In a recent blogpost about Anglicanorum coetibus I described how a former Anglican bishop, now incardinated as a presbyter into an ordinariate, would be entitled (if he petitioned for and were granted the jus pntificalium) to celebrate Mass. There has been a suggestion - not backed up with details - that the ritual activities I described were mainly those proper to a Bishop with Ordinary Jurisdiction; not those proper to a man simply vi consecrationis episcopalis. I am not in fact particularly well-read in the modern Caeremoniale Episcoporum, and I apologise if I have purveyed misinformation. I thought I was just describing how Mass could be celebrated by a bishop without jurisdiction; for example, a retired bishop or a bishop celebrating outside his own diocese. I have no desire that my overblown rhetoric should ride on the back of factual inaccuracies, and if readers can point out to me specifically where I went wrong and I find the correction convincing, I will promptly amend the post.
It has also been pointed out to me that Law is very anxious that the use of pontificals should be confined to those with quasi-episcopal jurisdiction. I was aware of this; indeed, it was my precise point (which I clearly failed to make very clearly). I'll try again: it is very remarkable that this established principle should be reversed in AC; as I said, there is no suggestion that an Ordinary qua Ordinary can ask for the jus pontificalium; the right to make this petition is available to those with no jurisdiction (apart from the normal presbyteral faculties) but possessing a sealed document certifying that they have been consecrated Bishop by the Archbishop of Canterbury (or whoever). This is so very singular ... and so very gracious ... that I cannot help wondering if came from the pen of the Church's Supreme Legislator himself.
It would be truly characteristic of this very great and immensely kind pontiff.
7 October 2010
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
The liturgical use of the cathedra or throne (including the customs associated with this mode of celebration) is reserved to the Ordinary celebrating within his own territory or a Cardinal celebrating outside Rome.
An Ordinary may concede the use of the throne to another Bishop but generally this is rare and by exception. This custom prevails in the EF but is also generally observed in the OF. The only non-episcopal celebrants who are currently granted this concession are Abbots and Prefects Apostolic when celebrating outside the territory of their jurisdiction.
All prelates (including Bishops) who are not Cardinals must have the permission of the Ordinary to celebrate pontifically (even at the faldstool) or to administer Confirmation within his territory. In the case of Confirmation, as with Penance and Marriage, the lack of this delegation of faculties can affect validity.
A correction to Mgr W above: A bishop does not need permission to confirm validly outside his own diocese. Permission is required only for lawfulness. See Canon 886.2.
I didn't mention sitting on the cathedra. The reason why I didn't mention it is that I was perfectly aware that this was confined to an Ordinary within his own jurisdiction. What I attempted to describe was what might be worn/done by a retired bishop or one ourside his own jurisdiction.
Incidentally, I have sometimes wondered whether the bishop of Megalopolis in partibus infidelium is allowed to use the cathedra if he happens to find himself in Megalopolis during his summer holiday.
And I showed my awareness of the fact that the priest concerned would have to have the 'direction' of the Ordinary (which would, of course, be the Ordinary of the Ordinariate) in order to pontificate.
With due respect to learned correspondents, I am not yet persuaded that I did perpetrate a factual inaccuracy.
Golly, Mgr. Wadworth must have a more up-to-date edition of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum (1984).
I cannot see any mention of faldstools in my copy.
I'm not quite sure what the wrangle here is all about?! It's quite obvious that a "former Anglican Bishop" may wear Pontificals irrespective of whatever jurisdiction he finds himself in IF his application to the Holy See to do so has been approved - I find nothing in the AC that suggests this isn't the case.
Said person is in no way to be regarded as a "Prelate" though of any kind - there is no indication in the AC that he is even to be addressed as "Monsignor" - it simply states that...
"Article 11 §4. A former Anglican Bishop who belongs to the Ordinariate and who has not been ordained as a bishop in the Catholic Church, may request permission from the Holy See TO USE the insignia of the episcopal office."
The above does not seem to imply any kind of Prelatial status, honorific or otherwise. Which is not to say that such persons may not individually be honored with a level of "Monsignori" status of some kind as a personal honour from the Pontiff, but the wording of the "Complimentary Norms" does not lend itself to be interpreted such that they automatically will or may be "Prelates of honour" or otherwise, simply (to use old parlance) they might be, "Mitred Priests".
My point is... that a former Anglican Bishop ordained priest in the Roman Catholic Church may apply to wear Episcopal insignia, but there is nothing suggesting that any such permission to do so granted by the Holy See may automatically imply that he is to be in anyway regarded/treated as a "Prelate". His ability to "Confirm" would require the Ordinary's permission (i.e. the Ordinary of the Ordinariate - be he a convert priest or bishop or former Anglican convert long since received into the Roman Church) the same as any priest may be given such faculty in a Roman jurisdiction. With reference to Fr Hunwicke's earlier descriptive posting therefore, ref the analogy of such a priest, as a former Anglican Bishop, wearing Episcopal insignia and being received as a "Prelate" to confirm or offer Mass, this does not seem to be implied or even hinted at, by the Norms of the Apostolic Constitution.
That's not to say it mightn't "work out" like that. But according to the "letter" of the current law, or at least the published Norms (even desiring an implied "spirit") - it might not necessarily be so.
The original post refers to 'deacons of honour' which implies a Mass at the throne in the EF as these ministers do not appear in other Pontifical forms of Mass. For this reason, I understood that a cathedra was implied. Modern pontifical rites do contain reference to the faldstool (often wrongly translated into English as 'chair').
Canon 886 §2 states: " To administer confirmation licitly in another diocese, a bishop needs at least the reasonably presumed permission of the diocesan bishop unless it concerns his own subjects." This confirms my assertion that permission should be sought. While the lack of this may not affect validity in the case of confirmation, in the case of penance and marriage it is certainly an issue for anyone below the rank of a cardinal.
In relation to confirmation, I can assure you that this requirement is observed very strictly in the UK as is the permission to pontificate. Most bishops or abbots will not accept an invitation to pontificate until such permission has been secured in writing.
" Modern pontifical rites do contain reference to the faldstool (often wrongly translated into English as 'chair')."
I must confess to having trouble finding this.
The 1984 Ceremonial of Bishops' second chapter discusses the celebration of Mass by bishops other than the Ordinary:
174. Episcopus, qui non est Ordinarius loci, celebrare potest utens cathedra et baculo, consentiente Episcopo diœcesano (cf. supra n. 47 et n. 59).
Cæremoniale Episcoporum, Cap. II, editio typica, Rome, 1984, p.52.
No mention of faldstool there. Delving a little deeper one finds in the 1968 reform of pontifical rites and insignia:
II. De Sede seu Cathedra Episcopi
13. Unica semper sit cathedra episcopalis; et in ea Episcopus sedeat qui celebrat aut celebrationi pontificaliter praeest. Ceteris vero Episcopis vel Praelatis forte praesentibus sedes paretur, loco convenienti,
quae tamen non sit ad modum cathedrae erecta.
Pontificales Ritus AAS 60 (1968) p. 409
So is the translation of sedes as 'faldstool' here a case of ICEL 'dynamic equivalence'? That seat of wisdom the 1600 edition of the Caeremoniale (and its successive editions) is littered, in the relevant chapters, with references to faldistorium not sedes.
Blimey, are we going to have to join this thing?
I've duly deleted the deacons of honour.
I think the suggestion that 'faldstool' is a dynamically equivalent translation of 'sedes' when it refers to a pontifical seat which is not the cathedra is excellent. I hope to locate the precise examples I had in mind in due course. The ICEL library is currently in boxes ready for a move to new premises tomorrow.
The modern Roman Pontifical texts for the Consecration of Chrism: 'De Oleorum Benedictione et de Chrismatis Consecratione' contain the following instruction by way of preparation of the sanctuary:
13. In presbyterio:
- mensa ad ampullas oleorum collocandas…
- faldistorium pro Episcopo, si benedictio ante altare fiat.
Good point, but I said I did not believe 'faldstool' was mentioned in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum.
For the consecration of chrism (which the Ordinary would celebrate) the C.E., referencing the rubric in the Pontificale to which you refer states:
278. b) - sedes pro Episcopo, si benedictio ante altare fiat.
Even for the Ordination rite the C.E. states:
499. Dicto Evangelio, incipit ordinatio diaconorum. Episcopus in cathedra vel ad sedem paratum sedet et accipit mitram.
Contextualising this discussion my point remains that the faldstool - dynamic equivalent translation or otherwise - is not used by auxilliary bishops, and certainly not by those not in Episcopal orders who have some right to use pontifical insignia. In the good old days of course there was the case of Protonotaries Apostolic de numero participantium and those of the second rank, supernumerarii, who could pontificate at the faldstool in a manner very similar to a non-Ordinary.
Just think, if you had been born fifty years earlier you might be celebrating sitting on a faldstool with a mitre!
This is not correct. My intention was to show that the faldstool apprears in a modern pontifical rite, which it does. Prefects Apostolic are ordinaries (while not being bishops), they use pontifical insignia and according to the Roman Pontifical may use the faldstool when consecrating the oils at the Chrism Mass.
Getting back to Fr. H's scenario which I took as a way to understand the generous intention that the Holy Father must have intended by recognizing former Anglican bishops, may I ask some questions which might not require EF of OF ceremonial regulation (I speak as not as a canonist or liturgical expert):
AC makes provision for the celebration of Mass and sacraments according to approved Anglican rites. Would these rites have to conform in ceremonial detail to EF or OF norms? Anglican Use rites and rubrics currently vary from both. Why then would it not be possible for an Anglican Ordinary to allow respected and recognized priests (former Anglican bishops) to celebrate Mass in the fashion described by Fr. H regardless of chairs? Eastern Rite Catholics seem to have different furniture that varies from place to place.
With the potential distances that Ordinaries might be required to travel in such places as Canada, Australia and the USA would it not be pastorally useful to have one or two senior priests who have been granted the dignity of episcopal insignia delegated authority to celebrate confirmation and Mass as a prelate in the way described? Aren’t regulations intended to serve the mission of the Church as it is incarnated in various situations – and this is a new one in many ways?
It would seem that an Anglican Ordinary would need to pay as much attention to Anglican patrimony and pastoral need as to other considerations. Is it clear that these finer points regarding ceremonial are strictly required under the generous provisions of AC as it may be interpreted in light of varying circumstances in different ordinariates?
I am not speaking of Anglican fudge here but of the need for pastoral provision. The Common Law (Patrimony?) principle of equity over-riding the letter of the law might be helpful in determining what is signified and how what is signified is to be celebrated in terms of sacrament and ceremonial.
Perhaps this is opening up the wider question of how the letter of Roman canon law and regulation is to be applied in jurisdictions which have a recognized patrimony including pastoral and common law understandings of how the Catholic Faith may be lived and celebrated within a distinct portion (be it particular, peculiar or patrimonial) of the Western Church.
It would seem to many of us that the spirit of AC intends that such honoured priests be allowed to celebrate Mass in an Anglican Ordinariate parish in an Anglican fashion similar to what had been their practice and the custom of the people they continue to serve.
Insignia are a sign of respect due to individuals who are servants within the Christian community. The intention of AC would appear prima facie to be generous and to offer welcome and encouragement to those who are looking for unity in the Faith not uniformity of ceremonial.
Frankly, in view of the historic opportunity offered to the Church and her mission is this not an opportune development in the extension of oversight through the ministry of those who have come into full communion as mature leaders? Could this be a response to the direction of the Holy Father that those in authority be generous?
Blessed J.H. Newman ora pro nobis.
The pastoral necessity of the administration of confirmation can be dealt with by the delegation of a priest to confirm (beyond the confirmation of adult candidates for baptism, reception into full communion or emergency confirmation in danger of death). When a priest confirms, no pontifical liturgical function is required.
You are, of course, accurate in your comment Msgr. My point was about the interpretation of the Holy Father's charge to be generous in the recognition of the gifts of those coming into full communion.
My questions were aimed at interpreting what would be permissible under AC in the recognition of the Anglican bishops coming over, not the minimum requirement of canon law.
If AC represents a first overture in the mission to gather in the fragments of the Reformation then there may have to be a number of ways to recognize those who make sacrifices for this unity. For example, Lutheran bishops coming into communion may need to be granted some recognition and allowances made for the confirmation of people by local pastors as is their practice.
Expecting everyone from Western churches seeking unity with the Holy See to conform in every detail to the current ceremonial of the Roman Rite may not be the most truly evangelical approach.
Isn't it acceptance of the Catholic Faith as laid out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which should be the primary focus in these endeavours?
I understand your concerns but with all respect, ceremonial custom and sacramental validity are quite different questions!
I don't think that either Fr. H or I was advocating the validity of Anglican orders in this context but simply imagining the recognition of ministry and service of former Anglican bishops who would be canonically ordained to the Catholic priesthood (whether conditionally or absolutely).
The AC provisions would appear to provide for both the recognition of ministry and respect for past service (hence the possible granting of symbolic tokens of authority) along with the possibility of delegating episcopal sacramental responsibility (as you point out is often done in the Latin Rite). All this would be done without the need for any reference to the thorny issue of the validity of Anglican episcopal orders.
AC seems to me to be patient of a very pastoral and evangelical interpretation which can bear fruit at the same time as the regularizing of orders is accomplished by ordination to the presbyterate in compliance with Roman canon law and ancient tradition. All this would be accomplished while respecting the celibacy rule for the episcopate as applied in both East and West.
Win, win, win, win.
I think we are basicially in agreement regarding the importance of the recognition of ministry. If you are not talking about the recognition of validity, what do you mean when you write: 'Lutheran bishops coming into communion may need to be granted some recognition and allowances made for the confirmation of people by local pastors as is their practice.'? Do you mean confirmation by former Lutherans after they have become Catholics and ordained to the priesthood? In which case there is no problem. Or do you mean the recognition of Lutheran confirmation administered by Lutheran pastors to Lutheran people who subsequently become Catholics?
All of this discussion I took to be regarding men who have had their orders regularized (ordained or conditionally ordained). That was Fr. H's starting point, I believe.
My additional point about Lutherans and others was really pastoral. How would it be possible to recognize newly ordained priests who have been Lutheran pastors and bishops so that their communities would see some continuity and validation of their baptismal life and ministry before reception into full communion with the Catholic Church?
This seems to me to be a critical feature of what AC is about and it may act as a prototype for future "gatherings" of Christians who are currently in partial or impaired communion.
Given that the Church teaches that all these folk are baptized (so long as the have been baptized with the trinitarian formula) then, as the Holy Father has urged, we need to do all we can to make them welcome and valued members of the household of Faith.
Symbolic recognition goes a long way in my experience. The simple presentation of a pectoral cross or the blessing of one which has been previously used by a Lutheran bishop (like the one the pope gave to Cantuar recently) or making some "prelates of honour" as was done in the case of Mgr Leonard (former Anglican bishop of London) would be very much in the spirit of AC and of what the Holy Father is directing us to in terms of "generosity". Romans 13.7
Post a Comment