Many thanks to Andrew Rabel for forwarding this link on to me from Robert Moynihan at Inside the Vatican. Andrew has his own report included in this. So many questions yet to be answered!
http://insidethevatican.com/newsflash/2009/newsflash-oct-20-09.htm
I propose that
1) We replace the absentee monarch of Australia (who is also the Monarch of Great Britain) with an elected Australian monarchy.
2) The elected monarch exactly replaces the current monarch in the current constition.
3) The elected monarch has exactly the same powers, duties and responsibilities as those of the current absentee monarch. All the monarch's functions are carried out by his/her personal representatives (as is currently the case): federally by the Governor General, and in the states by the State Governors.
4) The Governor General and the Governors continue to be selected and appointed as they currently are, that is, by the premier with the approval of the monarch.
5) The monarch is elected to sovereignty over Australia for life, but his/her sovereignty is strictly non-hereditary.
6) The elective body is the "college of electors" comprised of the state governors and federal governor general.
7) The election of the monarch must be a unanimous decision on the part of the college of electors.
I like this line…”and bishops – and they will be free of liturgical interference by liberal Catholic bishops who are unsympathetic to their conservative stance.”
Lucky them!
Well, it raises an interesting question, doesn’t it? Who qualifies as a lay member of such an ordinariate? Could I (just for eg.) transfer to the Anglican Catholic Ordinariate of Australia? Could then apply to be ordained as a priest? (It is not clear yet whether ordination will be allowed for married men in the Ordinariates who were not previously ordained as Anglican ministers.) For instance, it has been known for married Catholic laymen to transfer to an Eastern Rite Catholic Church and then be ordained within that rite. We will have to wait to see what the actual Apost. Const. comes up with for this sort of detail.
Well, the stated purpose of the Anglican ordinariates is to “allow former Anglicans to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony”, which suggests that they are aimed at converts from Anglicanism, or at least people who already share in “Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony”.
On the other hand, that would imply only a transitional existence for the ordinariates, since the children of “Anglican Catholics” would not be “former Anglicans”. But the suggestion that they could have their own houses of formation points to something more enduring.
But, in keeping with what I said below, I don’t think a change to the Chaldean rite, for example, is really the relevant comparator. The Anglican ordinariates are best compared not with autochthonous rites but with other personal jurisdictions within the Latin rite, like the military ordinariates (membership determined by occupation and circumstances in life) and personal prelatures (membership determined by being drawn to the spirituality of Opus Dei).
The latter example in particular suggests that membership of the Anglican ordinariate could to some extent be a matter of personal choice, but actually I don’t think this will be strongly encouraged. Most members will be converts from Anglicanism or, in the longer term, Catholics who have grown up within an Anglican ordinariate (i.e. the descendants of converts). A Catholic who merely likes the Book of Common Prayer (or a romanised version of it) doesn’t, I think, share in the “distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony”. “Church shopping” is not really encouraged in the Catholic tradition. Even less, I think, would they welcome a “regular” Catholic whose primary motive for attaching himself to an Anglican ordinariate was to become a married priest. But a “regular” Catholic who makes an Anglican ordinariate community his or her primary Eucharistic community, sustains that over a long period, and immerses him or herself in the spiritual life of that community might, in time, be seen as a suitable candidate for membership.
I don’t think people will join in order to find a route into married priesthood, because I don’t think joining will in fact offer such a route. The note we have so far does mentions only the ordination of “married former Anglican clergy”; there is no suggestion that any other married man will be able to be ordained, and the specificity of the language in the note (not to mention the established views of Rome on this question) suggest strongly to me that this won’t be possible.
This from the “Inside the Vatican” link which David provided.
“There is even the possibility that married Anglican laymen could be accepted for ordination on a case-by-case basis – a remarkable concession.”
Good points, P.
Earlier this year, having heard various rumours, I made contact with the local TAC parish, and attended one of their liturgies (read all about it if you’re bored).
If they come into union, I will certainly join them for worship, as I promised them when I visited and prayed with them “ut unum sint”: while I prefer the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (whose genius and spirituality move me greatly), that is only available to me once a month, and their worship is the next best thing.
I can’t resist quoting this from Philip Neri Powell:
‘Also, this is great news for those Catholics who are regularly stuck with the choice of going to Mass at either Our Lady of the Dancing Liturgical Clowns, or the local Newman Center where Fr. Hollywood passes the Spirit of Vatican Two peace bong right before the readings from Oprah’s latest televised drivel. If there’s an “Anglican Use” parish nearby, they will find reverent liturgy, orthodox preaching, and a lot of really excellent fellowship. . .all without being beaten over the head with leftie “social justice” nonsense. ‘
Perhaps the TAC can teach us chant and polyphony.
Pity about the last sentence, which spoils it – like many Americans, he seems to have convinced himself that God is a far-right Republican. We shouldn’t forget that, on many issues other than bio-sexual ethics, the popes (including JPII and BXVI) are well to the ‘left’ of most US Democrats.
Yes, apart from the question of whether present Latin Rite Catholics will be allowed to officially join an Anglican Ordinariate, there will be nothing at all stopping us from attending the liturgies of a local Anglican Catholic parish, or from participating in their parish life. It does sound inviting.
Re the social justice issue, I agree with you, PM. Silly to make issues about that. Anglo-Catholics, after all, have traditionally been in the fore-front of care for the poor.
And the question about chant and polyphany is interesting. At the moment there is little interest among Catholic chant enthusiasts on applying Gregorian chant to English texts. The Anglicans, on the other hand, have been doing this for years. I do find myself wondering what English translations the Ordinariates will use for the Liturgy. After all, the new translations are very close if not identical to Cranmar’s translations.