Canon fodder: The Anglican rite constitution published
The Vatican released the devilish details, though a quick glance by my non-expert eye doesn’t turn up anything terribly unexpected. The language does make it seem more than ever like Benedict is setting up a parallel Catholic Church, with bishops alongside other bishops in existing dioceses–details to be worked out later. It seems a recipe for problems on the ground, doctrine and tradition and such aside. It also appears celibacy will still be the norm for unmarried Anglican priests and seminarians, and that it will be the norm going forward, with currently married Anglican priests and seminarians being grandfathered in.
Anglican bishops cannot be bishops if they are married, and it appears John Hepworth, head of the TAC, the main ex-Anglican body seeking this exemption, will not be able to be a priest either as he was a Catholic priest before, became an Anglican priest later, married and divorced and remarried, and thus has too many impediments. It also appears that former Catholics who went to Canterbury cannot be members of the ordinariate unless they are member’s of the priest’s family! I suspect there are other quirks and elements to debate.
The text and norms and press release and official commentary is all here.
From the press release, my favorite bit, highlighted:
“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 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.”
Translation: “What could we do? Our hand was forced! They asked us for this!”
Calling all canonists…
on November 9th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I think there are a number of precedents for what Benedict is doing here.
First of all, you have the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches. In the United States those bishops have territorial jurisdiction that overlaps that of Latin Rite bishops. You also have the precedent of non-territorial ordinaries, like the Archbishop for the U.S. military services. The jurisdiction of that bishop also overlaps that of local ordinaries. Finally, of course, you have the situation of religious orders (e.g. the Jesuits), who have their own authority structure even though they are meant to be working with the blessing of the local ordinary.
In practice, I think the example of the Eastern Rite churches is the most relevant. Their clergy are also married, and the overlapping jurisdictions have not–at least in the last half century or so–led to any significant problems.
I think the reality is that the number of individuals who will take advantage of this is very small. Remember, there are only about 2 million or so Episcopalians TOTAL in the entire United States (compared to around 65 million or so Catholics). Even if 10 percent of Episcopalians (far higher than any estimate I’ve heard) sought communion with Rome, you’re talking 200,000 people. A few bumps on the road? Perhaps. But I’m sure it could be managed.
on November 9th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
One question is catechetics. There are differences between Roman Catholic and Anglican doctrine. Will those who invoke the Apostolic Constitution have to go through the RCIA?
on November 9th, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Peter, I think you’re right–though the issue will I am sure have greater import in the UK than anywhere else, if indeed it “works” there. The parallel does seem analagous to Eastern Rite Catholics, though the Vatican foreswore the creation of such churches. Also, Eastern Rite churches are their own rite, not another form of the Latin rite. So seems odd in some ways that you would have two bishops of the Western rite in the same diocese. Though again, I think it’ll get hashed out on the ground, if it needs to be hashed out at all. I do think the danger is a kind of splitting within Roman Catholicism, with some folks going Tridentine and others going Anglican rite, and both claiming to be the one true church, or somehow “better” than the guitar mass at St. Xavier’s…
Eugene Pagano: Apparently the newbies will have to go through something like RCIA, and will have to sign on the dotted line that they have done so–and believe all those things the Catholic Church teaches and the Anglican church does not.
on November 9th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Rather pointedly, the first ELEVEN footnotes reference the documents of the Second Vatican Council.
on November 9th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
Hello All,
I am wondering, will Roman Catholics who were “home grown” like myself be permitted to participate in the liturgies and receive the sacraments of the new “Anglican-Roman-Catholic” parishes that form? (I mean no disrespect – I don’t know how one should properly refer to these new local churches that will form.) Would I be allowed to become a parishoner at one of these parishes? Would I in effect be allowed to choose which among several local bishops will be my official bishop?
Maybe these matters will be handled in the same way as they are with the Eastern rite churches, which as Peter notes already have issues of overlapping jurisdiction and the like?
on November 9th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
RCIA, hmm. The rites (RCIA 473-486) suggest that for baptized Christians already committed to God “no greater burden than necessary is required.” For Eastern Christians (474) no liturgical rite is required, so it would be interesting to see if like minimalism applied to Anglicans.
Let’s be clear that we’re not talking “initiation” at all, and while the appropriate rites (if used) are in the book called “RCIA,” we’re talking something very, very far from being a catechumenate. No worries for the Catholic Right: some heterodox Sister isn’t going to be allowed to screw this one up.
on November 9th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
In her rather enthusiastic reception of the AC, Ruth Gledhill of the Times of London notes that in fact Anglican married bishops will be married Catholic bishops in all but name:
http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2009/11/pope-married-bishops-in-all-but-name.html
on November 9th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I appreciate Peter Nixon’s listing of some possible analogies to the new “personal ordinariates;” but I think we are also in new territory here. I tend to agree with Ruth Gledhill’s observation: “It will be some time before we fully grasp the enormity of its implications and the breadth of its imagination.”
I would also second Kathy’s point on the importance, not merely of the footnotes, but of the concise statement of “ecclesiological principles” that prefaces the Apostolic Constitution.
on November 9th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Of course the comparison to the Greek Catholics is relevant and appropriate. As for catechism, it is as important for these new Catholics as it is for any Catholic.
As for married clergy, it is not a big deal. First of all, I fail to see why some laity are soo interested in this, but in any case, as the current married Anglican clergy who join the Church ages and passes from the scene, so will married clergy.
on November 9th, 2009 at 4:50 pm
Ken says the issue of mandatory celibacy will die off???? I will die off but the issue will live on..
Could this Anglo-Catholic format be a ’stealth’ offer to the SSPX?
on November 9th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
When I read that “enormity” quote, I was surprised to see Gledhill so enthusiastic about all this! Not the word she meant, apparently.
I gather from this that the answer to Peter V.’s questions above (”Would I be allowed to become a parishoner at one of these parishes? Would I in effect be allowed to choose which among several local bishops will be my official bishop?”) is no:
Is that right? Also, the door is still technically open for married men to be ordained in the future, if I’m reading this right:
BTW, the explanatory document from Ghirlanda takes up the question of how this compares to existing accomodations. Could be worth a read if you’re trying to make sense of this vis-a-vis military dioceses, eastern-rite churches, personal prelatures, etc.
on November 9th, 2009 at 6:04 pm
Put in a nutshell:
Question: when is a bishop who was a bishop but now isn’t a bishop, a bishop?
Answer: when Rome twists and squirms and says up is down and in is out and right is left.
So there.
on November 9th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
This part is also relevant to Peter V.’s question — and to the questions about initiation, although it’s vague about process:
(Canon 845 stipulates that the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders cannot be repeated and describes the circumstances for conditional Baptism.)
on November 9th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
I believe this is a historic move, one whose importance can’t be measured by initial numbers of people accepting this pastoral provision.
By my amateur discernment, this is the most notable ecumenical event since Unitatis Redintegratio was promulgated by the 2nd Vatican Council.
Is this what ecumenical unity is supposed to look like in the minds of Catholics? Anglicans? Protestants? I’ve been thinking of some metaphors that might capture various ways that reunification might play out. Marriage / roommates / merger and acquisition. Which one fits?
on November 9th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
“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.”
If I am a member of the Latin Rite and want to join one of the Eastern Rites, am I prevented from doing so?
If not, why would a member of the current RCC be enjoined from transferring membership to the new Ordinariate? Is this a not-too-subtle way of saying that there are different levels of being a Catholic, and Ordinariate folks are going t be just a teensy-weensy shy of a full membership deck?
Also, this, on the face of it, means that former RCs who are now Anglicans/Episcopalians, and who might want to “repope” can’t do so via the Ordinariate. They must, in effect, come back to the Latin Rite after dutiful apologies, obeisances and whatever.
What if they would want to join one of the Eastern Rites? Would that be another case of “do not pass Go; do not collect $200?”
on November 9th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
David – some idle thoughts that may not make sense:
- let’s see; Henry VIII had a twit over the pope not recognizing his lust for another woman – the pope supported the woman. What we got was the Anglican church (I know – later in the Reformation, the political decision of Henry gained its theological and reformation legs but bear with me)
- now a few centuries later, we have Anglicans who want to re-join the RCC because “women” are being ordained priests/bishops (we won’t comment about the gay issue)
So, is the current Pope being consistent – in the 16th century, the Pope appears to have supported the dignity of a married woman and her role as Queen; but now, centuries later, we have a Pope who is supporting Anglicans who have issues with women who are ordained.
Is this consistent? What do women feel about this? Is this really the gospel message or have we changed our tradition in over 400 years?
Just for a little humor.
on November 9th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
What is wrong with the Anglicans dissidents staying where they are? What do they need Rome for? Such juridical talk. How can anyone of us support this? I welcome the diversity. Let them be part of the RCC without the indoctrination (catechesis). Notice that the catechesis usually means obeisance to the hierarchy. Where are they saying that the blind see, the lame walk and the poor have the gospel preached to them. Just two rich bodies looking for a concordat. Why do we support this Romanita? No wonder we run around in circles. We just react to Rome and have little initiative of our own.
on November 9th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Bill, there was a huge difference between the Catholic Queen Catherine, wife of Henry VIII, and the Protestant Queen Elizabeth, daughter of Henry VIII.
In some ways, that difference is what is being maintained by excluding women from ordination. Regal Henry could set his wife aside, as the Church sets women to the side by excluding them from ordination. Regal Elizabeth could not be set off to the side by anyone.
on November 9th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
First, this is NOT an ecumenical act. It is rooted in the ecumenism of the past 50 years, but it is the acceptance into full communion of some ex-Anglicans. It is about as far as one can get from overcoming the past separations of Christian communities from one another.
Having said that, the ecumenical agreements reached through the ARCIC discussions provide the background for this action. Someone claimed there are differences between RC and Anglican teaching; the reply here is that differences are few, and should not block the reception of these who were catechized as Anglicans from our communion. (but we’re right; the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the authoritative standard.)
The interesting point in all this, I think, is the possibility that a priest might be an Ordinary. How will the Conference of Bishops accept a priest as one of their members? Will it open them to accepting other priests as full members? These priests, if there ever are any, will be Ordinaries, bishops in everything but name and consecration! Does this diminish the bishop’s consecration, since that apparently is not needed for his office? Does it open up the possibility of accepting priests as possibly equal to bishops, something that has been floated in some dialogue? There was some attempt to temper this step — Bishops are vicars of Christ, while these ordinaries will be vicars of the Pope.
Besides some of the Eastern Rite Churches, another precedent for this action is the re-establishment of the Roman Catholic Church in England in the 19th century. This example will be better known among the Anglican bishops, so it will be a constant reference, even though there are huge differences. That was the establishment of ‘competing’ hierarchies, while this is the creation of ‘cooperating’.
on November 9th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
“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.”
As long as Rome talks like this there will be problems. It is a terrible assumption that Catholics are better in the eyes of God than others. If your answer is that “we don’t mean that we are better than them. Only that we have it right. ” Then you need to relook at your Christianity and your theology. The Scribes and Pharisees “had it right” but Jesus said they will receive a greater punishment.
We really have to rethink our theology because we have presided over some very terrible things.
on November 9th, 2009 at 11:16 pm
It’s fitting that a critical breach in a religious wall occurs on the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.
on November 10th, 2009 at 3:25 am
I don’t know if you were responsible for the headline, David Gibson, but it was very clever.
Now with the publication of the “devlish details,” and the now-obvious evidence of the Pope’s determination to provide a welcoming path to those who wish to join us as communities with rich liturgy and practice they would seek to retain wherever possible, I can only agree with a comment my grandfather was fond of using: I’m as happy as a sandboy.
Benedict is keeping us all on our toes.
He simply can’t be placed into any of the categories we keep wanting to shove him into – he’s not conservative or liberal or radical or happily sitting within any other political boxset.
What he’s starting to show us is that (as Father Z recently stated on his blog) what he is is the Pope of Christian Unity.
on November 10th, 2009 at 9:10 am
“First, this is NOT an ecumenical act. It is rooted in the ecumenism of the past 50 years, but it is the acceptance into full communion of some ex-Anglicans. It is about as far as one can get from overcoming the past separations of Christian communities from one another.
“Having said that, the ecumenical agreements reached through the ARCIC discussions provide the background for this action. ”
Hi, Jim McK, your use of EMPHASIZING CAPS notwithstanding, :-), I reply that it is an ecumenical act.
Perhaps we have different views of the ultimate end of ecumenism? My views can be expressed by what I believe ecumenism should be (a means to Christian unity) and by what it should not be (merely a way of maintaining cordial relationships between separated bodies, with a view to preserving the status quo indefinitely). What are your views?
on November 10th, 2009 at 9:22 am
“What is wrong with the Anglicans dissidents staying where they are? What do they need Rome for? Such juridical talk. How can anyone of us support this? I welcome the diversity.”
Hi, Bill, if you and your brother had an awful disagreement, such that you haven’t spoken to one another for forty years, and the cousins have never even met one another, and every year at the Thanksgiving table your brother’s family’s absence re-opened the wound in your heart again – would you say, “I welcome the diversity”?
If, by “diversity”, you mean respect and accommodation for the disctinctive Anglican practices and traditions – it seems to me that this apostolic constitution accomplishes it admirably.
Let them be part of the RCC without the indoctrination (catechesis). Notice that the catechesis usually means obeisance to the hierarchy. Where are they saying that the blind see, the lame walk and the poor have the gospel preached to them. Just two rich bodies looking for a concordat. Why do we support this Romanita? No wonder we run around in circles. We just react to Rome and have little initiative of our own.
on November 10th, 2009 at 10:34 am
There is a core issue to be remembered in this discussion. What constitutes the Catholic Church is that the local bishop is in union with all other bishops including the bishop of Rome. Greek Catholics are not Roman Catholics but are in union with Rome. By establishing this ordinariate the bishop who is its leader will be in union with all other bishops including the bishop of Rome. The key notion is unity and every move to heal division is a good in itself and “thickens” catholicicty understood as a theological principle and not merely a sociological descriptor. Who would argue that reconciliation is to be preferred to dissidence? The concept of catholicity (small “c”) reaches back to the apostolic fathers.
on November 10th, 2009 at 11:09 am
Whether a small or large number of Anglicans come over, that reconciliation needs to be balanced against the divide furthered on the ground on the Anglican and Catholic left.
It’s hardly clear that this is an ecumenical advance, except those who view the constitutive factors of the church through a primarily hierarchical frame. I think that viewpoint to be somewhat overjuridical and, as is often the case with Rome these days, insufficiently pastoral -I guess my view operates more out of a bottom up Catholicism frame that not only needs “thickening” but a lifesaver from dissolving.
I guess I’ll return (wearlily) to theme struck at the funeral of the late Msgr. Murnion of a church that would hearily welcome all on the the left and the right that view is now bygone as is much of the common ground he sought.
I think that John Allen was right that BXVI is reacting very much against the “secularism” of Europe – the Italian crucifix controversy being an example – and so reaches out to the right, not seeing, in my opinion, that his moves to the right increase the “secularism” he is fighting against.
If that analysis has any merit, then diviseness (as well as reconciliation) is part of the dynamic here.
But it is not the former Catholicity that was in place, nor, I suggest, the former ecumenism.
on November 10th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Catholicity is not to be thought of as “juridical” although it has that aspect. Catholicity is a theological principle or it would not have been affirmed in the Rule of Faith. The theological notion of catholicity has been brilliantly discussed in the book by Avery Dulles which I recommend to all interested parties – I know of no other book that does a better job on the topic.
on November 10th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
The silence of Cardinal Kasper speaks volumes.
on November 10th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
Jim, my judgment of what is or is not an ecumenical action is probably based on a lot of things, esp. remarks from Cardinal Kasper on the TAC. Ultimately, all of that probably comes out of V2’s decree on ecumenism:
“The term “ecumenical movement” indicates the initiatives and activities planned and undertaken, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity. These are: first, every effort to avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult; then, “dialogue” between competent experts from different Churches and Communities… In addition, the way is prepared for cooperation between them in the duties for the common good of humanity which are demanded by every Christian conscience; and, wherever this is allowed, there is prayer in common. Finally, all are led to examine their own faithfulness to Christ’s will for the Church and accordingly to undertake with vigor the task of renewal and reform…
“However, it is evident that, when individuals wish for full Catholic communion, their preparation and reconciliation is an undertaking which of its nature is distinct from ecumenical action. But there is no opposition between the two, since both proceed from the marvelous ways of God.”
on November 10th, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Jim McK., thank you for that explanation, makes sense!
on November 10th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Again, the problem with Benedict’s action is that it stresses the negative because the principal reason for the move to Rome by disgruntled Anglicans is women’s ordination and gay clergy. This is similar to Benedict”s courting of fundamentalists. He is seeking doctrinal conformity rather than union in faith, hope and charity.
The pope can indeed serve as a sign of unity which brings everyone to the table. Inside the church Benedict and Co. have refused to bring all Catholics to the table. That’s the point. You can’t ignore the Un-Christian behavior that ignores Oscar Romero and Dorothy Day. Rome seeks too many times conformists rather than Christian.
on November 10th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
The insouciance with which Bill M. judges the motives of the Anglicans takes one’s breath away. For his peance he should meditate on Matthew 7:1.
on November 10th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
I agree with the points on catholicity, but I am not quite sure I accept their application. I think it would have been better if the Vatican had helped reconcile the disaffected Anglicans with their community, rather than accept their dissidence as the foundation for unity with Rome. Does the current action help heal the old wounds?
At their news conference 2 weeks ago, the abps of Canterbury and Westminster said the planned annual meetings of England’s bishops, Catholic and Anglican, would continue. What will be the effect of an ex-anglican, now Catholic Ordinary at these meanings? I suppose it will depend on personality, but I would guess it would be more aggravating than healing.
on November 10th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
While some very few exceptions (too complicated to go into here) have been permitted, Eastern Rite priests in the United States must be celibate. I believe that this exception to their traditional use goes back to the 1920s when the Latin Rite bishops, chiefly Cardinal Dougherty of Philadelphia, asked the Holy See to mandate the celibacy restriction for the Eastern Rite priests in the US. Fear of scandalizing the faithful was a principal reason.
on November 10th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
priests of the Eastern Rites
on November 10th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
If I understand correctly it has now become clear that the Pope does not envisage a continuing tradition of married clergy in this new special arrangement for former Anglicans. It is only that some already married will be grandfathered in. I have just been reading the Tablet for 31 October and there Archbishop Hepworth emphasizes the importance of continuing to ordain married men in perpetuity and says that married priests are at the heart of Anglicanism. If I have understood all this aright, the Archbishop must have recently received a rude surprise.
on November 10th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
I see that Larry Cunningham is making his annual visit here. Still talking about people in the third person. Yet no one dare admonish his ad hominem/incivility. His usual hoisting with his own petard.
I do prefer to address the issue.
on November 10th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Here is a portion of a letter that appeared in the New York Times from a former Anglican priest who became a Roman Catholic. He is commenting on an article that appeared in the paper:
“The article describes Anglicans attracted to Rome as being against women’s and homosexual ordinations. But this does not describe the real motivation for why priests like me reconcile with the Roman Catholic Church.
The main issue is the fact that the Anglican Church has no consistent doctrinal authority and often acts independently from the historical positions of the universal church. In light of this, the ordination of women and practicing homosexuals is merely symptomatic of much more fundamental problems with Anglican ecclesiology.
Priests like me are not reacting to polemics on the theological spectrum. It is the faith once delivered that we are after, which we pursue as an imperative of conscience.”
For forty years in Anglican-Roman Catholic ecumenical discussions we professed to be “in real, but imperfect communion.” Should we not then be glad that some are. at last, seeking “full communion?”
on November 10th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Bill Mazzella, if Larry Cunningham’s phrasing is ad hominem or incivil then I’m not sure where to categorize your intemperance. Please do take a breath.
on November 10th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Bob Imbelli, re that last letter–it’s very well and good, but it appears the letter-writer converted to the RCC. Why don’t the other Anglicans who want to convert do the same? I’ve never understood why they need a special church option for what many others have chosen to do. What was stopping any of them from “swimming the Tiber”?
on November 10th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
David,
communion is all the richer when the Thames flows into the Tiber.
on November 10th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Zen koans?! Where is the Yalu flowing…?
on November 10th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
I am all for the confluence of the Thames and the Tiber, but I fear it will make the waters more turbulent for the swimmers.
In the letter to the NY Times, the movement is portrayed as a renunciation of Anglican values, not as an attempt to bring the two churches closer together. The writer is leaving behind what he believes is deficient, not melding the fullness of his tradition with the Roman Catholic. For heavens’ sakes, those received under the new constitution are moving into a community led by vicars of the Pope! What greater repudiation of the Reformation can exist?
I hope that what these ex-Anglicans bring to Catholicism will be a blessing to our Church, a strengthening of catholicity and communion. But it is not a confluence. It is still leaving one shore to live on the other, where the grass is no doubt greener.
on November 11th, 2009 at 2:01 am
@ David Gibson
“Bob Imbelli, re that last letter–it’s very well and good, but it appears the letter-writer converted to the RCC. Why don’t the other Anglicans who want to convert do the same? I’ve never understood why they need a special church option for what many others have chosen to do. What was stopping any of them from “swimming the Tiber”?”
I would have thought by providing Anglicans with a path by which to convert to Catholicism as a community in contrast to the often heartwrenchingly person by person approach previously required of Anglican, might be considered a positive – if not progressive – move on the Pope’s part.
He’s showing both the Anglicans and us Catholics that there is indeed much that is worthy in the Anglican patrimony and – particularly for English-speaking Catholics – many gifts that our Anglican brethren will bring to enrich our own faith.
We often speak of the need to value and accept the unique heritage and worth of various cultural/social groupings. Why should Anglicans seeking refuge as a community not be considered worthy of similar consideration?
on November 11th, 2009 at 2:09 am
Jimmy Mac:
“If I am a member of the Latin Rite and want to join one of the Eastern Rites, am I prevented from doing so?”
Yes. Latin Catholics cannot switch to another sui juris church without permission of the Holy See. CIC canon 112 § 1.
Of course, a Latin Catholic can attend the liturgy of another sui juris church no problem. They just can’t be canonical members of that sui juris church without the Holy See’s say-so, even if they habitually receive the sacraments according to the liturgy of that church. CIC canon 112 § 2.
“What if they [Anglicans] would want to join one of the Eastern Rites?”
Even before the promulgation of Anglicanorum coetibus, they would have been enrolled in the Latin Church unless the Holy See gave an ok. See CCEO canon 35 (”Baptized non-Catholics coming into full communion with the Catholic Church should retain and practice their own rite everywhere in the world and should observe it as much as humanly possible. Thus, they are to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the same rite with due regard for the right of approaching the Apostolic See in special cases of persons, communities or regions.”).
Peter Vanderschraaf:
I agree with Molly that you and I, as Latin Catholics ineligible for the Ordinariate, cannot be a members of an Ordinariate parish or subject to the Ordinary.
As support for the conclusion with respect to parochial membership, here’s another citation that might be more on point, though Molly had a lot of good ones up there:
“The Ordinary, according to the norm of law, after having heard the opinion of the Diocesan Bishop of the place, may erect, with the consent of the Holy See, personal parishes for the faithful who belong to the Ordinariate.” Anglicanorum coetibus art. VIII § 1 (emphasis added).
I think the “for” is being used here to restrict the power of the Ordinary to only forming parishes out of members of the Ordinariate, though I admit that, based solely on the English, there’s an alternate construction.
Of course, one does not need to be a canonical member of a parish to attend services held in that parish church. Plenty of Latin Catholics in America attend services regularly in parish churches outside the parish of (quasi)domicile. Some even attend services and receive sacraments in churches of parishes outside the Latin Church. Given an environment welcoming to newcomers, I doubt those individuals feel less a part of that community solely because it’s not the parish of (quasi)domicile.
So while the law most likely would not treat you as a member of an Ordinariate personal parish, nothing prevents the members of an Ordinariate parish from treating you as part of their community. That would be the Christian thing to do, in fact.
on November 11th, 2009 at 2:28 am
Mollie, I regret misspelling your name (twice!).
on November 13th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
My last take:
I think the deep ambivalence one should hav eabout Rome’s action is wel lrepresented by Nicholas Lash’s new commentary in the Tablet.
Of course his use of the word “disgraceful” might make one think he despises the Pope. but ….