www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Italian media speculates: Vatican will announce massive reception

How many traditional anglican bishops will be received in the catholic Church?

Thats a good question Father. Also how many unmarried traditionalist Anglican Bishops will become Catholic?

Also, I read on one article that said they will be allowed to train future priests who are married? Did anyone else hear that?

I am under the impression that until the full text is finalized and made pubic we won't really know the answers.

The married bishops that wish to be received into the Church could become priets if they chose to follow that path. The Vatican stated according to the Tradition of the Aposotolic Churches (Catholic and Orthodox) the Ordinaries of the new Ordinariates must be celibate.

I heard something like that. Or maybe only receive married Anglican clergy into the Church and ordain them? I think it's the way it currently is under the Pastoral Provision of John Paul II.

I thought it said that the ordinaries could be either married/celibate priests or celibate bishops.

Some of these bishops (and priests) are divorced and remarried. Could that be problematic?

Yes. Also the primate John Hepworth was a Roman Catholic priest and has married (twice) after receiving Holy Orders. It renders his marriages invalid.

I misread, the Ordinary can be a priest or an unmarried Bishop. I'm not quite sure how that would work though.

Vatican NOTE ON ANGLICANS WISHING TO ENTER THE CATHOLIC CHURCH [212.77.1.245]

Glory to Jesus Christ!!

What would happen to female clergy any married bishops? Thanks, Paul

This provision is specifically for the Traditional Anglican Communion which does not have female clergy, and if female clergy would join the Roman Catholic Church they would cease to be clergy. As for married Bishops if they choose and would be accepted they could become Priests through ordination. Bishops can only come from celibate clergy.

Ah! The Church has actually been here before--albeit a long, long time ago. Back in the fourth century, the Church and the Montanists reconciled, the Montanists being received back into the Church after a profession of faith. The Montanists ordained women to the priesthood (they also had an order of prophetesses, and it is a wonder that the Montanists are not more popular among the liberals, but then, they were sexual ascetics, and that is never popular with liberals).

Under the agreement, male Montanist priests were either received back into the priesthood or laicized, but all the female priests were laicized, though some were received back into the Church as deaconesses. Montanist bishops were received as presbyters.

Anglican married bishops would be received as presbyters, unless they chose to revert to the lay state. Note that all Anglican clergy will be reordained (most after a period of retraining in a seminary), whereas all Orthodox clergy who are received into the Catholic Church are not re-ordained but merely vested.

It would probably work like the current situation in Scranton where the bishop has resigned and Cardinal Rigali is the locum tenens. A Monsignor is currently the temporary, day-to-day administrator. So a priest could be such if he were married, having a bishop actually overseeing his work.

I wonder what the long-term situation will be. Currently the provision for the Anglicans is such that the married clergy are received and ordained, but any sons who want to follow their father into the priesthood must be celibate and any other vocations ditto.

BOB

Unless, of course, any are so devious as to use a work-around analogous to the Greek Catholic practice of sending married deacons to Europe for ordination, then shipping them back home. The Anglican equivalent would be to stay in the Anglican Church until ordained, then covert to the Catholic Church and apply for ordination at that time. But I don't know that the bishops would be that clueless.

Stuart:

Are you saying that the sons should covert to Anglicanism after being raised in the Catholic Church and then come back? I'm sure that would be a real red flag.

BOB