The full text of the awaited Apostolic Constitution establishing norms for the reception of communities of Anglicans into union with the Holy See has been released.
View the original post

This, to me, is the most interesting:

III. Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.

Does this mean that those in the Anglican Ordinariate can and should quote from Divine Herbert, Richard Hooker, Bishop Butler, Michael Ramsey, etc.?  Can we celebrate the feast day of King Charles the Martyr, and commemorate both the Royal Touch and the importance of his relics?  Just curious.  I suppose that I am pushing for a maximalist reading of “the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion,” but I am also curious as to whether or not such a read might be intended.

In all honesty, I can see this creating a huge headache for the Vatican in the long term.  Of course, I could be wrong.  Not that it will be of pertinence to me, of course - at least, I don’t intend for it to be - but this is still worth reflecting on.

Ben, I would like to think that your “generous” interpretation is correct. The specific context, however, is liturgical, so such a read could also be plausibly denied. It is difficult for non-Roman Catholics to read official documents such as this. There is a veritable hermeneutical tradition of exegesis that comes into play—how to “read between the lines” intelligently—and if one is not intimately familiar with that tradition, it can be a precarious path.

Fr. Dan Martins - 09 November 2009 12:14 PM

Ben, I would like to think that your “generous” interpretation is correct. The specific context, however, is liturgical, so such a read could also be plausibly denied. It is difficult for non-Roman Catholics to read official documents such as this. There is a veritable hermeneutical tradition of exegesis that comes into play—how to “read between the lines” intelligently—and if one is not intimately familiar with that tradition, it can be a precarious path.

Much akin to reading mortgage loan documents and doing credit default swaps.

The text suggests that the Vatican will set forth what it means by Anglican tradition/liturgy and only what is permitted will be used.

The interpretation I’m getting from my A-C/plu-Catholic geeks is that it means the most Roman of the Anglican missal material, or perhaps a new mass translation which is supposedly in the offing. I’m a little dubious about this but there it is.

Dangerous of Rome to re-introduce their Anglican converts to Anglican liturgical texts   grin

Will they have to use their contemporary music too?  Having read the document, I hope it works for folks that want that.  I truly do. I wish them well as they cross the Tiber.

Ben, the important phrase is “which have been approved by the Holy See”—the only Anglican liturgical text that has been approved by the Holy See so far is the Book of Divine Worship, which you can download at that link.  You will note that the Kalendar in that book does not include anyone who was not canonized by Rome.  So for now, at least, no Anglicans can be commemorated as saints.  Nor, I would imagine, would their causes find much traction in Rome, since they died unreconciled to the Holy See.  But I suppose you could erect your own secret shrines. 

When reading Roman documents, the most minimalist, conservative reading is the safest construal, until informed otherwise.

I have heard it opined that the AU rite will not be approved for the ordinariate—believe it if you dare.

Michael as I remarked elsewhere, “Anglican” here may perhaps mean that they have to sing all the verses of the hymns.

Charles Wingate - 10 November 2009 01:09 AM

I have heard it opined that the AU rite will not be approved for the ordinariate—believe it if you dare.

Michael as I remarked elsewhere, “Anglican” here may perhaps mean that they have to sing all the verses of the hymns.

J. Robert Wright wrote a fairly positive review of The Book of Divine Worship for The Anglican in 2005. However, as Charles pointed out, it may not be what is approved for the Personal Ordinariates.

As a layman in a parish that is in no danger (or whatever) of abandoning ECUSA for Rome, I feel I must add that this offers people like me exactly nothing. Only a rebel (happy, Michael?) or continuing parish could get anything (and we’ve discussed elsewhere how slight that “anything” may prove to be). There are four ACA churches in the area, but they are all an hour away or more, and I’ve been told that a lot of the ACA isn’t going to avail themselves of the offer. Otherwise, it’s suffer whatever the local RC parish offers.

I have more than a little puzzled by some of the comments from clergy about this issue. Important as ordained leadership is their comments for and against the Catholic move will not sway many laypeople. While the Traditional Anglican Communion can claim it represents four hundred thousand people, I sincerely doubt both the number and the likelihood of most of the laity following Abp Hepworth and his friends. In support of that contention, I point to the tiny number of Anglicans who have moved to Rome in the past two centuries or so or the tiny numbers represented by the dozens of Anglican septs in the USA and elsewhere.  Anglican lay people are more likely to drop out altogether (clearly the predominant decision in today’s world) or to vote with their feet into another denomination (as seems the case in the US).

Perhaps more puzzling is the way in which people have tried to conciliate the Catholics as if their opinion of non-Catholic Christians matters in today’s world. Whether or not Rome views Anglicans and Protestants as heretics or ‘separated brethren’ the reality is that most Anglicans are a long way past ‘separation’ and ‘return’ as far as the Catholic past is concerned.  The historical truth is that there were plenty of ‘protesting’ movements down the years and that it was primarily fear of secular force that kept people in line.  Rome no longer has secular support to enforce its views anymore than the Anglican hierarchy can stop some Anglicans moving Romeward. As far as my Christian faith is concerned it is in no way linked, other than out of general interest, in what Rome is or was. I am a Christian by faith in Christ alone and I am sure that many others feel exactly the same. I do not identify the Church as identical with any denomination and I would question the foundations of any claim that the invisible and visible church can be identified with any particular human institution.

It is entirely proper, as some folk have mentioned, that Anglicans and Protestants generally should welcome the opportunity to work with Catholics to the maximum extent possible. Most Catholics, Anglicans and Protestants are happy to accept the Christian identity of others while recognizing that they do not agree on all aspects of the faith. I don’t always find myself comfortable with some people for various reasons but that does not stop me working closely and comfortably with people with whom I disagree. I certainly don’t feel the need for a ‘cultural cringe’ when seeking friendship and common purpose but I sense something of that in some of the comments.

I am one with those who wish former Anglicans well if they decide to join Rome—I have seen the Tiber at first hand and doubt that swimming is feasible, practicable or good for one’s long-term health. What the departing Anglican folk need to recognize is that they are kidding themselves if they believe they can still claim to be, in any meaningful sense beyond their own imagining, Anglicans.

If the current numerical decline in Anglican (and Catholic) membership among Euro-Americans continues unchanged, it won’t matter all that much what the TEC or Canterbury or Rome are doing in another fifty years. All discussants should take a hard cool look at the REC experience before jumping to any conclusions about the future of Anglicanism in the US.

May I suggest that the idea of a so-called Anglican Ordinariate is OK for those who choose to think it allows them to live in two worlds. Our Lord said that no one can serve two masters and that position is clear in the Vatican statement. May I close by saying that I, along with others in this forum, have had experience with Baptists, Pentacostalists, Presbyterians, Methodists and other sorts and conditions of Christianity. I remain an Anglican because I value the vision of Christ that I find in its traditions and, despite a lot of recent fiddling with which I am less than cheerful, its liturgy and musical heritage, a worthy and legitimate expression of the Christian faith. I would insist, for myself, that being an Anglican is a secondary and human response to my primary service to Jesus Christ. the only Head of the Church.

Ian Welch, Canberra