Scottish Catholic Observer

The Pontificate of Benedict XVI, viewed in the perspective of historians, bids fair to be regarded as one of the most significant in recent times. If the Pope had achieved nothing beyond his epochal motu proprio Summorum Pontificum, his reign would be assured of a notable place in Church history. His achievements, however, have been even more wide-ranging, the most important probably being the change he has effected in the tone, the psychology—in popular terminology, the ‘mood music’—of the Church. This is a Pontiff of real significance.

That said, could one of his initiatives—his concession of an ordinariate to traditionally-minded Anglicans converting to Rome en bloc—eventually be seen as a wrong turn? On January 15 the Vatican announced the formal creation of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, in implementation of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus, for Anglicans collectively converting to Rome. Fr Keith Newton, a former Anglican bishop, has been appointed ordinary to head the organisation.

Why is it thought necessary to make such concessions to Anglicans, when such privileges are not extended to any other converts? Why do Angicans insist on converting collectively, when personal faith can only be dictated by individual conscience? Once an individual becomes convinced of the truth of the Catholic Faith, he or she is under an immediate obligation to make submission to the Sovereign Roman Pontiff and any delay in doing so is a sin against the Holy Ghost, imperilling his salvation. The notion that formal adherence to objective truth can be made conditional upon being allowed to retain the cultural expression of other practices defies the spirit of conversion. One either believes or disbelieves: it is as simple as that.

There are many question marks hovering over those Anglicans who are forever, Hamlet-like, tottering on the brink of going over to Rome. Why should acceptance of the doctrines of the One True Church be contingent on what happens at the next Anglican General Synod? In what sense can those who accepted priestesses but cannot now tolerate women bishops be said to be Catholic in belief? The Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus, providing for the ordinariate, speaks of ‘formation in Anglican patrimony,’ employs the term ‘presbyter’ rather than ‘sacerdos’ and provides for ‘… the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case-by-case basis.’ Some might regard that as a Trojan horse for priestly celibacy.

The most troubling section of the document, to my mind, is Article III: “Without excluding Liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other Liturgical celebrations according to the Liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the Liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the Faith of the members of the ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.”

If the Anglican Liturgy is ‘a precious gift nourishing the Faith.’ why did the restored Catholic Church burn its author Cranmer as an apostate? Earlier this month Fr Marcus Stock, general secretary to the bishops of England and Wales, said he expected an Anglican use of the Roman Rite would be developed. Why? The original Anglican Liturgy cannot be employed because it does not constitute a valid Mass. Any that ‘developed’ would be a modern creation, not an ancient tradition. Why is the Roman Mass not enough for people have ‘converted’  to Rome?

The ordinariate will also involve extra administration and expense at a time when the Church should be slimming down bureaucracy. The pastoral consequences of this concession could be counter-productive. Converts notoriously have difficulty assimilating themselves to the Catholic Faith; by encouraging them to maintain many of their old practices, as members of a church within the Church, that break will be made more difficult.

And could privileges for people who have ‘abandoned Anglicanism’ for Catholicism impact the Society of St Pius X, currently in negotiation with Rome over its formal reintegration into the Church? Apart from the illicit consecration of four bishops—an infraction of discipline for which the sanctions have already been lifted—what is keeping the SSPX apart from the Holy See? Is the society not bound to ask itself—and the Vatican negotiators—why it is still ostracised for retaining the beliefs and practices of the reign of Pope Pius XII, while people who insist on retaining the heritage of Henry VIII are welcomed?

The ordinariate may as yet prove a divisive force rather than a unifying one.