www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Anglican Use Ordinariates

Shlomo Lkhoolkoon,

Love to see what you all think.

Fush BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

Anglican Use Ordinariates single choice
	Anglican Use Ordinariates will become a sui iuris Churc
	No it will not
Votes accepted starting: 02/04/11 11:23 PM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

I think it will, just to accommodate the Anglicans. Besides, the Anglican Mass is beutiful and make a lovely addition to Churhc tradiions.

It looks right now that there will be a large enough number of Anglicans coming over by means of the Ordinariates that they will be able to stand up for themselves.

They will also be aware of what happened back in the '80s, and determined not to repeat it!


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Another good question is, Will any sui iuris western churches come into existence (other than the one that already exists, i.e. the Latin Church)?

Eventually, I would like to see the erection of multiple, territorially-based patriarchates around the world, which would necessitate the breakup of the Church of Rome into smaller entities. Thus, there would be a Patriarchate of North America, a Patriarchate of South America, and a Patriarchate of East Asia-Oceania.

In a united Church, Rome would retain patriarchal authority over Western Europe, Constantinople over the Balkans and Anatolia, Moscow or Kyiv (I'm not gonna choose) over Eastern Europe and Siberia), Antioch (which one?) over the Middle East (except Jerusalem, which would be resurrected as a true patriarchate), Alexandria over Africa, the Church of the East (wherever it decides to put its headquarters) over Mesopotamia and India, and the Armenians over Armenia.

All patriarchates would be multi-ritual, with canonical guarantees of ritual autonomy in each.

The advantage of this system is its multipolarity and rough parity: no one patriarchate can dominate all the others, as is presently the case, thus (a) no one can dictate to the others; and (b) the concerns of all must be considered whenever a decision affecting the whole is made. It also supports the principle of subsidiarity, by moving the nexus of authority downward.

Within this new structure, the Bishop of Rome, Patriarch of Western Europe, would continue to have primacy based on the status of Rome as the Church That Presides in Love. As is the case with the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs today, he would be required to maintain separate diocesan and patriarchal chanceries, in addition to which he would have a small pontifical chancery which would replace the Curia Romana and its insidious dicasteries. By keeping the pontifical chancery small, and precluding the Pope from habitually delegating those functions which he claims as successor of Peter, he will have to limit his interventions in the affairs of other Churches to those issues that affect the faith and unity of the whole.

It's a radical solution, but one in accord with the principles of the first millennium Church that deals with the realities of the modern world and its geopolitical system.

I am all for Anglican Use Ordinariates. It would be a great chance for many U.S. Latins to experience good liturgy and great sacred music. ;-)

Not to mention tasteful vestments and decor. I also understand the wine and cheese after Mass are exquisite. Be sure to use the right fork, though.

Former Anglican Bishops [ewtn.com]

According to the above EWTN news link "personal ordinariates" will be established for the Anglican parishes which join the Roman Church.

It could be the beginning of a new sui juiris church, but it's more probable that its a transitory thing. The same should have happened in the USA, but I doubt that the American RC bishops would tolerate, just as they didn't accept us.
It's too bad, the "unity in diversity" thing could be a real strength for Catholic Christianity with good leadership; instead any diversity of expression ends up being cloned into the Latin Rite.

I once heard Anglicans referred to as "Proper Catholics". Pity the rest of us.

I have heard them called "the good taste people." This by a priest who was a former Anglican.

My maternal grandfather was of that background (but converted to RC so he could marry my maternal grandmother, who was 100% Iish Catholic-an unthinkable marriage in the 1920's). I remember his mother, my great-grandmother, while she was still alive, chastising us kids for poor behavior at the dinner table (where practically the whole extended family was sitting) by saying : "you had best learn proper manners at the dinner table, because some day you will have to eat with decent people!"

Dn. Robert

Why not?? After all, you have the Mozarabic Church in Spain (although, unfortunately it is dying out) and before the Council of Trent (which did a lot of good, but some serious bad, too) there were at least eight different types of Masses in use in the West. The Council of Trent did not ban any of them, but only specified that Masses in use more than 200 years old could still be in use. Over time, almost the whole Western Church went to the Roman Rite. A lot of beautiful worship was lost. In the 18th, 19th and 20th Centuries, the mentality of the Latin Rite was to make ALL Churches the same form of worship. This led to idiots like Bishop Ireland, who wrongfully suppressed the Ukrainian Catholics in his far-reaching diocese and his ignorance and stupidity ultimately led many Byzantine Catholics becoming Orthodox. The Latin Rite must learn that unity does not mean uniformity in worship. Besides, I left the Latin Rite 28 years ago and went to a traditional Melkite parish because I could not stand the guitar Masses and the "Entertainment This Morning with Father __________ and Sister __________"

The suggestion has been floated, more than once, that the so-called Patriarchate of the West, AKA the Latin Church, be broken up into several territorially defined Patriarchal Churches, including a Patriarchate of North America, a Patriarchate of South America, a Patriarchate of Western Europe, and a Patriarchate of Asia/Oceania. Concurrently, the territory of several existing Patriarchates would be expanded in light of historical claims; e.g., the Patriarchate of Alexandria would be responsible for Africa; the Patriarchate of Antioch would be responsible for the Middle East; the Patriarchate of Constantinople would be responsible for Anatolia and the Balkans; the Patriarch of Moscow (or Kyiv) for Eastern Europe; and the Catholicos of Edessa (or his successor, however he wants to refer to himself) would cover central Asia, Mesopotamia and India. The idea here is no one Church would be so dominant as to overawe the others; each would be small enough to respond to the pastoral needs of the people in their jurisdiction, and all would be required to cooperate to get anything done.

I have heard that ,and once heard Monk Fr. Aidan Keller (ROCOR) say almost the same thing. I think it should be noted it could cause as many hard feelings as it soothes. Imagine a Patriarch in England over Irish Bishops.

Hi,

Strongly Territoral Churches do not seem a good fit for our Global Village.

For instance, if Alexandria is going to take care of all Africa, then I would put a Western hierarch there, since most of Catholics in Africa would come from what once was the Latin Church (unless, of course, there is an Eastern hierarch willing and capable; I am not worried about the later, but the former...).

Would that be fair to the Copts and the Melkites?

On the other hand, here in LA Eastern Churches do not seem to have a big problem by having their hierarchs out of town. Communication and Transportation are so efficient, that it really makes little difference and, in case of emergency, they can always go to the local hierarchs, who in this case are Latin.

Similar arrangements could be made in areas where the "local hierarch" is not a Latin (it remains to be seen if the Latin pastors would be willing to ask a non-Latin hierarch for help).

Shalom,
Memo