The rock band pictured above released a hit which is running through many a mind at present…’should I stay or should I go?’ For there can be no authentic Catholic Anglican who is not intrigued by the recent developments in the life of our Church and weighing up the prospect of remaining together but under new management.
Let me state for the record EXACTLY what my position is because many journalists, members of the public and even some of my family seem to be jumping the gun and planning for my reception into the Roman Catholic church!!! This is hardly suprising because S. Barnabas is exactly the sort of parish the Pope’s invitation is aimed at! However, as of this moment, I have MADE NO DECISION and how could I when the details of the offer and the response of the Church of England are not yet clear?
Secondly I will not be making a decision alone- WE the parish of S. Barnabas will. At some point it will be for the entire congregation to consider our options together and ask God where he is calling us. He MAY want us to take a leap of faith and help create a new and historic branch of the Roman Catholic church. He MAY want us to stay within the Church of England despite the many challenges before us. As of today nobody can know and the process will require a lot of careful consideration with all the facts in hand.
We also need to understand that we are not being asked to become ROman Catholics in the way others who left for Rome became Roman Catholics. We are not being invited to join the Latin Rite (ie go and join S. Augustine’s) rather to transfer allegiance to the Vatican and create something new. IF (and it is an IF) we were to be part of an exodus it would have a very Anglican feel as we would move with other Church of England parishes and be led by those from within and not without.
Finally please note that the media are as confused as everyone else! When I returned from a funeral yesterday they were camped at the church and I felt it better to put things in my own words rather than be misrepresented again. The reporter was charming, fair and did everything she could to present the fact that no decision was made. Indeed I thought we Catholics were presented in a very positive light. Alas though the main news presenters were not as well briefed and introduced the item badly by claiming ‘An Anglican vicar is off to Rome!’ No I AM NOT! I am preparing with my congregation to consider the options that have been placed before us and that is a very different thing…..please pray for our parish as we do seek to discern God’s will in all of this.
It appears that the ‘Anglican Patrimony’ may not include a continuing married priesthood. In aninterview, Msgr William Stetson, an Opus Dei canonist who is secretary to the Ecclesiastical Delegate of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for the Pastoral Provision for former Episcopal priests in the US says the following:
“On the question of whether ordinariate “houses of formation” for seminarians would allow for future married priests, Mgr Stetson is sceptical. “The specifics have not yet been made known on this question. At the very least I would assume that the seminarians would have to be both married and studying in an Anglican seminary at the time they sought to enter into full communion, and then continue studying for the priesthood in a Catholic seminary. They would have to be dispensed from the norm of celibacy on a case-by-case basis by the Holy See. Future seminarians would have to be celibate.”"
http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&id=37104603-3048-741E-2912095360641277
Fr. Ed, Please know that you and your fantastic people will remain very much in prayers and thoughts as you discern ‘together’ what to do.
I have to say that what you said at GS with your metaphor of dating either Vaticana or Synodica was so funny that it had me crying with laughter. Very clever! But, the substance of the position is absolutely right and I commend your faithfulness and pastoral care and trust and united decision from you and your people forthcoming.
I do have a question: If parishes already use the Roman Rite what distinctively will be different liturgically other than vestments and music? How do you see the new Ordinariate churches integrating into the Catholic communio as a whole? Of course this is a speculative question not knowing what the details are.
Which goes entirely against Archbishop Hepworth’s Interview last week.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26247534-7583,00.html
Seems like it is a case of ‘wait and see’!
The clergy marriage issue may be one of the trickiest issues. It has seemed clear from the start that Rome would not ordain married men as bishops. I’m not sure that it makes a great deal of sense to recruit a bright young thirtysomething married priest (no names, no pack drill!) on the basis that his pastoral gifts, however great, can never allow him to exercise the ministry of a bishop. (Yeah, I know about the Orthodox, but a centuries-old tradition is rather different froma newly invented ordinariate. In any even, the Orthodox rule isn’t absolute – Fr Lucian Gafton, Romanian priest in London, was the son of a bishop.)
Dispensations for married men to be ordained are also a far less difficult issue than the prospect of a person already ordained wishing to get married. The Code of Canon Law is quite clear that having received the sacrament of holy order constitutes a diriment impediment to the sacrament of matrimony. Will this canon not apply in the ordinariate? I think it unlikely.
Rather less importantly, will all those papalist priests using the Roman rite wish to demonstrate their loyalty to the Holy Father by using an “Anglican use”?
Surely the answer to your dilemma is clear if you ask yourself the following questions:
1. Are you a misogynyst, homophobe who uses an ancient text to validate your dark-age views?
2. Would you be better off working for a regressive church, such as the Catholic one, or would you prefer to stay with one that has at least made some progress into recognising that this is the 21st century?
If you answer yes to 1, then surely the answer to 2 is also yes, and your way forward is clear.
Bizarrely I agree! Though I would redfine it as
1) Are you someone who embraces a sacred philosophy of equal but different and who defends family life, who is faithful to the living Word and seeks to validate orthodox Christian belief?
2) Would we be better working for a faithful church that preaches about Jesus the same yesterday, today and forever and looks back to the revelation of God in the person of Christ or prefer to stay with a church mirroring 21st Century society and increasingly watering down the faith to promote a secularised and compromised Gospel message?
; ) it is all in manner we see through the lens eh?! What is folly to man is wisdom to God as they say!
Ah, but my version is more pithy, to the point and not afraid to call a spade a spade rather than a Manual Soil Removal Tool.
I see that my later comment about the Vatican’s problems with child abusing priests has not appeared. I guess some truths are just too painful to deal with.
Anyhow, I’m fed up with waiting for somebody else to say it, so here goes:
It’s the Clash.
To the Wobbler, I would not mind your comment re child abusing priests as long as you note that the instance of priests abusing is miniscule compared with the statistics of abuse in families, and I imagine this includes the families of married clergy. It is certainly true of married protestant ministers in the U.S. I know the press seems only to be interested in publishing a record of this criminal offence among Catholic celibate clergy. It is selective and dishonest in the extreme. So submit your comment certainly – but please offer a full picture of the abuse of children and then I can be sure that your purpose is honourable and you are not just choosing to be anti-catholic.