Cardinal Bergoglio (now Pope Francis): Anglican Ordinariate is “quite unnecessary”

Anglican Communion News Service quotes the Argentine Anglican Bishop:

Bp. Venables added that in a conversation with Cardinal Bergoglio, now Pope Francis, the latter made it clear that he values the place of Anglicans in the Church universal.

“He called me to have breakfast with him one morning and told me very clearly that the Ordinariate was quite unnecessary and that the Church needs us as Anglicans.”

Report is here.


  1. People on the left and right are likely reading too much into some of the Pope’s prior statements and present gestures. He is said to have been behind much of the language of the Latin American Bishops document at Aparecida. (And likely it was the LA cardinals that started his candidacy rolling).

    Reading just the introduction I already recognize some of the ideas that we have seen in the first few days of his Papacy. So it isn’t like he is making it up on his own; sounds like he has processed a lot of this with the Latin American Bishops. We just don’t pay attention to their statements.

    The following from the Introduction gives a flavor of his emphasis upon discipleship, evangelization in contrast to programs, rules, ethics, and ideas. It is interesting that the quote that I have bolded is directly from J. Ratzinger, 1966.

    What is required is confirming, renewing, and revitalizing the newness of the Gospel rooted in our history, out of a personal and community encounter with Jesus Christ that raises up disciples and missionaries. That depends not so much on grand programs and structures, but rather on new men and women who incarnate that tradition and newness, as disciples of Jesus Christ and missionaries of his Kingdom, protagonists of new life for a Latin America that seeks to be rediscovered with the light and power of the Spirit.

    12. A Catholic faith reduced to mere baggage, to a collection of rules and prohibitions, to fragmented devotional practices, to selective and partial adherence to the truths of the faith, to occasional participation in some sacraments, to the repetition of doctrinal principles, to bland or nervous moralizing, that does not convert the life of the baptized would not withstand the trials of time. Our greatest danger is

    the gray pragmatism of the daily life of the church in which everything apparently continues normally, but in reality the faith is being consumed and falling into meanness.

    We must all start again from Christ, recognizing that being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea, but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon and a decisive direction.

    Recognize also that the language of this introduction is not that far from the ideas of Gutierrez in We Drink from Our Own Wells: the Spiritual Journey of a People

    And, of course, a lot of this combines the very Ignatian values of profound conversion and humility combined with always choosing the greater glory of God.

  2. There was a flutter of concern about this in Ordinariate blogs and sites yesterday. But the general feeling out here is that, while Archbishop Venables is fairly respected in conservative (GAFCON, etc.) Anglican circles, he’s likely engaged in an exercise of wishful hearing: Bergoglio undoubtedly said something to him, something pleasant and reassuring, but it wasn’t quite this. It would hardly be the first time that a compliment by a Catholic prelate to an Anglican one was reinterpreted as a total repudiation of Apostolicae Curae. There are few Anglicans in Argentina (perhaps 3,500, I think), and few are likely to join the Ordinariate (Southern Cone Anglicans tend to be conservative, but on the evangelical, not Anglo-Catholic, end). If Bergoglio merely meant to suggest that there was likely no need for an Ordinariate in the Southern Cone (another likely possibility), that wouldn’t be inaccurate.

    At any rate, each of the three Ordinariates issued statements in response to this report. The US Ordinariate:

    A Note from Monsignor Steenson on Recent News Reports
    March 15, 2013

    My dear people,

    We have received a number of inquiries from those who are concerned about what our new Pope’s attitude may be toward the Ordinariates, occasioned by an anecdotal report from an Anglican bishop in Argentina. It is important to remember that our Ordinariates were created by an apostolic constitution, thereby giving them real permanence and stability. But it is even more important to remember what it means to be Catholic, to have the full assurance that faith brings. Christ the Good Shepherd entrusted the governance of the Church to St. Peter and his successors. To be in communion with Peter brings a confidence we never knew as Anglicans. Pope Francis understands the pilgrim character of our communities and will be a wise and caring pastor to us!

    Msgr. Jeffrey Steenson

  3. Todd Flowerday : Holy cow. I have to be dreaming. Sure I’ll wake up under the pontificate of Pius XIII tomorrow.

    You’re dreaming of a dissolution of the Ordinariates?

    1. @Richard Malcolm – comment #4:
      Will predict that Francis does not agree with the ordinariate pilot project – it contradicts his years of efforts in ecumenism. Thus, guessing that there will not be papal support going forward – it will die in its infancy and rightly so.

      Look at what Jack just posted from Aparicedo and Guiterrez. Conversion is the starting point – not ordinariates. That isn’t conversion – it is poaching.

      1. Hard to predict… but once it’s now a thing and there, I don’t see how it could die. What would he do with it now that he’s stuck with it?

      2. @Bill deHaas – comment #8:

        Look at what Jack just posted from Aparicedo and Guiterrez. Conversion is the starting point – not ordinariates. That isn’t conversion – it is poaching.

        These people petitioned Rome to come over, Bill. Rome didn’t go looking for them. And only belatedly did Benedict (who does not lack for friends and admirers in the Church of England) come round to offer something. There was no poaching. I know these people and worship with them; you don’t, respectfully. I find the notion that this was a planned poaching expedition offensive, and highly inaccurate.

        And I don’t see the harm here. If thousands of deeply disaffected Anglicans who no longer feel welcome in the Anglican Communion – or tire of independent existence as splinters – and genuinely believe that what the Catholic Church claims is true, why is this not win-win for all parties involved? The Episcopal Church and the Church of England are rid of some unhappy members and priests who no longer are on the same page with them; these same people are happily established in a communion they believe in. The same is likewise true for Catholics (and there have been more than a few) who have migrated to the Episcopal Church, sorry though I am to see them leave.

        Pope Francis is much less versed on the state of the Anglican world in the US, UK and Australia than Benedict was, through no fault of his own. I doubt that he will give the Ordinariates the same kind of attention that his predecessor did. But we are established now, by Apostolic Constitution, and as Fr. Ruff notes, it’s a different story now that it is here (30 parishes and 33 priests in the US, with more in process) and he’s “stuck with it.” I don’t make light of the challenges that the Ordinariate faces. But they are going realities.

      3. @Richard Malcolm – comment #11:
        Your line about them petitioning – sorry, it was a two way street. Reflect on Kaspar’s reaction to Benedict’s initiative.

        And agree totally with Brian Duffy’s assessment – it really is far removed from the scriptural concept of conversion.

        Would beg to differ with Mr. Bartles comment below – it is no secret that many of those who did petition object to Anglican decisions about women priests; women bishops; etc. – if we are going to speak about *intolerance and small tent catholicism which ought to be repulsive to everyone.* In fact, some folks made statements that reveal more *pettiness* than true *conversion*.

        Agree with Fr. Ruff’s statement – and didn’t say anthing differently. My emphasis is on your last paragraph – he is stuck with it but doubt that he will go out of his way to support it. Also, doubt that you know what Bergoglio did or did not do with Anglicans in Argentina.

        On a personal note, our local parish accepted an anglican priest during his three year process – we provided and paid him a salary (to do what – who knows?). He is now acting as adult parish religion director waiting for the bishop to assign him a parish or the ordinate – or who knows? What I do know is that he is unqualified for this position; his published writings are filled with 1950ish Catholic pieties, etc. That salaried position could be better used almost anywhere in the parish.

      4. @Bill deHaas – comment #13:

        Also, doubt that you know what Bergoglio did or did not do with Anglicans in Argentina.

        I said as much. And I reaffirm it here again. I have no knowledge of what happened down there, which is exactly why I am trying to give the Pope the benefit of the doubt (while avoiding unreasonable expectations).

        And agree totally with Brian Duffy’s assessment – it really is far removed from the scriptural concept of conversion.

        And yet, with respect, Bill . . . you have no direct knowledge of the conversion experiences of these Ordinariate converts.

        1950ish Catholic pieties…

        The horror!

      5. @Richard Malcolm – comment #16:
        Yes, I do have at least one direct experience with our local parish religion director who has basically documented,written about, and journaled his journey from his Anglican parish to our Catholic parish over the last 3+ years.

        Based upon his comments; his second hand comments about others in Texas who are journeying with him – I made my comment. Some of what he journalled about (issues with gender and ordination; with sacraments; etc.) were embarrassing for me. Reminded me of listening to high school students when I taught theology class in the 1970s. 1950ish catholic pieties when you will be an ordained priest/minister of the catholic church – if this is what your catholic educational foundation is – then, yes, it is horror. This man would not have made it through the seminary I attended in the 1970s.

      6. @Bill deHaas – comment #17:

        This man would not have made it through the seminary I attended in the 1970s

        Which may say more about your seminary in the 1970’s than it does this man.

        Well: That’s perhaps an unjustified snark.

        The truth is I don’t know much about your seminary, and even less about this priest. Formation of Ordinariate priests varies considerably, especially among those from continuing Anglican churches. Some are brilliant; some have some catching up to do.

        But when you exclaim at “1950’s pieties,” you have to understand that these are not exactly words that horrify me. At least not without more detail.

        At any rate, when I said that you don’t know these conversion stories, I was thinking more of the laity than the priests.

      7. @Bill deHaas – comment #13:
        …Far removed from the scriptural concept of conversion?. How so? The faith has been accepted in toto. If this is not conversion, then the oriental rites are likewise suspect. What is unique in this is that never before has a reformation group been accepted back into the fold with those elements of its patrimony not in conflict with the faith, but expressive of it, intact. There seems to be more than a little resentment (and totally unjustified hauteur) about this.

      8. @M. Jackson Osborn – comment #19:
        To each his own opinion – you say…never before has a reformation group been accepted back into the fold with elements of its patrimony not in conflict with the faith.


        This is a tiny slice of the Anglican Church (not exactly a *reformation group*)

        It was done behind the scenes while decades of ecumenical talks between catholic-anglicans have been going on. And what does this say? As I stated above, it is not hard to read between the lines of Cardinal Kaspar and others when Benedict made this pronouncement.

        And, think some of us might disagree in terms of the *elements* – some of this felt more like hypocrisy – on the one hand, we will not discuss celibacy but, OTOH, if you want to swim the Tiber with your wife and kids, by all means go for it. And bring along your vision of the catholic and anglican church (which, depending upon who you read, also sounded resentful in some cases). It gets to *ecclesiology* but then Benedict seemed to be fairly loose in terms of ecclesiology when his favorite subjects came up. By no means as a bishop should you ever mention subjects such as priest shortage and looking at pastoral alternatives (ask Bishop Wm. Morris) – again, hypocrisy.

        And to something Fr. Ruff said weeks ago – not dealing with the issues of gender equality and sexual equality in the church; well, we are merely kicking the can down the road.

      9. @Bill deHaas – comment #22:’…while decades of ecumenical talks…have been going on.’

        Without the least snideness, I wonder in all sincerity just where you (and quite a few Catholic others) thought these talks were headed when my beloved Anglican church thumbed its nose at several millenia of discipline and theology of priesthood (and, with it, sacramental theology) by the other two ‘branches’ (Rome and the East) of the Catholic Church and performed what would be the ordinations of women and their elevation to the episcopacy, not to mention a host of other divergences from clear Catholic Tradition and teaching.
        I am aware, of course, that many Catholics of all ranks are favourable to the idea of ordaining women, even while pretending that Catholic teaching on this matter is somehow meaningless. I am also somewhat liberal in my attitudes about sexual orientation, but am not at all convinced that the Church’s teachings on this matter are erroneous. Regardless, to take up where we began: just where do you think these oecumenical talks were leading? It seems to me that they (like so many such ‘talks’) were leading nowhere, which is why we rejoiced at JPII’s pastoral provision and then Benedict’s ordinariates. (And, I think that your swipe at a few married priests is unworthy of you. We have quite a few entering the program in a very regular stream, and most of them are celibate. Further, I wonder if your apparent contempt for our married priests would be showered, as well, upon the Orthodox if and when we should be blessed with a healing of schism between us and any of them. And, too, it occurs to me in regard to your dismissal of the fact that we are a very small percentage of the Anglican flock, to note that our Lord had something right joyful to say about restoring even one lost sheep to the fold?!)

      10. @M. Jackson Osborn – comment #24:
        Everything you mention are disciplinary measures – they can change and be developed. Yet, as you say, we welcome a very tiny group who seemed to have some image of a church that never changes. Not exactly my idea of mission, hope, or looking forward.

        As Pope Francis is quoted in a new interview – he talks about the role of church and that *self-reverential* church is not the idea or concept we strive for. He equates self-reverential to clericalism; making various forms of worship, liturgy, church a *god*.

        You appear to try to justify the ordinariate by appealing to the eastern half of the church. Sorry, you are mising apples and oranges. At least, they remain true to their convictions that go back to apostolic times. You also seem to put anglican married priests on the same level as eastern rite priests – sorry, that may be true on some levels but not true on other levels – your comparison is too facile and has little nuance.

        Not that I dismissed your small contingent – just tried to put your origiinal comment into a context (you made it sound as if this tiny group is some type of denomination since the Reformaiton)

        You also seem to be completely unaware of how much progress has been accomplished in the anglican-catholic discussions. Interesting to note today in the Pope’s Angelus greeting that he quoted from Cardinal Kaspar who has led these ecumenical efforts for years.

      11. @Bill deHaas – comment #28:
        Mr de Haas

        For all of its many virtues, the ARCIC process was heavily criticised in Anglican circles for staking out positions of apparent agreement that were not acceptable to large parts of the Anglican community (the document on Our Lady was/is particularly contentious with the large evangelical grouping, for example).

        The very real criticism of this process is that it has not really progressed at all beyond having cemented some genuine friendships between Anglican and Catholic hierarchs.

        I would go so far as to say that in ARCIC we have an appearance of progress but a reality of inaction; in short, there is nothing of substance for Anglicanorum Cœtibus to upset.

      12. @Thomas Dalby – comment #29:
        Wonder if what you say would come as surprising news to ARCIC? Is there anything of substance with the ordinariate except for those involved?

        Guess it all depends upon whose ox is being gored.

      13. @Bill deHaas – comment #31:
        Well, Mr de Haas, I rather doubt that anyone who follows Anglicanism would be wholly surprised to learn that some of the ARCIC documents have proven indigestible to a sizeable number of Anglicans.

      14. @Thomas Dalby – comment #29:

        Anglicanorum Cœtibus could upset what you call “some genuine friendships between Anglican and Catholic hierarchs.” That is substantial as fellowship, communion, is the true substance of the Church, not agreeing about scholastic distinctions.

        And I bet you would find that the areas of “apparent agreement” are not accepted by portions of the Roman Catholic community either. But what is happening in ARCIC is agreement on the level of the official Church, agreement that is the basis for fuller communion, mutual respect and ultimately reunification that reaches beyond the hierarchy even to the people who disagree. (the difficulties here are the basis for the discussion of authority, which has led to some partial agreement but no full agreement)

        If, in our desire to respect a man’s freedom and dignity, his conversion to the true faith is not the immediate object of our dialogue with him, we nevertheless try to help him and to dispose him for a fuller sharing of ideas and convictions. Paul VI Ecclesiam Suam 79

      15. @Jim McKay – comment #32:

        Three observations on your first point: (i) if they are genuine friendships then Anglicanorum Cœtibus should change nothing; (ii) I thought that the aim of ecumenism was rather more than friendships between hierarchs; and (iii) are hierarchs’ personal friendships more valuable than the wishes of several thousand powerless, ordinary people to seek communion with the Church?

        You are certainly correct in saying that portions of the ARCIC documents would be contentious among some Catholics, but we really do have a problem if a key document, on Our Lady, is utterly rejected by Low Church groups within Anglicanism which represent a majority within the CofE and Anglicanism more widely.

      16. @Thomas Dalby – comment #35:

        I will grant that friendship and fellowship are different, but grace builds on nature so there is a connection. Using a not entirely accurate analogy, I would say that AC can disrupt relations between hierarchs in the way that I might be upset if my fiancé eloped with my brother. My brother and I would still be brothers, but there would be some strain in the relationship. My ex fiancé and I would still be related by marriage, but in a completely different way that demands a reordering of relations.

        Hierarch’s personal relationships should not be more important the wishes of several thousand powerless, ordinary people, and yet they have been for centuries now. Decisions on fellowship have often been clouded by suspicions. If personal friendships could move us past arcane bickering, joint communion might well be the result.

        Finally, I would not be too surprised to learn that a majority of Catholics rejected the document on Mary. It is a problem, though less of one than in the Anglican polity. In both cases it is a question of authority within the Church, another contentious part of ARCIC.

      17. @Jim McKay – comment #43:

        The deep problem with ARCIC was the way in which it papered over differences, intercommunion is going to be nigh on impossible with Anglicanism because Anglicanism does not have a single understanding of communion: a large number of Anglicans (possibly a majority) conceive of the Eucharistic as symbol alone (I am sure that you will be able to point to heterodox groups of Catholics with a similar understanding of the Mass, but they are a tiny minority in Catholicism).

        I am sure that you are right about the document on Our Lady: a majority of Catholics probably would see it as insufficiently Marian.

        But let’s circle back to a point that I made in my first reply to you: is a model of Ecumenism which results in a certain cosines a between hierarchs and nothing more really sufficient? I thought that we were all committed to an ecclesiology that identifies the Church with all of her people, not just her hierarchy?

      18. @Bill deHaas – comment #28:

        As Pope Francis is quoted in a new interview – he talks about the role of church and that *self-reverential* church is not the idea or concept we strive for. He equates self-reverential to clericalism; making various forms of worship, liturgy, church a *god*.

        Just a small correction, Bill: The term that the Holy Father used was “self-referential,” not “self-reverential.”

        “We have to avoid the spiritual sickness of a self-referential church. It’s true that when you get out into the street, as happens to every man and woman, there can be accidents. However, if the church remains closed in on itself, self-referential, it gets old. Between a church that suffers accidents in the street and a church that’s sick because it’s self-referential, I have no doubts about preferring the former.”

      19. @Bill deHaas – comment #28:
        You remind me of an Episcopalian (later, a bishop) involved in the ARC dialogues, who told me that “the problem with these consultations is that the Anglicans are already half-Catholics and the Catholics like to think of themselves as stylistically Anglican.”

      20. @Bill deHaas – comment #8:
        Thanks just the same, but none of us have been poached. (What a pitiful insult!) We have converted. We went out of our way to ask Rome for the likes of the Anglican Ordinariates. It is a miracle that we got them. And it is a miracle that we had the likes of Holy Father Benedict, who pro-actively took John Paul’s pastoral provision and raised it to the ordinariates. Don’t doubt that we have undergone conversion rather than poachment. We have accepted all that the Catholic Church believes and teaches and have brought with us those elements of our liturgical, spiritual, and literary patrimony which are in harmony with it. There are, in fact, quite a few Catholics who think that we are too Catholic to suit their lukewarm, so-called VII taste.

        As for the above comments about the notorious thirty-nine articles: most Anglicans I know always considered them a categorical embarassment, the unfortunate baggage of an unfortunate period in time. The only ones who waved them around like a banner were those of very low-church and extreme evangelical leanings. They are definitely reflective of some Protestant sentiment of the Reformation era, and a careful reading will reveal them to be an early example of the continuing battle between the Prostestant and Catholic camps within Anglicanism.

  4. Have any Classical Anglicans entered the Ordinariate? By Classical Anglican I mean one who is devoted to Holy Scripture, the Book of Common Prayer and who has a respect for the thirty-nine articles of religion as well as that je ne sais quoi style of Anglican devotion.

    As far as I can see only pseudo-Catholics have signed on. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    The comments attributed to Pope Francis indicate to me that He, a very evangelical man, truly has an understanding of the special gifts offered by classical Anglicanism to the Universal Church.

    1. @Brian Duffy – comment #6:

      Which book of Common Prayer? 1662, 1928 or 1979?

      I don’t see how the original 38 Articles can be reconciled with Catholic teaching without some significant revision.

      1. @Richard Malcolm – comment #7:
        I really like your comment! I dare say the form of the Book of Common Prayer is probably the “Anglican Missal,” which I have, in years past, used. Since for the most part, the Ordinariate is using a variation of the Anglican Missal and the 1928 BCP, at least, with the Liturgy, both Romans & Anglicans are very, very compatible. As to the 39 (not 38) Articles of the Anglican Church, they have been interpreted both in Catholic & Low Church (Evangelical) terms for centuries. It is a historical note the the Episcopal Church in the United States NEVER officially adopted the 39 Articles. In the 1979 BCP, they’re delegated to the “Historical Documents” of the Church (pps.867-876). So they have for us in the Episcopal Church a historical significance, whereas it’s a different matter in the Church of England. It’s interesting to read the thoughts of the traditional Anglican Bishops after the Reformation as they “re-interpreted” the 39 Articles to be very “Catholick!” I’m quite sure that as Archbishop Thomas Cramner (1st Reformed Archbishop of Canterbury) would read it, he would have flipped. But then again, Cranmer used both Eastern Orthodox sources as well as the writings of Cardinal Quiniones and the Early Church Fathers to compile his 1st Book of Common Prayer (1549) – quite a Catholic Prayer Book. It was the more “protestant” followers after Cranmer, influenced by Calvin etc. that forced the travesty of the 1552 Prayer Book. Then again, Anglicans have been reclaiming that which was discarded or lost ever since – so that today’s 1979 BCP contains, “the faith once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). Thanks for your comments…

  5. I suppose that the major BCP for most classical anglicans is the 1662 version. Bishop Forbes wrote a very interesting commentary on the articles which made it easier for certain clerks to take the requisite oaths. I might mention that I said nothing about reconciliation but respect for the articles.

    I trust that my original question does not get lost in minutiae for the purpose of obfuscation.

    1. @Brian Duffy – comment #10:

      Thanks for the reply. No obfuscation was intended, honest.

      My sense is that there are very few “classic” Anglicans to be found, by this measure. My Ordinariate parish used the English Missal previously, with some use of the 1662; it varied between pastors. But this is unusual. Ordinariate communities are a diverse lot, to be honest. Some were already using the Novus Ordo, albeit in a traditional fashion.

      And as I said, I don’t see how the 39 Articles, as they stand, could be held to while becoming a believing Catholic. Too many affirmations are clearly contrary to Catholic doctrine.

  6. Here is a link to Sandro Magister – excellent interview with Pope Francis:

    Key sections:
    – “The early theologians said: the soul is a kind of sailing boat, the Holy Spirit is the wind that blows in the sail, to send it on its way, the impulses and the force of the wind are the gifts of the Spirit. Without His drive, without His grace, we don’t move forward. The Holy Spirit lets us enter the mystery of God and saves us from the danger of a gnostic Church and from the danger of a self-referential Church, leading us to mission.”

    – “I didn’t say that pastoral systems are useless. On the contrary. In itself everything that leads by the paths of God is good. I have told my priests: ‘Do everything you should, you know your duties as ministers, take your responsibilities and then leave the door open.’ Our sociologists of religion tell us that the influence of a parish has a radius of six hundred meters. In Buenos Aires there are about two thousand meters between one parish and the next. So I then told the priests: ‘If you can, rent a garage and, if you find some willing layman, let him go there! Let him be with those people a bit, do a little catechesis and even give communion if they ask him.’ A parish priest said to me: ‘But Father, if we do this the people then won’t come to Church.’ ‘But why?’ I asked him: ‘Do they come to Mass now?’ ‘No,’ he answered. And so! Coming out of oneself is also coming out from the fenced garden of one’s own convictions, considered irremovable, if they risk becoming an obstacle, if they close the horizon that is also of God.”

    Note – *not coming out from the fenced garden of one’s own convictions, considered irremovable, closes the horizon to God”

    Would suggest that VII called us out of a fenced garden to open the horizon of God….how much do we on PTB argue about the fenced garden rather than mission?

  7. The creation of the Ordinariate(s) was good news for the Anglicans who came into the Church, and it was welcomed by many in the Church. I speak as one who welcomed them (I now have a priest of the Ordinariate in charge of the Parish where I worship – and, in reply to Brian Duffy at #6, may I say that there’s nothing at all ‘pseudo-Catholic’ about this Ordinariate priest).
    But, perhaps the related question is; What was (and what is) the effect of the new Ordinariates on Christian unity?
    PS: The Church of England also has an inauguration next week (new Archbishop of Canterbury).

  8. I am confused, Mr. O’Meara. Are you saying that when your ordinariate priest was in the C of E that he was a real Catholic and would have been accepted as such by the Roman Church?

    1. @Brian Duffy – comment #21:

      What I am saying is that I did not think it helpful of you to write (at #6) that ‘only pseudo-Catholics have signed on’. It was precisely because they were not ‘pseudo’ that they were able (and were enabled) to ‘sign on’.

  9. Ah, so these not pseudo-Catholics were able (and were enabled) to sign on.
    Is that the reason I haven’t received an answer to my original question about classical anglicans and the ordinariate?

    This makes me wonder just what Anglican patrimony is being received by the Catholic Church. Will she benefit from the positive outcomes of the reformation? Will she benefit from the great patristic scholarship of Anglicans? What other benefits will she receive?

    1. Brian,
      You raise an interesting question, but I think it’s hard to distinguish clearly between “classical Anglican” and “pseudo-Catholics” – the human heart is such a mix of motives and longings. I’m not comfortable calling anyone “pseudo” too glibly.

  10. Sorry! I did not intend to offend anyone. Perhaps I’m too steeped in the polemical language of former times.

    1. @Brian Duffy – comment #30:

      Your question comes down to hermeneutics IMO. Are there any Anglicans who adhere to the 39 articles “in the plain and Full meaning… In the literal and grammatical sense”? Possibly, but the Anglican community has moved beyond that early mode toward something much closer to the Roman Catholic position with the Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral. Scripture, the Creeds and the Sacraments are placed within the context of the historic episcopate as interpreter. Accepting the Quadrilateral is probably a precondition to becoming to changing churches, such that very few of the older style “plain meaning” types would have become Catholic.

  11. Brian Duffy : This makes me wonder just what Anglican patrimony is being received by the Catholic Church. Will she benefit from the positive outcomes of the reformation? Will she benefit from the great patristic scholarship of Anglicans? What other benefits will she receive?

    I think that Pope Benedict emphasized that this was, above all, a pastoral decision – in this case, for the souls of the Anglicans petitioning for admission to the Church (and those who might follow them) – and so should not be thought of in “cost-benefit” terms. While a new parish or hospital may in the long run accrue to the benefit of the Church in material terms, it’s assumed that they’ll be resource vacuums in the short-term. The goal is the salvation of souls, first and last.

    I’m not sure what “positive outcomes of the Reformation” you have in mind. Unquestionably, Catholic scriptural and patristic scholarship has benefited in some way from Anglican scholarship (think of just N.T. Wright, for starters). Beyond that, I do think that the Holy Father (and many others) are hopeful that the Ordinariates will be a benefit for the wider Roman Rite Church through much of the liturgical, devotional (esp. Evensong) and musical heritage of the Anglican patrimony. And on these terms, it can be considered a more respectful consideration of such heritage, as Ordinariate Expats put it: “This union will not mean “absorption” or abandonment of one’s “faith history” and traditions.”

    But, as Newman (among others) showed, an Anglican committed to the fullness of the 39 Articles – if such can really be found any longer (see Jim McKay’s post) – could not be reconciled with the Catholic faith.

    I appreciate the apology on the question of “pseudo-Catholics.” I’m happy to consider it closed.

  12. There’s now a further clarification from the Rt. Rev. Gregory Venables:

    “Clarification of recent comments

    “17 March 2013

    “The Anglican bishop of Argentina and North Argentina, the Rt Revd Gregory Venables (pictured right), has made the following clarification regarding comments reportedly attributed by him to the-then Cardinal Bergoglio:

    “‘The reaction to the point about the Ordinariate is far more significant than the original comment which incidentally was not written for publication. The conversation was in 2009 and did not imply that the Ordinariate was either temporary or an error, merely that the speaker values the Anglican Church as it is’.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *