www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Episcopal Diocese Seeks to Unite With Rome

Glory to Jesus Christ!

This is just my first take on it, I really don't know what to think, so I just thought I would toss some thoughts out there. It could be joyful news and I am sure many will see it that way.

This is kind of an unanticipated dilemma for the church. As I understand it, the Anglican use was not intended to be the basis for a separate, parallel Episcopal structure. The Anglican use was to be an optional liturgical form under the supervision of the local Ordinary, and hasn't seen any new establishments in a long time. Rome has thus far not admitted that the Anglican use is a Rite of the church.

Presumably, the unnamed (P)ECUSA diocese does have the right to request admission into the Catholic Communion. Does it make sense for an entire diocese to be accepted as a diocese (or Eparchy)?

Such a move would presume that all of the Sacraments were validly conferred, and all of the clergy were ordained with valid orders. What would be done about the divorced and remarried laity? It would basically mean that the Anglican Use would be regarded and function as an Anglican Rite, and that is something that hasn't been decided. I cannot imagine the complexity of the process required to accomplish such a thing.

As far as I know the property may be in the hands of the bishop, but may not.

Then too, would another form of organization such as a Personal Prelature be more appropriate?

If this reunion is actually a possibility, I could even see the prospect of the diocese disintegrating in the process, with congregations dissolving amid bitter lawsuits.

I pray for God's Will in this.

Michael

Baptisms will be accepted as valid. Anglican Orders by themselves are not considered valid by the Catholic Church, so most likely Ordinations would need to be accomplished.

(some Anglican clergy are co-ordinated by members of the Old Catholic Church, which does have valid Orders and an Apostolic sucession, this is rare though)

Anglicans do not practice Confirmation\Chrismation as a Sacrement, so that would be offered to all parishiners (mostly likely by their own priests after the priests recieve valid Orders).

Marriages between Baptised persons are generally recognized as valid and Sacremental. There is the sticky situation about Anglican divorce vs. Catholic Decrees of Nullity.

While very much heartened by this development, I do not envy the Bishop's involved with this task.

Dear Friends,

I told you so! (Oops . . . it's not nice to say that, is it? ).

Actually, the Antiochian Orthodox Church has lots of experience accepting entire Episcopal and Anglican parishes into communion within its Western Rite (Fr. Stephen Walinski of Omaha, Nebraska is one example - he is of Ukrainian Jewish descent).

But certainly, an entire diocese - we're talking BIG here! Historically, there have been Anglican religious Orders that have come into communion with Rome, especially in the 19th century. The Cowley Fathers were formerly Anglican, were they not?

Usually the change was gradual. As Anglicans, the Orders became very "High Church" following the Roman Breviary and bringing their celebration of the Eucharist into close alignment with the Roman Mass.

They would actually insist on having their priests ordained by bishops with Apostolic Orders recognized by Catholicism . . .

And, at some point, they would begin commemorating the Pope, even while still being Anglicans.

I attended a very high Anglican Eucharist (Rosary before with a procession and sprinkling of Holy Water, genuflections and lots of kneeling).

The canon actually commemorated the Pope of Rome ahead of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The whole service was as "Catholic" as the Catholic Mass - except that it was conducted facing East with the priest's backs to the people.

There were three steps before the altar with a priest on the top step, with a deacon behind him and a subdeacon directly behind them. They all moved together - lots of incense, I almost choked to death.

Oh well, what can you do - some people are just old fuddy-duddies, can't keep up with the times.

And the sermon itself was focused on attacking the evils of divorce and abortion in today's society.

Well, despite all that, I hope Rome does actively consider accepting these wayward Anglicans and Episcopalians into communion with it.

It could be an Anglican or Sarum Rite.

In my humble experience with these wayward Anglicans, they start out as "Anglican Use" but then they gravitate toward liturgical studies and that of their historic Sarum, Hereford, Bangor and York usages.

I hope all this doesn't upset Rome too much.

You just can't make those Anglicans behave modern-like, you know . . .

Alex

If this report is accurate - and I most profoundly pray that it is - the consequences could be far-reaching and positive for the Church. Only about a week ago, Cardinal Kasper issued a statement that it would only be possible to have an "Anglican Rite" in the Catholic Church if an entire province OR DIOCESE seeks communion with Rome. Is his condition now being met?
As all of us who read this website are surely aware, celibacy of the priests is not an absolute requirement of the Catholic Church - there are of course married Eastern Catholic priests in perfectly good standing and there are an increasing number of married Western Catholic priests, also in good standing. In both situations, the usual canonical rules apply (first marriage, marriage before ordination - but since Rome does not recognize Anglican Orders, the existing first marriages of Anglican clergy-candidates to the Catholic priesthood have no such problem). There is even one case of a priest married after valid Old Catholic ordination currently serving, with Vatican authority, in a US Roman Catholic diocese.
As to liturgy, the liturgy currently found in the few "Anglican Use" Catholic parishes in the USA would probably be the place to start, while patiently considering and developing other possibilities.
All this will bear watching, and should have our prayers. Incognitus

From what I understand they just wanna join the Roman Church as a result of the "gay" crisis in their own Episcopalian communities.

If that is the case this is nothing but Oportunism. These people did nothing when the C of E started "ordaining" women, which was an obvious sign of the falseness of their religion. In spite of this the remained part of the "all happy family" of the Anglican Communion.

How can this be considered a true conversion?

Actually, Mexican, the en-masse Anglican conversions to Orthodoxy were a reaction, I believe, to the ordination of women. I may be wrong, but I did read that they were reacting to 'liberalism'.

Alice

yeah, there has to be more surrounding conversion then reacting against what is going on in your former Church- there has to be a positive "going to" a Faith.

Impugning the motives of potential converts at a time when we do not even know precisely who or where these people are is judgemental in the worst sense of that term. The angel with the flaming sword might have been set to guard the door of Paradise, but the Church is open to everyone who seeks her.
Clearly, mere annoyance or pique at one's present religious perch is not a sufficient reason to join another body. However, a crisis can often serve to focus understanding, and to make it clear that the ambiguities inherent in such-and-such a position ultimately vitiate that position and indicate that God is leading the Christian(s) to take decisions which he, she or they had not felt compelled to take previously. Incognitus

From the Seattle P.I. article that Anthony posted:

I'd suggest that, at such early stages of any discussion about mass conversions, Archbishop Brunett might try to be more circumspect in his public comments. Frankly, one has to wonder the purpose of discussing the topic, other than to generate some hot press. It's difficult to see that stirring the issue in the public square, with the inevitable speculation as to "which diocese?", is going to advance the cause or facilitate it happening.

Alex,

The Cowley Fathers (The Society of Saint John the Evangelist of Cowley) are still Anglican, Anglo-Catholic to be sure, but still Anglican. No Anglican religious orders entered into communion with Rome in the 19th century, although a significant number of individual clerics did so, primarily from the Anglo-Catholic community at Oxford. It's possible you're thinking of those folks; collectively, they were often referred to as the "Tracterians" and that term has sometimes been misconstrued as representing a religious order. Actually, the name came from the "Tracts" which they produced under the leadership of the young Anglican priest who would eventually become John Henry Cardinal Newman (now Venerable).

The only corporate entry into Roman communion of a religious community from the Anglican (or its counterpart Episcopal) Church since the Reformation was that of the Franciscan Friars and Sisters of the Atonement (the Graymoor Friars and Sisters), who were received into the Church in 1909 or 1910.

The 1980 Pastoral Provision which stipulates that Anglican converts to Catholicism could enter into communion with Roman while retaining their liturgical traditions under an "Anglican Usage" established "personal", rather than territorial parishes. The parishes, although subject to the local Latin Ordinary, were placed under the general superintendency of Cardinal Bernard Law, then Archbishop of Boston, as Ecclesiastical Delegate of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith which oversees the Pastoral Provision. (Since Law's resignation, I'm unsure to whom this responsibility has devolved.) The Usage is presently limited to the United States and is in place in only seven parishes, last I knew, most in Texas or Massachusetts.

The Pastoral Provision came about because of an expressed interest on the part of traditional Anglicans in the UK and their Episcopalian counterparts in the US to enter communion with Rome as a reaction to the issue of women being ordained. Originally, they had as a goal an Anglican Rite Personal Prelature, but ultimately negotiated the Pastoral Provision when it became evident that the former wasn't going to happen. Cardinal Law and some other U.S. bishops actively advocated for this tool of corporate reunion, but the English hierarchy, other than Cardinal Hume, was adamantly opposed. Supposedly, they buckled to pressure from liberal and feminist elements in the English church, who were averse to an influx of clergy and laity committed to opposing female ordination. As a result, the English proposition was that they would accept a parish's en masse conversion, but once received, the conversts would be absorbed into the larger body of the faithful, rather than be assured of the right to continue worshiping together and to do so under a Usage which incorporated familiar liturgical elements. Ultimately, Rome accepted the English position and limited implementation of the Pastoral Provision to the U.S. The Church of England quelled the rumblings within its ranks by giving the disaffected faithful four bishops of their own and allowing them to opt out of the mainstream hierarchical structure. As a result, there were still many clergy and lay conversions in the UK, but as individuals; no mass conversions of parishes resulted.

All of what you describe is not uncommon in the 'highest' of Anglican High Church parishes and doesn't necessarily indicate an incipient reunion, only a recognition of Rome and the Catholic Church as their parent church. Among the Anglo-Catholics, so-called, these are routine practices. You can find similar practices among some of the very High Church Lutheran parishes.

I'm not certain why you chose "wayward" to describe these Anglicans, but it has a patronizing ring; "disaffected" might be a better choice. It's not clear to whom you are referring when you talk about starting out as "Anglican Use" and gravitating to historic usages, such as "Sarum". I am guessing that the reference is to those who have converted to Orthodoxy and the "Western Rites" adopted for their usage there. The Anglican Usage within the Catholic Church is very defined as to liturgical form and doesn't really admit of variation - and, given the small number of venues, experimentation would very readily become evident.

Michael,

Actually, no. The title to Episcopal churches and their properties in the U.S. is almost invariably in the hands of the vestry, a body comprised of the rector and elected members of the congregation which administers the church's temporal affairs.

Your vision of diocesan disintegration, lawsuits, etc., is probably right on.

Incognitus,

I agree with you completely on the point in your second paragraph; percieved ambiguities can indeed permit one to focus on points that were, till then, a source of ambivalence but not definitive to one's thinking. A response of this sort was exactly what led Newman and his contemporaries to Catholicism.

It seems to me that our proper response to this report is to pray that our sisters and brothers of the Episcopal Church accept this spiritual opportunity to accept a return to the Catholic roots that their forebears rejected centuries ago.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Neil,

I was writing that post a bit tongue in cheek when I said "wayward."

Actually, there is a list of Anglican religious Orders that did join Rome _it was shown to me by Canon Greene of St Bartholomew's Anglican Church in Toronto - whether in the 19th century or early 20th century, I don't know.

Yes, and make that "Caldey" not "Cowley."

In his "Against All Reason," Geoffrey Moorhouse discusses how on 5 March 1913, the Anglican Abbot Aelred and 22 brothers were received into the RC Church and continued in their life as a (formerly Anglican) Benedictin community on Caldey Island until 1928 when they moved to Prinknash in Gloucestershire - Aelred Carlyle died there in 1955. Caldey was to be taken over by a community of Trappists who migrated from the Abbey of Chimay in Belgium, who are still there today and who among other things produce perfumes for sale in that stylish boutique opposite Brompton Ortatory in London (pp 72-73).

And I never suggested that all High Church Anglicans and Lutherans become Catholics or Orthodox - a number have and more are moving toward Rome for obvious reasons.

Within Anglicanism itself, according to William Whalen in a booklet on the Anglican Church, there is the "Papalist" movement of more than 500 ANglican Ministers in England alone who take a vow to uphold the Papacy - and to work to bring Anglicanism as a body into union with Rome.

Alex

Dear Neil:



Cardinal Law's resignation pertained only to his position as Archbishop of Boston.

His Eminence continues to hold ALL of his other positions, including as Ecclesiastical Delegate in the U.S. for the supervision (and development?) of the "Anglican Use" parishes.

The founding "Anglican Use" parish centered in the "Our Lady of the Atonement Catholic Church" in San Antonio, Texas has gone on to become a vibrant community of believers, boasting almost 500 families in the fold comprising of the original Episcopal parish, converts from other Christian ecclesial communities, and Latins(!).

AmdG

Dear Neil,

Just got back from the funeral home . . . and I wanted to say how much I agree with your last post above about the Anglicans.

The point is that those Anglicans/Episcopalians who desire to turn to Rome are doing so because their own deeply traditional theology/worship has ALREADY led them to consider their roots and how much Rome once figured in those roots and in their Christian identity.

But, certainly, Anglicans like John Mason Neale were quite content to return to Catholic "everything but" allegiance to Rome.

I've seen some Anglo-Catholic texts that do indeed indicate that the Pope is "First among Equals" however they understand it.

Anyway, this is all wonderful news.

Alex

Greetings All,

With the recent announcements from the 74th General Convention of the Episcopal Church USA (ECUSA), there is talk among the faithful that many Episcopalians are unhappy with the decisions taken by their church. And of course there are those Anglicans who are happy with the decisions. But for those who oppose the installation of an openly gay bishop and the softening of the bans on same-sex unions, many Episcopalians are now looking to Rome. Meaning that they are seeking corporate reunion with the Roman Catholic Church. Thus bringing with them their faithful, pastors, and in some instances church property.

This has been done before, through the Pastoral Provision for the Anglican Use (which is, the only authorized variation of the Latin Rite in the United States today), by groups of individual faithful and on rare occassions entire congregations. However there is a large new wave of Anglicans seeking this union and I have heard and read of entire dioceses preparing to leave the ECUSA.

I am also aware of the fact that a separate Anglican Rite (that is to say, very clearly, a church sui juris, like the Byzantine Catholic Church) is being asked to be created in order to facilitate such a large influx of Anglicans into the Roman Church.

The question of creating such a rite, despite what many may think, is ultimatly up to the Holy See, and any number of canon laws can be changed to make this happen. In fact an Anglican Rite (sui juris) was proposed during the reign of Pope Paul VI, though he expired before anything ever materialized.

My question is how soon could this effectively be done?

ProCatholico

All,

I've come across this news wire from the ECUSA website:

Recent News on Anglicans Coming To Rome [gc2003.episcopalchurch.org]

It elaborates on the current situation within the Episcopal Church. A MUST read.

ProCatholico