I've learned a lot from the recent discussions related to the Vatican's recent announcement about "Personal Ordinariates."



However, from my perspective - that of a sympathetic (but ignorant) Roman Catholic, I find it hard to imagine that any Anglican would even begin to consider "taking the offer" until a few questions are sufficiently answered. Perhaps they will be. After all, the Apostolic Constitution is still forthcoming. But, for now, as Cardinal Levada himself said at the press conference, "If we have been vague, so be it."



The questions that immediately come to mind are:



1.    Was this action deeply opposed - as has been reported - by Archbishop Williams, many English Catholic bishops, and even Cardinal Kasper? Furthermore, is there any compelling reason why Archbishop Williams was only informed about the decision shortly before it was announced? This is not a question about politics or manners. This is a question about the likely effects of the "Personal Ordinariates" on the future of Catholic-Anglican ecumenical relations.



2.    Austen Ivereigh, on America's blog, has written:



"[Both] Catholic and Anglican churches prefer that disaffected Anglican groups belong to the Catholic Church than float freely. Dr. Williams, remember, has a fundamentally Catholic ecclesiology."



The Note from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith begins by mentioning "many requests," and most  news sources have reported that the provision of a "single canonical model" has come in response to a request from the Traditional Anglican Communion. Is it the main intention of this "canonical model" to prevent a group from "floating freely" (rather than to, we might say, ease the exit of disaffected Anglicans)? If this is the case, why wasn't it made explicit? If it were made explicit, it would have discouraged charges of a new Uniatism (a policy that has been explicitly abandoned with regard to the Orthodox - see the Balamand Statement.)



3.    Given that many of the priests who will make use of the new canonical vehicle will have long considered themselves Catholic, if not Roman Catholic, and that many of them will have to be re-ordained, how will they consider their previous ministries? Given that many of the bishops who will make use of the new canonical vehicle will, on account of marriage or other issues, never be able to function as Roman Catholic bishops, how will they consider their previous roles? Obviously, the Roman Catholic judgment that Anglican orders are "invalid" does not mean that Christ cannot be really present in Anglican sacraments.



But will, for example, the formerly Anglican, now Roman Catholic, priests be able to publicly state that they believe that, as Anglicans, they consecrated Eucharists in which Christ was present, and adored Anglican Eucharists that were not "empty"? Will they also be able to say publicly that they believe that Christ is really present in Anglo-Catholic sacraments?



If not, how will their previous ministries and beliefs be in any way theologically intelligible to them? (I'm not sure that I've ever read a detailed account of a former Anglo-Catholic and presently Roman Catholic priest [or bishop] making theological sense of his former ministry, besides vague appeals to "fulfillment" or "completion.")



4.    The Lutheran theologian Michael Root has suggested that Roman Catholic ecumenical theology and practice is inconsistent. It maintains that the one church of Christ is "present and at work" in other Christian bodies, that these "ecclesial communities" are instruments of salvation, and that they have preserved the "basic truths of the gospel." But Catholic theology also holds that they lack "valid" ordained ministries. (No official Catholic document of which I am aware translates defectus ordinis as "deficiency" rather than "lack.") Therefore, Catholic theology seems to unwittingly suggest that bishops are inessential to the presence of the church, the means of grace, and the teaching office. (Furthermore, Roman Catholic practice is inconsistent [e.g., when the Archbishop of Canterbury comes to Rome, he is not treated as a layperson and is even invited to celebrate the Eucharist at the High Altar at the Basilica of Santa Sabina].)



Doesn't this canonical vehicle exacerbate the inconsistency? The "Personal Ordinariates" will exist to, as the CDF has said, "preserve those Anglican traditions precious to them and consistent with the Catholic faith." But will it have to be admitted that this "patrimony" is "distinctive" and a "gift" that has somehow existed without valid ordained ministries? How is this possible?



5.    A rather similar question is whether similar sorts of canonical vehicles can be constructed for Lutherans, Mennonites, Methodists and others. If not, what is so theologically distinctive about Anglicans, given that, unlike the Orthodox, there seems to be little question (alas) of judging Anglican orders to be "valid"? Is it a more fruitful ecumenical dialogue (e.g., the Mississauga Statement)? Is it just opportunism?



6.    I would also want to know about the discussions with the SSPX. In order to make the SSPX a personal prelature or "ordinariate" in the name of continuity, will the Pope allow them to believe that ecumenism is undesirable (or that the only possible ecumenism is an "ecumenism of return")? If so, I would worry that the flourishing of the Anglican "Personal Ordinariate," which would require consistency on thorny issues, such as synodality and a married priesthood, might also be in doubt - that is, not considered essential. (The Eastern Catholic Churches have had difficulties on just these matters.)