Here is the official documentation for the creation of Personal Ordinariates for former Anglicans who shall enter into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
And, to me, this is most significant statement found in the documentation's theological commentary:
'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.'
12 comments:
My Dear Father Chad,
Please clarify that this statement is not found in the Apostolic Constitution, but is found in a commentary egarding the matter.
"Doc"+
Dear Doc+
Awesome to hear from you! God bless you!
This should come as no surprise to anyone. Rome has looked carefully at the “Dutch Touch” and similar arguments for the restoration of validity to Anglican Orders and has concluded that the finding of Leo XIII is still true and binding. In fact, while Joseph Ratzinger was still the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he described the teaching of the Catholic Church on the invalidity of Anglican Orders as a dogmatic fact that is taught in an irreformable manner and must be accepted de fide tenenda by all Catholics. No one should be under any illusion that this teaching will ever change.
Having said that, no one should conclude from this teaching that the Catholic Church considers the ministrations of Anglican clergy to be “play acting” or of no value to Anglican Christians. On the contrary, all acts of Christian worship are means of grace for believers, even if they are not what the Catholic Church means by the sacraments of the New Covenant. The Bishop of Rome and all the Bishops of the world in communion with him have believed for nearly five centuries that five of the seven sacraments were lost to every Christian community of the 16th century schisms (leaving only Baptism and Marriage), but that does not mean that the Catholic Church believes that Protestants (including Anglicans) have been bereft of the instruments of grace needed to lead the faithful to salvation. And it is precisely the “treasures” of Anglican life developed in separation from the Catholic Church in the centuries since the schism that Benedict XVI now seeks to graft onto the main body of the Church.
So, what else is new? Not much.pillov
With Keble and Pusey I believe that the home all Christians need to go to is the Church of the Fathers and of the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Amen.
The only Church all Christians need to go home to is the Church of the Fathers and of the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided Church. This will be a unity by integration, not absorption.
Dear Fr. Newman,
While you clearly state the Roman Catholic position, it must also be said that it is for the most part not the Anglican Catholic position. The reformation, with all of its adverse efects on the western church, had more than a mere political cause beneath it. In fact, it had the canonicity of the Holy Scirptures beneath it.
Many of the Catholics in England who felt the need to seperate themselves from Rome were in dissagreement only on a few key points of religion, namely, the new innovations of the early second millenium.
Consider article XIV. On the Works of Supererogation.
Voluntary Works besides, over and above, God's Commandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety: for by them men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake, than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants.
And again article XXXII. On the Marriage of Priests.
Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, are not commanded by God's Law, either to vow the estate of single life, or to abstain from marriage: therefore it is lawful for them, as for all other Christian men, to marry at their own discretion, as they shall judge the same to serve better to godliness.
The Articles of religion are perfect, and their is room for much improvement in them, however, the assertions made above have the full weight of Holy Tradition and the Holy Scriptures behind them.
In short, what we have in the Anglicanorum Coetibus is an assertion that the reformation was wrong and Rome was right. What many had hoped for was a statement that asserted that we have all come to a greater understanding, and as such, are moving into a new relationship. The absence of this is dissappointing, but not surprising.
Dear Father,
As far as I am concerned I think the best evaluation of Rome's "offer" was given by Metropolitan Haverland on the ACC website (which I'm sure you've read by now):http://www.anglicancatholic.org/acc-response-to-rome.html
Fr. Gregory +
Dear Father Carlos,
1. The day the Catholic Church stops teaching that Protestant doctrine is in error will be the day it is no longer the Catholic Church. Of course we believe that Reformation doctrine is false, else we should not be Catholics.
2. This new Apostolic Constitution is not an effort by the Catholic Church to persuade Anglicans to become Catholics or to change their minds about anything. It is, rather, a response to multiple requests already made by Anglicans who have said that they want to be Catholics and have concluded that they cannot be Catholics in the Anglican Communion.
After APOSTOLICAE CURAE, Rome expected Anglican clergy to turn Roman Catholic in great numbers, which did not happen. Now with ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS. I believe history will repeat itself. Let Rome go back to the faith and practice of the undivided Church of the first millenium and unity will be achieved.
The Roman position on married priests has always intrigued me. The Epistle reading for The Ordering of Deacons is I Timothy 3:8-13. It reads in part: "Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses." Likewise the Epistle reading for The Form of Ordaining or Consecrating a Bishop is I Timothy 3:1-6 which reads in part: "This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; not given to wine no striker, nor greedy of filthy lucre; but patient not a brawler, not covetous; one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;"
If we were ever to have another Ecumenical Council it would be natural that the See of Rome would preside at such a council. The first Seven Great Councils did not have one authoritative person leading the council. The Pope would be the presiding officer but not the dictator of the council. The true first Council of the Church is recorded in The Acts of the Apostles, Chapter 15. You will note that St. Peter did not lead the meeting. The James who did lead the meeting was not the Apostle James (he was already martyred), but the James who is described as the brother of our Lord. Yes, the Pope should preside at any Ecumenical Councils of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. No, the Pope is not the dictator of Christ's Church on earth.
Post a Comment