Skip to comments.Ordinariate for Anglicans converting to Rome 'ready by the end of the year'
Posted on 09/24/2010 2:29:21 PM PDT by NYer
Breaking news from the Catholic Herald’s investigative reporter Anna Arco:
Britain could have an Ordinariate by the end of the year, it emerged today.
Sources say that the Rt Rev Keith Newton, the flying Bishop of Richborough and the Rt Rev Andrew Burnham, the flying Bishop of Ebbsfleet, will take up the special canonical structure, which allows groups of Anglicans to come into full Communion with Rome without losing their Anglican identity, before the end of the calendar year.
Groups of Anglicans are already forming across the country in preparation for joining an Ordinariate, according to the blog of the retired Bishop of Richborough, the Rt Rev Edwin Barnes.
In his October pastoral letter, Bishop Burnham wrote that ordinariate groups would likely be small congregations of thirty or so people.
Traditionally-minded Anglican clergy from the South of England were gathering at a Sacred Synod in Westminster today to discuss the future direction of the Church of England. The meeting was called by the Rt Rev John Frank Ford, the Anglican Bishop of Plymouth. He invited the signatories of a 2008 open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams and the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, which expressed reservations over women bishops.
The meeting was being held only days after Pope Benedict told Catholic bishops in England and Wales and Scotland to see the offer made in the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus as a prophetic gesture.
The apostolic constitution was a topic discussed at the Synod, according to Bishop Burnham.
In a statement Bishop Burnham said that Anglicanorum coetibusoffered Anglo-Catholics the way to full communion with the Catholic Church for which they worked and prayed for at least a century and it is a way in which they will be united and not absorbed.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
Catholic / Anglican ping!
Will the clergy who come in to the Catholic church be already married with families?
I believe you will find the answer to your question here.
Will the clergy who come in to the Catholic church be already married with families?
Some of them will be. This is allowed by the canons governing the ordinariate.
Many people don't realize that there are legitimately married, active priests in the Catholic Church. In the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church, it is quite normal. In the Latin Rite, which is what we're most familiar with in the Western Hemisphere, married priests are allowed as an exception, if they are already married clergy in another Christian denomination when they convert to Catholicism. This would be the case with Anglican priests who convert under the guidelines of the Ordinariate.
that is sooooo confusing to me...
the church makes a big deal out of celibacy and then it is supposed to be “ok” to have a married priest? It sounds very hypocritical...to be so rigid on the one hand, and then just say”Oh well” on the other hand.
I personally believe priests/pastors should NOT be married because their committment is to their ministry.
Many of these "high" Anglicans believed they were actually Catholic (I used to).
There have always been married priests, just not in the Roman rite. And married priests have very specific limits -- he may not remarry if his wife dies, and he may not become a bishop.
It doesn't change the general discipline (not absolute moral teaching) of celibacy. Nor the practical ramifications that St. Paul talked about.
I agree with the celibacy rule, too. However, it is a rule, not a requirement of the priesthood, per se. St. Peter was married, after all, and he was the first Pope. The celibacy rule did not become the norm until several hundred years after Christ founded the Church.
Looking at things from the point of view of a married protestant minister who wants to convert to Catholicism, it certainly doesn’t make sense to make him live celibacy while a married man. Neither does it make sense to refuse him entry into the Catholic Church. He could, of course, convert to Catholicism as a lay man. However, it would be impractical for most protestant clergy, especially those with families, to find gainful employment as a lay man once they convert to Catholicism. Further, many of these men are just the sort of thinkers the Catholic Church would want to be providing pastoral care. After all, it takes an enormous amount of personal integrity, intellectual honesty, and courage for a man to make the move from being a protestant minister to joining the Catholic Church. Since celibacy is a rule, not a theological requirement of the priesthood, there is good reason to remove this barrier to the conversion of these men, and the Church has seen fit to make exceptions in these cases.
With regard to the Eastern Rites... They have never had the tradition of celibacy. Many of the Eastern Rites were formerly Orthodox churches that returned to union with Rome some time after the Great Schism. Again, since celibacy is not a requirement of the priesthood, the Church saw fit to allow them to continue to ordain married men.
Note, however, that neither the Catholic Church, nor the Orthodox Churches allow priests to marry after ordination. That is to say, a married man may become a priest, but a priest may not become a married man.
I still can’t see the rigidity of Catholics with celibacy yet there are ‘exceptions”.
Seriously, celibacy is hardly rigid -- it's a discipline, not a doctrine.
But most priests will tell you that it's a grace and a gift, and bears great fruit. The priesthood is a sacrifice in many ways, and celibacy is but one aspect of that.
What's rigid about that?
Just a clarification... if the priest's wife dies, he may become a bishop, at least in the Russian Orthodox Church. When I was growing up, a neighbor of mine was the legitimate daughter of a Russian Orthodox Archbishop.
By the way, I've heard it said that although St. Peter was at one time married, there is nothing to show that his wife was still alive at the time he became a disciple. The argument is based on the incident when Christ healed St. Peter's mother-in-law, she rose up from her bed and waited on them. If his wife had still been alive, she would have been the one to serve them.
First, lets just chill with the CINO lib Catholic comments...!
In my first post I said i was FOR celibacy of priests and pastors and made my point VERY clear.
However, yes the church’s position is “rigid’ in the sense it insists priests are celibate, and thus enhance the rigidity ( no choice about celbacy, regardless of its virtues) when they called married priests ( regardless of where they came from) “exceptions”. You have “exceptions” to a strict , IE rigid, doctrine.
It IS a doctrine...and a discipline....You can not be a priest AND get married, or be married and decide to be a priest...( uh, excuse me, except for the “exceptions”).
“the church makes a big deal out of celibacy and then it is supposed to be ok to have a married priest?”
I attended a Catholic parish where there was a married priest. No big deal.
Its the hypocrisy..THAT is the big deal.
THE CHURCH says it is NOT ok for priests to marry or go into the preisthood married ( unless of course there are “exceptions”)...they say this nationally, internationally...as part of church doctrine ...then if there is an “exception”, nothing is said, “Oh well, nothing to see here, move along now...”
It is also very much like the hypocrisy of the Ted Kennedy funeral for a pro-choice politician, the “annullment “ for the other Kennedy though his wife fought the church NOT to have it.
“However, yes the churchs position is rigid in the sense it insists priests are celibate, and thus enhance the rigidity ( no choice about celbacy, regardless of its virtues)...”
Everyone has a choice about celibacy. Period. Everyone.
“...when they called married priests ( regardless of where they came from) exceptions. You have exceptions to a strict , IE rigid, doctrine.”
It ain’t doctrine. It wasn’t doctrine. It can’t be doctrine.
“It IS a doctrine...and a discipline....”
Nope. It is JUST a discipline. Period.
“You can not be a priest AND get married,”
But wait! There’s an exception - just to make your head spin. A priest who leaves the active priesthood with permission from the Vatican can marry. He is always considered a priest in the character of his soul, however.
“or be married and decide to be a priest...( uh, excuse me, except for the exceptions).”
Yes, exceptions: the Eastern Churches, the Anglican, Lutheran and some Methodist converts.
There will be more exceptions in the future too I bet.
That wife won her case too. She appealed all the way to Rome and they overturned the annulment.
“Its the hypocrisy..THAT is the big deal.”
There is no hypocrisy here. None. Hypocrisy means to say one thing and do another. That is not what is happening. The Church has always has some married priests. Thus, there can be no hypocrisy on this issue now by having some married priests.
“THE CHURCH says it is NOT ok for priests to marry or go into the preisthood married ( unless of course there are exceptions)”
False. The Church says it is against practice and tradition for already ordained men to take up a second vocation (i.e. to marry). The church says it wants most of its seminarians to take a vow of celibacy before ordination. Not all are required to do so. What effects that is the Church from which the seminarian comes. If he was a Protestant minister (and already married) or an Eastern Christian (and already married) no vow of celibacy is expected.
“...they say this nationally, internationally...as part of church doctrine “
No. Never. Not once. This has never been and can never be, doctrine.
“...then if there is an exception, nothing is said, Oh well, nothing to see here, move along now...”
Since there have always been married priests in the Church it is not a surprise to us that the Church may choose to allow other exceptions. You ignore those basic facts.
“It is also very much like the hypocrisy of the Ted Kennedy funeral for a pro-choice politician, the annullment for the other Kennedy though his wife fought the church NOT to have it.”
You again have your facts wrong. You seem to have no idea of what your speaking. Ted Kennedy was given a funeral. He was not given a funeral “for a pro-choice politician” - whatever that is. Also, Rauch-Kennedy did fight the annulment and the Church sided with her.
If it is JUST a discipline...why the big fuss? You are missing the point I am making about the church being hypocritical saying “There will be no MARRIED PRIESTS IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH” ( except for the ones that come from another “church”.
Sure a man has a choice about “celibacy” but if chooses NOT to be celibate, he CAN”T become a RC Priest ( unless again from another church-—we have already established THAT exception!)
and yes, it is a big deal....or there would not be such a resistance to married men becomming ACTIVE priests...that is what we are talking about...not priests who “leave” and have priesthood in their soul.
You prove my point with all the “exceptions”...no need for endless exceptions if it is JUST a discipline, NOT a doctrine. Of course its a doctrine, or the church would say, “Well, we really would rather you be celibate, but since its not a doctrine and you just got married, well, we will ordain you anyhow!”
It just seems ok with a lot of Catholics...”we’ll have more exceptions in the future too...”, oh well, whatever.
Why be Catholic then if we are more and more like other churches? No wonder so many priests don’t believe in a lot of the actual doctrines...after all, things seem ok to be a little loose here and there.
I simply observed that "rigid" is the first thing that liberals say about anything they don't like. Like "racist", it is often used to stifle discussion. Also like "racist", however, it doesn't work as well as it used to, because it's been overused.
I might pick a different word, just to avoid the connotations that that word has picked up.
However, you do have your facts wrong, as others have pointed out to you.