Such beautiful words!


ALCC

Thank God but I still wish that those Lutherans might have their own ordinariate and liturgical usage.
Stephanos I
"I once was blind but now I see"

More married parochial clergy for the Latins...

It does seem that this ordinate is casting a pretty wide net. This group must represent one of the odder fish they are going to catch. Some of our regulars might review the ALCC website and go through the list of signs that one is on a vagante site. I think this one would score pretty high. Three bishops for each monsignor and a couple of monsignors for every priest. Plus orders through numerous lines of apostolic succession and intercommunion with a pack of odd denominations.

I think the Vatican may have mixed up its mailing list and sent out that letter they describe to the people who were requesting the latest John Paul XXIII stamp from the Vatican Post Office.

Jim,

Where on the ALCC site did you find lines of succession or a list of bodies with which the ALCC is in communion? Because, although I'm familiar with the majority of the lines of succession involved, I don't see them cited there, nor any indication of intercommunion.

To answer the points you raise:

1. Ratio of prelates to presbyters: It's a function of the fact that the ALCC began as a relatively loose confederation, rather than as a distinct ecclesia. Its focus was on the prospects for entering communion with Rome, either via the Anglican Use or otherwise.

As the discussions solidified into a more formalized, group effort to achieve this end, the ALCC took on an ecclesial existence to facilitate the prospects for corporate reception. The participant hierarchs, prelates, and presbyters were absorbed into the body, together with their dignities. Thus, the seeming top-heaviness, which will assuredly be leveled in the course of being received to communion.

2. Diverse lines of succession: These are a function of the same history. Coming, as they did from separate Churches, that there are a variety of episcopal lineages isn't all that surprising.

I'm familiar with the lineages behind most of the ALCC hierarchs and they're generally respectable inasmuch as they include consecrators who have historically been considered to have valid orders. As I've noted on other occasions recently, it's difficult to assess how Rome will react in respect to episcopal lines, since - of late - it has not been as inclined toward unwavering acceptance of the Augustinian theory of succession.

Of particular note, there are some episcopal lines involved that trace to the Milingo fiasco; those will almost certainly not be deemed acceptable. Of interest, will be whether the presence of other, traditionally more acceptable lines in the same episcopal heritages will be deemed to compensate for that.

Of course, it's unlikely that there will be a need for this number of hierarchs and, presuming the acceptability of presbyteral lines, the need to assess the validity of episcopal lineage may never be reached in many cases or may be moot.

3. Intercommunion: I don't see a listing. If you're reading one into the scenario from the prior ecclesial affiliations of the prelates (much of which can be found in scattered places on the web, I'm sure), I'd put it aside. The ecclesia from whence they came have either been absorbed with them into the ALCC (which are some of the geographic sites listed on the ALCC pages) or been left behind.

Many years,

Neil

Addendum: It occurs to me that you might be inferring intercommunion from the names associated with entities listed as dioceses, parishes, etc. Keep in mind that the majority of these, as previously separate entities, had corporate names and status. I doubt that anyone had the time or financial wherewithal to dissolve, reincorporate, etc, in view of a future that they hoped was going to come to pass, but for which they had no guarantee.

Neil

On their website they have a link to Churches in Communion. These four are listed. I have kept up pretty well with the Episcopal Church disintegration and not only have I never heard of the ALCC I have never heard of any of these.

Traditional Anglo-Catholic Communion

The Traditional Church of England

The Evangelical Marian Catholic Church

Anglican Church of the Americas

On the issue of lines of succession, you are being exceedingly generous. There is no long list of those like some of the sites but they do list them for each of their bishops and there are all too familiar vagante bishops among them. I don't see them as much different than those of bishops of other groups that are roundly chided. Finally, on the issue of bishops vs priest vs parishioners, I think you apology is a little weak. They are a top down not a bottom up group. There is no logic to the locations of their churches or their clergy.

Certainly anyone is welcome to convert to the Roman Catholic Church and I am sure when the Ordinate is created in the U.S. anyone can convert via that route. I was surprised that a group like this was included since I thought the primary purpose was to bring in Anglo-catholic churches that already existed as strong worshiping bodies.

I will be very surprised if the RC bishop for Pleasant Hills, Iowa doesn't have some strong opinions on the appearance of another Catholic parish in his diocese.

My original opinion still holds. This is a strange group certainly on the edge of what the Ordinate was intended for.

Jim

It is certainly a bit of a stretch for this "strange" US group to be forthright admissible into the U.S. Ordinariate.

Preparatory steps indicate that the lead group for the U.S. Ordinariate is composed of the Anglican Use Parishes and Missions, to be joined by Continuing Anglicans (TACs) and by Episcoplians wishing to be incoporated.

As it stands today, only the Ordinariate for England and Wales has been formally established, to be followed by Australia, Canada, and then the U.S.

True. But unfortunately they (almost certainly) won't be able to ordain any more married men for a long time to come.

No, the Anglican Ordinariate will be allowed to ordain married men. Check out what the Complementary Norms for the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus has to say about the clergy:

"§1. In order to admit candidates to Holy Orders the Ordinary must obtain the consent of the Governing Council. In consideration of Anglican ecclesial tradition and practice, the Ordinary may present to the Holy Father a request for the admission of married men to the presbyterate in the Ordinariate, after a process of discernment based on objective criteria and the needs of the Ordinariate. These objective criteria are determined by the Ordinary in consultation with the local Episcopal Conference and must be approved by the Holy See." Article 6

Thanks for that info, Belen. I'm glad to see that Anglicanorum coetibus at least talks about the possibility of ordaining married men.

I was just looking at the list of news articles and I noticed this link: CDF official: ecumenism’s goal is union with Pope; Lutheran ordinariate in works?

Christ is in our midst!! He is and always will be!!

Sadly, if this priest is repeating anything official, then full communion with the Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox has just moved into the "not going to happen ever" category.

Seems to me that people like him should be reading the thoughts Fr. Robert Taft, S.J., has expressed. Fr. Taft has spent a lifetime of studying the Orthodox Church and is an expert in the Byzantine Liturgy and spiritual tradition. He is, it seems to me, someone who ought to be listened to.

"Bringing (people) into unity" is a phrase that one ought to see as "fighting words" for our Orthodox brethren. I wonder what this priest would say to some thoughts expressed in times past on this forum concerning the Bishop of Rome apologizing on his knees to his Orthodox brethren for being in schism for so long.

Bob

What does he say that would be controversial to any Orthodox (outside of those who say the Pope should beg on his hands and knees and maybe, just maybe, he can retain his priesthood, to say Roman Rite Divine Liturgy in the Church Slavonic privately at an Athonite monastery where he is to be kept under strict penance for 30 years and re-evaluated for rehabilitation by the Father-monks-of-the-holy-whapping)?

Having a goal of "union with the Pope" doesn't seem at odds with the goal of dialogue with either Eastern or Oriental Orthodox, does it?

I agree with Theophan that statements like this make true Ecumenism between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches impossible. Perhaps Father has forgotten the words of St. Paul.

Any way one wants to read it, read literally or figuratively, union with Peter within the one Church is a worthy goal, I'd say. What is the controversy again?

Christ is in our midst!!

It think the word "union" is the word that will be the stumbling block. Fr. Taft's rather long and insightful analysis put forward the idea that "communion is about all we can hope for." He went on to say that with the long history we have had divided and with the psychology of past attempts at "union," the goal of "communion" is a better choice of word and of a future structure. Communion does not carry the baggage that union does: Florence and Lyons, for example. Communion means that all sides will have to learn to live with things that they are not now comfortable with. For example, the Oriental Congregation, the bane of Eastern Catholics, may have to be abolished because no Orthodox would stand for the kind of treatment that Eastern Catholics live with under that dicastry.

The election of patriarchs in the Oriental Churches is another issue. Just look at the Maronite situation at this time. The Orthodox I know wonder why a patriarch must submit his retirement request to Rome and why Rome can both accept it or hold onto it, not to mention why the sui juris Church's Synod cannot handle this type of issue independently without reference to Rome at all. That doesn't even begin to discuss the issue of episcopal appointments in general, either.

The UOJ issue is another one that is usually linked in thought to the idea of union over against communion. It's a non-starter for the Orthodox.

I don't have a link to the thread in the forum that links Father Taft's assessment, but it might shed some light on the issue.

In Christ,

Bob

One key line in Unitatis Redintegratio says



But there seems to be a real danger of confusing the two when Catholics speak of the ordinariate -- as evidenced by the heading "ecumenism’s goal is union with Pope" (which is a paraphrase of Father Geissler).

I've been thinking about that since I posted that link a couple hours ago, and now I see that Bob and Nelson both had a similar reaction to it.

What is wrong with married Priests? St. Peter was a married pope.

We had an interesting visitor to our parish last Sunday. She became a religious as an Anglican, was given permission to profess herself as a hermit nun by her bishop, was then received into the Catholic Church but remains under her Anglican bishop in FL because he's awaiting reception with his flock into the Catholic Church, perhaps with this same group.

I'm not sure it would need to be abolished. Transformed, at least.

Agreed, Peter. In what manner?

Bob, what "kind of treatment that Eastern Catholics live with under that dicastry [sic]"?

Patriarchs and Major Archbishops of the Eastern Catholic Churches are, by their own right, members of the Oriental Congregation!

Do you mean to say that the Chief Hierarchs of the Eastern Churches are complicit in the "bad" treatment of Eastern Catholics?

Amado

If by complicit you mean remaining in full communion with Rome despite the aforementioned treatment, then yes they are complicit.

So, does that mean the Church is working on a Lutheran ordinariate???

It looks like it but I am not sure.
Stephanos I
(a former lutheran)

That's a good question. (I guess CatholicCulture.org also considers it a good question, since they included it in the headline.) I took a look at the link provided, but it doesn't say very much more about that possibility:



http://www.portalmag.co.uk/portal/portal.pdf

I guess we'll have to wait then.. it would be cool, though

I'm not Orthodox, but I'll tell you what I think.

I have no object to the statement: "Thus in the Ordinariates the Catholic Church is showing that its imaginative embrace of diversity, even complexity, is the measure of how universal it is." In fact, I applaud that statement -- there's nothing wrong with saying that we can help ecumenism along by getting our own act together.

But some of the other statements are a bit worrisome. Read this paragraph:


together with this one:

Bishop Hilarion essentially says the exact same thing is the goal of ecumenism for Orthodox Churches:

What's the problem, Peter, with those statements in your view?

Alexis

Surely there is something disproportionate in speaking of union with Christ and Peter!

While I agree that Father Geissler's statements bear a lot of similarity with the quotations from Bishop Hilarion, the sticking point continues to be Father Geissler's blurring the distinction between ecumenical action and the preparation and reconciliation of individuals who wish for full Catholic communion (cf Unitatis Redintegratio 4).

In other words, ecumenical action doesn't mean people switching from one side to the other.

Definitely. However, I think it's safe to assume that Father Geissler wasn't trying to imply anything to the contrary.