November 02, 2009
More News on the Anglican Situation
(Jimmy Akin)
Well, we now have some more information about how the celibacy issue will be handled in regard to the Anglican ordinariates that will be the subject of Pope Benedict's new apostolic constitution--including word on when that will be out.
This Saturday (!) the Holy See had a press conference which dealt with these matters. Here is the text of the English bulletin on it, plus commentary:
CLARIFICATION BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE HOLY SEE PRESS OFFICE, FR. FEDERICO LOMBARDI, S.I. [sic; he's a Jesuit], ON SPECULATIONS [ominous word at the Vatican; signals damage control is the motive of the briefing] ABOUT THE CELIBACY ISSUE IN THE ANNOUNCED APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION REGARDING PERSONAL ORDINARIATES FOR ANGLICAN ENTERING INTO FULL COMMUNION WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
There has been widespread speculation, based on supposedly knowledgeable [interesting phrase; attempting to be polite but can't help but being read as sarcastic] remarks by an Italian correspondent Andrea Tornielli [he's also highly respected; interesting that they're naming him and making him eat this one; he also rankled some in Vatican circles by reporting a little too freely on some possible liturgical reforms discussed by the Congregation on Divine Worship that they didn't want aired in public; depending on who you believe, he also may have overstated those], that the delay in publication of the Apostolic Constitution regarding Personal Ordinariates for Anglicans entering into full communion with the Catholic Church, announced on October 20, 2009, by Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is due to more than "technical" reasons. According to this speculation, there is a serious substantial issue at the basis of the delay, namely, disagreement about whether celibacy will be the norm for the future clergy of the Provision.[Not that that's an unreasonable speculation, as the present text will soon make clear.]
Cardinal Levada offered the following comments on this speculation: "Had I been asked I would happily have clarified any doubt about my remarks at the press conference[Fr. Z's remark about such press conferences is apropos]. There is no substance to such speculation. No one at the Vatican has mentioned any such issue to me. [Under normal circumstances, this could be read as a non-denial denial.] The delay is purely technical in the sense of ensuring consistency in canonical language and references.[That I can believe; for all his virtues--which are many--Pope Benedict is not a canonist, nor are the folks at the CDF (at least as a body) and it makes sense to have the canonical folks go over it prior to publication.] The translation issues are secondary; the decision not to delay publication in order to wait for the ‘official’ Latin text to be published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis was made some time ago.
The drafts prepared by the working group,[nice; a glimpse into the drafting process of this constitution; an acknowledgement that it wasn't simply written by Benedict himself, though it undoubtedly was written at his direction and along the lines he indicated, then reviewed carefully in consultation with Cardinal Levada] and submitted for study and approval through the usual process followed by the Congregation, have all included the following statement, currently Article VI of the Constitution [kewl! advance text!]:
§1 Those who ministered as Anglican deacons, priests, or bishops, and who fulfill the requisites established by canon law and are not impeded by irregularities or other impediments may be accepted by the Ordinary [the head of the ordinariate in this case] as candidates for Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. In the case of married ministers, the norms established in the Encyclical Letter of Pope Paul VI Sacerdotalis coelibatus, n. 42 and in the Statement "In June" [not easy to find online; I'll put the text of it at the bottom of this post] are to be observed. Unmarried ministers must submit to the norm of clerical celibacy of CIC can. 277, §1.[So, as expected, they won't be able to be ordained and then get married.]
§2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See.[If I'm taking this right, section 2 seems to be referring only to those who have served previously as Anglican ministers; that is, it's stating more explicitly what could be inferred from section 1; ordinarily, only unmarried men can be ordained in the new ordinariates but, on a case by case basis, exceptions can be made for those who previously served as Anglican ministers; however see below.]
This article is to be understood as consistent with the current practice of the Church, in which married former Anglican ministers may be admitted to priestly ministry in the Catholic Church on a case by case basis. With regard to future seminarians, it was considered purely speculative whether there might be some cases in which a dispensation from the celibacy rule might be petitioned. For this reason, objective criteria about any such possibilities (e.g. married seminarians already in preparation) are to be developed jointly by the Personal Ordinariate and the Episcopal Conference, and submitted for approval of the Holy See."[So this is the big news: They haven't decided yet how to deal with the married seminarian question; they're planning to work it out in the future. Also note that the example given is for married seminarians already in preparation; they might decide not to allow future Anglican ordinariate seminaries to accept married seminarians--at least if they didn't convert from Anglicanism while in seminary; in this case the married status of Anglican ordinariate clergy would largely be a first-generation-only thing]
Cardinal Levada said he anticipates the technical work on the Constitution and Norms will be completed by the end of the first week of November.[Kewl! So coming up soon!--though they might not release it for a while.]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Text of the "In June" statement referred to above (or what I have):
“In June 1980, the Holy See, through the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, agreed to the request presented by the bishops of the United States of America on behalf of some clergy and laity formerly or actually belonging to the Episcopal (Anglican) Church for full communion with the Catholic Church. The Holy See’s response to the initiative of these Episcopalians includes the possibility of a “pastoral provision” which will provide, for those who desire it, a common identity reflecting certain elements of their own heritage.
“The entrance of these persons into the Catholic Church should be understood as the ‘reconciliation of those individuals who wish for full Catholic communion,’ of which the Decree on Ecumenism (no. 4) of the Second Vatican Council speaks.
“In accepting former Episcopalian clergy who are married into the Catholic priesthood, the Holy See has specified that this exception to the rule of celibacy is granted in favor of these individual persons, and should not be understood as implying any change in the Church’s conviction of the value of priestly celibacy, which will remain the rule for future candidates for the priesthood from this group.
“In consultation with the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has appointed the Most Reverend Bernard F. Law, bishop of Springfield-Cape Girardeau, as ecclesiastical delegate in this matter. It will be his question to be submitted for the approval of the Holy See, to oversee its implementation and to deal with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in questions pertaining to the admission of former Episcopalian clergy into the Catholic priesthood.”
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Benedict XVI, Canon Law, Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (5)
June 09, 2008
Aesthetic Escalator
(Tim Jones)
Hey, Tim Jones, here. The following is a post I just put up at my blog, but I thought Jimmy's readers might find of interest;
I'm going to hurriedly try to respond to some recent art posts over at
The Aesthetic Elevator, even though I can't give them the time and
thought they deserve, right now.
First, on the art of Guy Kemper (pictured); Here's the long and short, for me; this represents precisely the problem with a lot of contemporary Catholic liturgical art, and more broadly with non-representational art... the question is this; where couldn't this art function just as well as it does here (the Catholic Memorial at Ground Zero)? It would be as much at home in the entryway to a shopping mall, or a high school, or in one of our new, featureless contemporary church buildings. It is art devoid of communication. It's called "Rise". It could be called anything.
It does do one thing admirably well; it breaks up the enervating monotony of rectangles that make up the space. It beats looking out on the parking lot. Let's be honest, modern architecture doesn't make use of repeated rectangles because the rectangle is a shape the meaning of which we just never get tired of exploring. Rectangles are cheap and plentiful, and curves cost money. Look at the granite slab tub at the left. A baptismal font, or a water feature with coi fish? Generic acoustic ceiling tiles (how daring!) and floor tiles just like I have in my bathroom. Look, I know the architect is dealing with a limited budget, as well as building codes, so a lot of this is simply fore-ordained and out of his/her control. Our culture just makes dull buildings, that's all. In this context, the artwork is a welcome relief from the assembly-line blankness of the space. It is aesthetically pleasing (competently composed and harmonious) and gives the eye something to do for a few seconds. In that sense, it performs a function. That's setting the bar awfully low, but there you go. Kemper doesn't need me to like his art... he is successful and there are plenty of people who love this sort of thing. It functions as a placeholder for the idea of a piece of art, and it offends (could offend) no one.
This is the kind of art that I hope the Vatican's Council for Catholic Culture studiously avoids in it's search for new talent, which TAE notes here.
Moving on...
TAE has some thoughts on the Catholic League's Bill Donahue having some thoughts about the art of some college student, who further has some novel thoughts regarding the proper use of rosaries and other devotional items...
"Whoa, lad! That crucifix doesn't go there!" (think Robert Mapplethorpe).
TAE makes one good point; nine times out of ten, pounding the table about stuff like this only draws attention to it. In that sense, I would rather that "Shoutin' Bill" would just let things be. His heart is in the right place, but I look forward to seeing him on the news probably about as much as thoughtful evangelicals look forward to seeing Jerry Falwell.
That said, how anyone could mistake the art for anything but plain, bigoted hate speech is beyond me. The paintings are calculated to disgust and offend, and yet TAE manages only;
"I can’t help but think he could have approached his canvases in a more deft manner."
Deft manner? Does anyone really hold out the possibility that the artist has some genuine, thoughtful critique of the Catholic Church, but (poor boy) chose an unfortunate way to express it? Is anyone naive enough to suppose that the artist seethes with loathing for Catholics, but generally thinks highly of other Christians? Do you figure that he quite approves of Pentecostals, for instance? Yeah, and rosaries might fly out my butt.
Let's imagine a college art exhibit critical of gay marriage that made it's point by pornographically lampooning Matthew Shepard and Harvey Milk. How many hours would it be be open before someone was fired? Yet, this art is no different. Some adolescent wanted attention, and his fawning professors (with the help of the Catholic League) have obliged.
Finally, in his post on Donahue, TAE says;
Referring back to Donahue’s criticisms, perhaps he believes his own denomination to be Divine and infallible as an institution. I’ve known of Catholics with this attitude, although I don’t sense it’s a prevailing conviction. If I may be so bold, this would in fact be a naive belief, and I don’t understand how anyone could presently think so highly of the Catholic Church in light of the recent scandals that — unfortunately — plagued this enduring institution. No part of the Body of Christ can say with a straight face that they or their particular congregation has not made certain gross missteps along the way..."
This will require another post to address, but in brief, it (unsurprisingly) reflects what seems to be an incomplete and overly simplistic view of what the Catholic Church believes on the subject(s)... very similar to what I thought Catholics believed... before I became one!
Posted by Tim Jones in Art, Current Affairs, Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (11)
May 04, 2007
Dr. Francis Beckwith Returns To Full Communion With The Church
(Jimmy Akin)
Dr. Francis Beckwith, the president of the Evangelical Theological Society, as become Catholic. Dr. Beckwith was raised Catholic but became an Evangelical Protestant in youth. After a review of Catholic theology and its basis, however, he has been reconciled with the Church.
I recently learned of Dr. Beckwith's intention to pursue reconciliation. Apparently my own humble writings were of use to him in his journey, and he was kind enough to say so. In view of the sensitivity of the situation, however, I of course agreed to refrain from making the matter publicly known. He also was kind enough to let me know just before he went to the sacrament of reconciliation.
Last night I received a note from Dr. Beckwith indicating that the matter had become public, and so I would like to offer warm felicitations regarding his return to full communion with the Church.
The source through which the matter was made public happened to be James White's blog, and as you can imagine, Mr. White is not happy.
In particular Mr. White raises the question of what Dr. Beckwith will do given his present status as head of the Evangelical Theological Society.
Prior to his reconciliation, Dr. Beckwith shared his thoughts on that matter with me, and though I will let him speak for himself on the subject, I will say that he intends to handle the matter in a gracious and frank manner and has already taken steps in that direction.
On his blog, Mr. White questions whether Dr. Beckwith could remain a member of the Evangelical Theological Society, writing as follows:
Let's ponder the hypothetical situation of a President of the Evangelical Theological Society converting to Roman Catholicism in the midst of his tenure. In 1998 I attended the national meeting of the ETS in Orlando, Florida. At one of the sessions some of the founding members were being asked questions about why they did certain things, why they wrote the statement of faith as they did, etc. A woman asked a question of the panel. "Why did you write 'the Bible alone' in the statement of faith?" The ETS statement of faith is very, very short. It reads:
"The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory."
Roger Nicole rose, slowly, and made his way to the podium. He looked out at the lady and said, "Because we didn't want any Roman Catholics in the group." He then turned around and went back to his seat. While most sat in stunned silence, I and a friend with me broke into wild applause. The brevity of the response, and Nicole's dead-pan look, was classic. Most looked at us like we were nuts, but we appreciated what he said. Here, one of the founding members made it clear that the ETS was founded as a Protestant organization and that primary to their own self-understanding was a belief in sola scriptura.
Mr. White is correct about the text of the ETS statement of faith or "doctrinal foundation." It's found online here.
While the ultimate interpretation of this statement is up to the ETS itself, I would point out two things:
1) The statement of a single founder, such as Dr. Nicole, regarding the interpretation of such a statement is analogous to that of a single founding father regarding the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, it is not of itself conclusive, however enthusiastically Mr. White and his friend might receive it.
2) If the founders of the ETS intended to exclude Catholics from the organization, they did not frame their doctrinal foundation in a way that would, in fact, block Catholics from being able to agree to it.
The Bible and the Bible alone is the word of God written (as opposed to the Word of God Incarnate, the word of God in nature, or the word of God handed on through the Church in parallel to Scripture). Only Scripture is divinely inspired such that every assertion of the sacred authors is asserted by the Holy Spirit. Consequently, the Bible is inerrant in the autographs. And, of course, God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.
There is thus nothing in the ETS doctrinal foundation that a Catholic could not agree to in good conscience and it is not an effective instrument for excluding Catholics from membership.
This situation will, of course, be very sensitive for members of the Evangelical Theological Society and its leadership, as well as for Dr. Beckwith and his family, and I ask readers to keep the matter in prayer.
At the hour I write, Dr. Beckwith has not posted on Right Reason, a blog in which he participates, regarding his return to full communion, and I do not know if he will do so, but I invite my readers to watch that blog for possible updates and to offer their felicitations to Dr. Beckwith in the combox below.
VISIT RIGHT REASON.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (809)
April 09, 2007
The Origin Of Lent
(Jimmy Akin)
Dwayna Litz of Lighting the Way Worldwide quotes John MacArthur as follows on the origin of Lent:
The celebration of Lent has no basis in Scripture, but rather developed from the pagan celebration of Semiramis’s mourning for forty days over the death of Tammuz.
Uh-huh. Yeah. Right. I wonder if he thinks Jesus' 40 days of fasting in the desert had its origin in that, too.
Francis Beckwith has a very nice post in rejoinder.
GET THE STORY.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (35)
March 13, 2007
What An Evangelical Appreciates About Catholics
(Jimmy Akin)
I was delighted yesterday to receive the following e-mail from blogger extraordinare Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost:
Hey Jimmy,
Since I don't have any Catholic readers of my own I thought I'd share this with you. ; )
What's found at the link is a post Joe wrote in which, though he doesn't feel able to cross the Tiber, expresses sincere and thoughtful appreciation for Catholics. Specifically, he appreciates their emphasis on the sanctity of life, ecumenism, and Mary.
And be sure to leave him comments in the same spirit of thoughtful respect and appreciation.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (39)
February 20, 2007
She's Baaaaa-aaaack!!!
(Jimmy Akin)
Bunches of readers (CHTs all round) e-mailed me
THIS ARTICLE ON ALLEGED ANGLICAN PLANS TO REUNITE WITH ROME IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
It's by our favorite Times reporter, Ruth "I'm Too Dangerously Unqualified To Keep My Job" Gledhill.
EXCERPT:
Radical proposals to reunite Anglicans with the Roman Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope are to be published this year, The Times has learnt.
The proposals have been agreed by senior bishops of both churches.
In a 42-page statement prepared by an international commission of both churches, Anglicans and Roman Catholics are urged to explore how they might reunite under the Pope.
The statement, leaked to The Times, is being considered by the Vatican, where Catholic bishops are preparing a formal response.
It comes as the archbishops who lead the 38 provinces of the Anglican Communion meet in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, in an attempt to avoid schism over gay ordination and other liberal doctrines that have taken hold in parts of the Western Church.
Now, to anyone with a smidge of familiarity with the Catholic-Anglican dialogue, this just screams "Total nonsense! Gledhill, once again, hasn't the faintest idea what she's talking about!"
The idea that there is going to be an imminent reunion of the Anglican communion with Rome--or even a sizeable schism within it that then reunites with Rome in the near future--is preposterous. Instead, what we have here is Gledhill incompetently and sensationalistically getting the story wrong.
A specific dialogue body involving Anglicans and Catholics has prepared--not a practical plan for reunion--but a preliminary meditation on the state of dialogue and cooperation between the two Churches. Nothing more.
BTW, HERE'S THE DOCUMENT IN QUESTION.
If Gledhill had an ounce28 grams of knowledge about how these kinds of things work, she would know that.
Or maybe she does know it and is wilfully distorting the story in order to get a sensationalized "scoop."
Either way, it's journalistic incompetence, so take your pick.
Needless to say, the body actually publishing the document was quick to fire back.
WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY IS WITHERING.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (32)
July 31, 2006
And Then There Were Three
(Jimmy Akin)
In 1999 the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation signed a document known as the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification. This document said that, while there were still differences between the Catholic and Lutheran articulation of the doctrine of justification, the two groups were in substantial agreement regarding the core of the doctrine itself and were thus able to issue a joint declaration expressing their common conviction regarding it.
This document had been in preparation for a number of years prior, and had a somewhat tumultuous history. There was a moment of profound embarrassment when--after the Lutheran World Federation went through the spectacle of solemnly approving the document in the clear expectation that the Catholic Church would immediately do likewise, the Catholic Church suddenly balked and issued a document with the ponderous and icy title "Response of the Catholic Church to the Joint Declaration of the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Fedreation on the Doctrine of Justification."
The backstage story on what happened here is that the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity had not kept the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith fully in the loop as the text of the joint declaration was being worked out, so when it came to approval time the CDF--and Pre-16 in particularly--objected to a number of statements in the joint declaration and insisted on clarifications before it could be approved.
From what I can tell, Cardinal Ratzinger himself wrote the clarifications at the core of the Response and then Cardinal Cassity (head of the Christian unity commission) had to sign them.
This was an enormous embarrassment, both for the Catholic Church and for the Lutherans, who felt like they had publicly gone out on a limb and then left hanging there.
Nevertheless, everyone summoned up the wherewithal to move forward and a clarifying "Annex" to the joint declaration got worked out and passed by both bodies and the whole thing was eventually approved and the joint declaration became a reality.
Following its publication, Cardinal Ratzinger praised it--in its emended form--as an important ecumenical landmark.
Now there's another one.
The World Methodist Conference has just signed the joint declaration as well.
It strikes me that this action by the Methodists may spark further, similar actions. I would anticipate that within a few years the Anglican communion may do likewise.
Don't hold your breath for many Baptists and Pentecostals to follow suit, though.
READ THE JOINT DECLARATION
AND IT'S ANNEX
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (41)
March 01, 2006
Catholic-Lutheran Issues
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
Hello
JamesJimmy, I have a Roman Catholic friend who was in the process of becoming Lutheran. After speaking with him regarding our Faith he has halted the process and is interested in understanding the differences between the Lutherans and us Catholics.Is there a book or some literature out there that in a no-nonsense sort of way can explain the differences ?
One of the first things that springs to mind is the book The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism by Louis Bouyer. It's a sympathetic look at Lutheranism and Calvinism by Bouyer, who is a convert to Catholicism from Lutheranism.
Bouyer is a real theologian, though, so the book may be a little heady for what your friend is wanting. If that's the case,
HERE'S A GOOD ARTICLE BY MARK BRUMLEY SUMMARIZING BOUYER'S KEY POINTS.
There's also a lot of good material over at CATHOLIC.COM.
And if justification is a special issue for him, he might want to check out a copy of my book, The Salvation Controversy, which goes into the subject in detail, along with an analysis of the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification that the Holy See signed with the Lutheran World Federation a few years ago.
Hope this helps!
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (12) | TrackBack
February 17, 2006
Speaking Of Reconciliations . . .
(Jimmy Akin)
Catholic News Service has a story about the meeting that Pope Benedict had this Wednesday with curial officials about the possibility of reconciling the Society of St. Pius X.
EXCERPTS:
More than 20 heads of congregations and pontifical councils attended the Feb. 13 meeting, which was to be followed up by a similar session in late March. No details of the February meeting were made available by the Vatican press office.
Several Vatican sources said that while Cardinal Castrillon strongly supported a solution based on these points opinions were sharply divided among curial members on any concessions to the Lefebvrites.
One Vatican source who participated in the February meeting of curial heads said he thought the pope wanted to make one big push for reconciliation at the beginning of his pontificate.
"I think it's now or never for the Lefebvrites. As time passes, an agreement will become much more difficult," he said.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBack
An Anglican Rite?
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
What do you think of the rumors of an autonomous rite for Anglicans who wish to be in communion with the Holy See? As a former Episcopal priest who came into the church, I have mixed feelings about such an arrangement. I miss some of the accidents of Anglicanism, e.g., the hymnody and the quasi-Tridentine precision of a solemn high Mass the way we did it, but I do not miss the culture of dissent that is so much more prevalent in Anglicanism or the devaluation of theology in practical terms. I am very interested in what you think.
I don't know that I personally have a lot to say. I'm in support, in principle, of the restoration of other bodies of Christians to full communion with the Catholic Church, and historically this has often been accomplished through the creation of a new "rite" in the Church--or what would more properly be called a new church sui iuris (Latin, "with it's own law").
If that's the best way to faciliate the reunion of (some) Anglicans, then I'm for it.
Such matters have to be handled very carefully, though, to ensure that it is a true restoration of full communion and not a papering over of differences.
There are also other risks as well. I was aware of it when a similar effort in the 1990s was underway (claims vary about whether was to be a new church sui iuris or some other kind of canonical structure), and it all fell apart when the former Anglican bishop who would have been the head of the new rite defected from the Church.
"Once burned, twice shy," as they say. The Vatican will need to make very sure of the leadership of the body coming into union. You don't want to have the spectacle of a grand reunion followed by a new schism of the same people hot on its heels.
It is my understanding that the Anglicans involved in this process may not have the dissident ethos that you mention, though I don't know if that applies to these bodies as a whole. My familiarity with the precise theological tenor of these circles is quite limited.
So I don't know whether the time is right for this, though I hope so. I'd like to see a new church sui iuris added to the Church in my lifetime, but it needs to be done the right way, and there are a number of significant issues to be solved.
For more on all this,
SEE THIS POST OVER AT PONTIFICATIONS, which links to a number of things, including
THIS VERY INFORMATIVE POST AT THE CONTINUUM.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Other Christians | Permalink | Comments (18) | TrackBack
