than other organisations), Forward in Faith or individual Anglican parishes will, in themselves, become Ordinariates. This retains the sense of conversion that I feel is still necessary. An Anglican movement that becomes Roman Catholic, but remains Anglican in spirit in the sense outlined above, will sooner or later evaporate.
5. The Apostolic Constitution allows the possibility of the establishing of Anglican Ordinariates. I still think there needs to be a process of discernment as particular Anglican organisations approach the Roman Catholic Church. In some cases, I would expect that the establishing of an Ordinariate or affiliation to an Ordinariate will not be appropriate; but, where there is a stronger sense of a corporate identity that is theological/spiritual among those approaching the Roman Catholic Church, then the establishing of an Ordinariate becomes more appopriate.
Two postscripts:
6. I think the potential for the ordination as Roman Catholic priests of significant numbers of married ex-Anglican clergy raises a real question about the witness of the Roman Rite Church to the value of celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom. The testimony of the new movements, rather than being one of reducing the witness to the evangelical counsels, is one of increasing such witness. I think there should be some genuine discernment of priestly vocations, rather than an assumption that a vocation as an Anglican priest is automatically read as being a sign of a vocation to be a Catholic priest; and marital status should be considered here, as it would be for someone who is already a Roman Catholic. This is not to say that I feel married ex-Anglican clergy should not be ordained; but it is to say that I feel some consideration of the witness to the evangelical counsel of virginity needs to be undertaken.
7. Amid the wide ranging comments suggesting that Pope Benedict XVI can be seen as the "Pope of Christian unity" [see here, and here - and see my A Comment on Unity as a complement to these comments - remember, you saw it first on Catholic Commentary!], it is interesting to look at how the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, is seeing his role as Primate with regard to the Anglican Communion as a whole. For some time now, and over a range of issues that, frankly, divide the Communion - particularly the ordination of women as priests and bishops, and the disputes surrounding the Anglican communions stance with regard to homosexuality - Archbishop Rowan Williams seems to me to have desperately tried to keep the Communion together. He has tried to keep it together in a very Anglican way - a unity at a social level, a being in "communion" that does not reach much more deeply than the social suggested at point 1, and then at points 2 and 3 above, and which leaves aside divisions in religious belief and morals, and finds almost any kind of construction to avoid a visible split. It has interested me that he seems to see his role as being one of a "ministry of unity" for the Anglican communion, yes in a very Anglican sense, but a ministry of unity nonetheless.
Which brings me back to the title of this post. I think that Fr Boyle's post does make clear that the Anglican Ordinariate will be something quite different than the "oversight", "pastoral care" provision for those unhappy with the ordination of women made by "flying bishops" in the Church of England (though the note from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does use this terminology in its second paragraph, in my view, not very helpfully). It is precisely this discernment that needs to be clear, both for those seeking to become Roman Catholics in an Anglican Ordinariate and those on the Roman Catholic side who are establishing the Ordinariate. I suspect the move will not be quite the rush that some of the media coverage of the last few days suggests.
The fullest explanation of the juridical implications as they have emerged so far is, I think, this one. From a canon lawyer, of course. It is an interesting exemplification of the idea that Canon Law is "applied ecclesiology"! Fr Boyle's post also includes links to some of the other coverage on the blogs. There is also some useful comment at Valle Adurni, particularly among the numbered points towards the end of his post.
My own thoughts:
1. I recall a lunch time conversation once with an Anglican priest, who expressed the feeling that he felt very unwelcomed by the Catholic Church's discipline that did not allow non-Catholics to receive Holy Communion if they attended Mass. This contrasts with the Anglican rule which is that, provided you are in good standing with your own denomination, you can recieve at an Anglican service. Taking the opportunity of a mouthful of food to think on my feet, I responded along the lines that, for the Roman Catholic, communion is not just social but about what is believed to be true and right (and, I would want to add with the benefit of hindsight, about a physically visible communion with the Bishop-in-communion-with-the Holy See). The problem with the C of E is that talking to one part of it is not talking to the whole, so the idea of "communion" as in "the Anglican communion" is at root a social idea - no other underpinning idea of "communion" can be held across all its different parts.
2. Another conversation I had some time ago with a convert to Catholicism from Anglicanism painted a picture of ideas of "corporate" moves to Rome along the following lines. "Are you going to join?" "No." "Oh, well, I won't then". Or, in reverse: "If you join, I will. Shall we ask Sheila (name made up!) if she is going to join as well?" It was a rather jolly picture of tea and cake in the parish hall; again, rather more to do with the social than with religious conviction. So I ended up not at all convinced by the possibilities of whole Anglican parishes converting and retaining their parish identities in the Roman Catholic Church.
3. Again, some time ago I visited a "high Church" Anglican parish - and, almost physically, felt a sense of "acting" like Rome, but, at heart, remaining totally and utterly Anglican in spirit. It's the very idea that the same Church can contain completely contradictory beliefs with regard to teaching and morals and consider that normal. The "high Church Anglican" / "Anglo-Catholic" is in this sense as thoroughly Anglican as the "broad Church" / "low Church" Anglican.
I know this doesn't sound very welcoming to Anglicans who are looking to make use of the new possibilities created by Anglican Ordinariates. And I know it does not fairly represent those Anglicans who genuinely search for truth, and are more and more coming to see that truth of Christian revelation in the Roman Catholic Church. But I think it does lead me to two conclusions:
4. The process of establishing an Ordinariate is, if I understand it correctly, to be undertaken by the Roman Catholic Church - the Holy See in consultation with the relevant Bishops Conferences. I have not understood it to mean that organisations such as the Traditional Anglican Communion (though they may have more claim to the possibility than other organisations), Forward in Faith or individual Anglican parishes will, in themselves, become Ordinariates. This retains the sense of conversion that I feel is still necessary. An Anglican movement that becomes Roman Catholic, but remains Anglican in spirit in the sense outlined above, will sooner or later evaporate.
5. The Apostolic Constitution allows the possibility of the establishing of Anglican Ordinariates. I still think there needs to be a process of discernment as particular Anglican organisations approach the Roman Catholic Church. In some cases, I would expect that the establishing of an Ordinariate or affiliation to an Ordinariate will not be appropriate; but, where there is a stronger sense of a corporate identity that is theological/spiritual among those approaching the Roman Catholic Church, then the establishing of an Ordinariate becomes more appopriate.
Two postscripts:
6. I think the potential for the ordination as Roman Catholic priests of significant numbers of married ex-Anglican clergy raises a real question about the witness of the Roman Rite Church to the value of celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom. The testimony of the new movements, rather than being one of reducing the witness to the evangelical counsels, is one of increasing such witness. I think there should be some genuine discernment of priestly vocations, rather than an assumption that a vocation as an Anglican priest is automatically read as being a sign of a vocation to be a Catholic priest; and marital status should be considered here, as it would be for someone who is already a Roman Catholic. This is not to say that I feel married ex-Anglican clergy should not be ordained; but it is to say that I feel some consideration of the witness to the evangelical counsel of virginity needs to be undertaken.
7. Amid the wide ranging comments suggesting that Pope Benedict XVI can be seen as the "Pope of Christian unity" [see here, and here - and see my A Comment on Unity as a complement to these comments - remember, you saw it first on Catholic Commentary!], it is interesting to look at how the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, is seeing his role as Primate with regard to the Anglican Communion as a whole. For some time now, and over a range of issues that, frankly, divide the Communion - particularly the ordination of women as priests and bishops, and the disputes surrounding the Anglican communions stance with regard to homosexuality - Archbishop Rowan Williams seems to me to have desperately tried to keep the Communion together. He has tried to keep it together in a very Anglican way - a unity at a social level, a being in "communion" that does not reach much more deeply than the social suggested at point 1, and then at points 2 and 3 above, and which leaves aside divisions in religious belief and morals, and finds almost any kind of construction to avoid a visible split. It has interested me that he seems to see his role as being one of a "ministry of unity" for the Anglican communion, yes in a very Anglican sense, but a ministry of unity nonetheless.
Which brings me back to the title of this post. I think that Fr Boyle's post does make clear that the Anglican Ordinariate will be something quite different than the "oversight", "pastoral care" provision for those unhappy with the ordination of women made by "flying bishops" in the Church of England (though the note from the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith does use this terminology in its second paragraph, in my view, not very helpfully). It is precisely this discernment that needs to be clear, both for those seeking to become Roman Catholics in an Anglican Ordinariate and those on the Roman Catholic side who are establishing the Ordinariate. I suspect the move will not be quite the rush that some of the media coverage of the last few days suggests.
Care of souls ... or of the parish car park?
From the web site of Brentwood Diocese:
..."proposed rationalization of Mass times" ... : presumably a proposal is ready to be put to the Pastoral Council Plenary Meeting. But what principles will underpin the proposal?
Will it be a consideration of the care of souls? Will the proposal include assessments of the likely impact on the lay faithful's attendance at Sunday Mass of the proposed changes? Cut out one Sunday Mass = overcrowd the Church at the other Sunday Masses = at least some who will no longer attend Mass on a Sunday. Make it harder to get to Mass, and some will stop going who otherwise would keep going. One can respond that this represents poor motivation on the part of the now non-attending faithful, and there is some truth in that. But why shouldn't there be an element of outreach and effort for them? Why should it be made harder than is really necessary?
Or perhaps the Church is already overcrowded on a Sunday. Ah, we need to extend the Church .... Oh, we can't afford it. Why can't we have an extra Sunday Mass instead? Canon Law does allow the Bishop to permit a priest to celebrate a third Mass on a Sunday in the case of pastoral need, after all? Oh, but we are short of priests and can't exhaust them. [Aside: well, if they "say the black and do the red", I'm sorry, celebrating Mass is a lot easier than all the stress of ad libs, contrived introductions that force the readings into the penitential rite, and all the other elements of "performance" that can be prevalent amongst precisely those priests who are most worried about this.]
Perhaps a re-orientation in the priorities of the priest is required. As I heard it expressed a month or two ago, clearly with a reference to a situation in one particular parish, but with I suspect a completely analagous application in other parishes and at diocesan level:
Surely the priest should be worrying about the care of souls, not about the parish car park.
Brentwood Diocesan Pastoral Council Plenary Meetings are usually held twice a year. The next one is scheduled for 7. November, 2009.
These meetings discuss diocesan events and support deaneries and parishes. There is also an update from the Bishop. Invitations go to a representative from each parish and deanery. Interested priests and members of various diocesan groups also attend. Those likely to be interested in the topics to be discussed and people involved in various aspects of diocesan life may also be invited.
Plans for November’s plenary meeting include looking at an update on the Pastoral Support Team’s survey of linked parishes and the proposed rationalization of mass times. In addition to his usual “Points from the Bishop”, Bishop Thomas will also be holding a Question and Answer Session for everyone. It is important that your parish is represented at the plenary to maintain two-way communication so make sure your parish has a representative.
..."proposed rationalization of Mass times" ... : presumably a proposal is ready to be put to the Pastoral Council Plenary Meeting. But what principles will underpin the proposal?
Will it be a consideration of the care of souls? Will the proposal include assessments of the likely impact on the lay faithful's attendance at Sunday Mass of the proposed changes? Cut out one Sunday Mass = overcrowd the Church at the other Sunday Masses = at least some who will no longer attend Mass on a Sunday. Make it harder to get to Mass, and some will stop going who otherwise would keep going. One can respond that this represents poor motivation on the part of the now non-attending faithful, and there is some truth in that. But why shouldn't there be an element of outreach and effort for them? Why should it be made harder than is really necessary?
Or perhaps the Church is already overcrowded on a Sunday. Ah, we need to extend the Church .... Oh, we can't afford it. Why can't we have an extra Sunday Mass instead? Canon Law does allow the Bishop to permit a priest to celebrate a third Mass on a Sunday in the case of pastoral need, after all? Oh, but we are short of priests and can't exhaust them. [Aside: well, if they "say the black and do the red", I'm sorry, celebrating Mass is a lot easier than all the stress of ad libs, contrived introductions that force the readings into the penitential rite, and all the other elements of "performance" that can be prevalent amongst precisely those priests who are most worried about this.]
Perhaps a re-orientation in the priorities of the priest is required. As I heard it expressed a month or two ago, clearly with a reference to a situation in one particular parish, but with I suspect a completely analagous application in other parishes and at diocesan level:
Surely the priest should be worrying about the care of souls, not about the parish car park.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)