Anglican Ordinariate? I am a Roman Catholic, practicing my faith in a Maronite Catholic Church. Although it is not widely known in our Western world, the Catholic Church is actually a communion of Churches. According to the Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, the Catholic Church is understood to be "a corporate body of Churches," united with the Pope of Rome, who serves as the guardian of unity (LG, no. 23). At present there are 22 Churches that comprise the Catholic Church. The new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, uses the phrase "autonomous ritual Churches" to describe these various Churches (canon 112). Each Church has its own hierarchy, spirituality, and theological perspective. Because of the particularities of history, there is only one Western Catholic Church, while there are 21 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Western Church, known officially as the Latin Church, is the largest of the Catholic Churches. It is immediately subject to the Roman Pontiff as Patriarch of the West. The Eastern Catholic Churches are each led by a Patriarch, Major Archbishop, or Metropolitan, who governs their Church together with a synod of bishops. Through the Congregation for Oriental Churches, the Roman Pontiff works to assure the health and well-being of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
While this diversity within the one Catholic Church can appear confusing at first, it in no way compromises the Church's unity. In a certain sense, it is a reflection of the mystery of the Trinity. Just as God is three Persons, yet one God, so the Church is 22 Churches, yet one Church.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes this nicely:
"From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them... Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions. The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity" (CCC no. 814).
Although there are 22 Churches, there are only eight "Rites" that are used among them. A Rite is a "liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony," (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 28). "Rite" best refers to the liturgical and disciplinary traditions used in celebrating the sacraments. Many Eastern Catholic Churches use the same Rite, although they are distinct autonomous Churches. For example, the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church are distinct Churches with their own hierarchies. Yet they both use the Byzantine Rite.
To learn more about the "two lungs" of the Catholic Church, visit this link:
The Vatican II Council declared that "all should realize it is of supreme importance to understand, venerate, preserve, and foster the exceedingly rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern churches, in order faithfully to preserve the fullness of Christian tradition" (Unitatis Redintegrato, 15).
A Roman rite Catholic may attend any Eastern (or Anglican Rite) Catholic Liturgy and fulfill his or her obligations at any Eastern Catholic Parish. A Roman rite Catholic may join any Eastern Catholic Parish and receive any sacrament from an Eastern Catholic priest, since all belong to the Catholic Church as a whole. I am a Roman Catholic practicing my faith at a Maronite Catholic Church. Like the Chaldeans, the Maronites retain Aramaic for the Consecration. It is as close as one comes to being at the Last Supper.
This is rather long. I apologize. A lot of things came into my head as I was typing and I wanted to get them out. Given how much I respect your knowledge and opinion I figured it was worth diving into these things. I went ahead and posted it publicly in case anyone else wanted to chime in or in the hopes that others may benefit from our discussion. Most of this is not directly relevant to the article posted above. I apologize.
No, we are not an Anglican Ordinariate. At least not that I am aware, and I think that’s something that would be pretty clear. I’m in the Fort Worth diocese, apparently known best for Bishop Iker and his ongoing tussle with PB Schori. We’re amongst the masses that decided we had tolerated enough of the nonsense of the Episcopal Church of the USA and realigned under the Province of the Southern Cone and are affiliated with the ACNA.
Long story short, I don’t know what it means for the future of our parish and our diocese, but I know where I stand. And I know what I believe.
I believe you provided me with a long and in-depth link regarding ecumenism and similar material, and I was supposed to get back to you on it. I don’t think I ever did. Honestly, it was way over my head and I am still trying to make sense of all of it. The material in your post, the one to which I am responding, is much more manageable for my limited experience. Even still, I’m not sure how it applies to me.
As comes up in many of the Catholic Caucus threads, and elsewhere, I consider myself a staunch supporter of the Roman Catholic Church and all such Catholic churches, including the Orthodox traditions. It just happens that I was Baptized and Confirmed by Anglican clergy rather than Roman Rite. I don’t know what the situation is with our diocese or parish and the Ordinariate thing that’s going on, or the apparent mass migration of many Anglicans. What I do know is that I have never been so sure of a person’s dedication to God, Christ, the Church and the Word as I am of Bishop Iker and Fr. Reed. If they swim the Tiber- I believe that’s the saying- then I guess I will too. If they don’t we’ll just have to see what God has in store for me.
To this day I struggle with the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion. I don’t consider the history of the Anglican Church to be spotless or without its faults, especially considering the popular notion of why there IS an Anglican Church. But I also know the Church in general, including all its many parts, has hiccups throughout history. More to the point, I struggle with what the history of our Church means for ME and my relationship to the many parts. And frankly, I never expect to get a satisfactory resolution to my problem. So, instead, I just do the best I can.
I was aware of the idea that all those many parts comprise the “Catholic Church,” especially given that Catholic is a fancy word for “universal,” or something to that effect. I also know that the Anglican Communion was born out of the culture of schismatic thought that was so prevalent during the era of the reformation.
Still, I’m always stuck on the issue of “Apostolic Succession” and what it means for ME in regards to taking the Eucharist at any given Mass. Obviously I recognize our clergy and their Holy Orders. Obviously I recognize our liturgy. And obviously I believe that the consecration of the Host is valid. If I didn’t recognize these things then I would be wrong to take Eucharist at our parish and to have been Baptized, Confirmed and Married there. So, how do I reconcile this with the idea that only those Baptized by clergy within the line of Apostolic Succession may take Eucharist at Roman Catholic (and other such) Mass? In theory, I should be just fine to take Communion. Of course, that’s not the popular thought amongst many Roman Catholics I know, so out of respect I politely refrain from taking the Eucharist.
Right now that’s not a big issue. It doesn’t matter so much if I refrain from taking Communion at a Roman Catholic Church, since I almost never find myself attending Mass at a Roman rite parish. I live within walking distance of the parish, so I have a convenient place to attend Mass. The problem I will face comes in my near future, as I will be joining the Army and have no idea if I will be stationed somewhere with reliable access to a parish in communion with the ACNA or the Anglican Communion. I refuse to attend Mass at an Episcopal Church as I cannot abide the heresy PB Schori is implementing. I guess my views on this would border on Donatism (something I only recently learned of), but I cannot conceive of attending Mass in a church that supports the claim that Christ’s divinity is “irrelevant” and welcomes any and every challenge to the teachings of the Church.
So where do I go? If there is an ACNA parish nearby then I’m set. If there’s not then I am left with few options. I’ll gladly attend Mass at a Roman Catholic parish, but the problem of taking the Eucharist arises. My views on the Apostolic Succession issue don’t outweigh my driving need to respect the traditions and wishes of the Roman Catholic Church- that is to say that I should not take the Eucharist there because I was not Baptized by RCC clergy. Maybe I missed something important that you said, maybe I’m safe to take it for all the reasons I listed. You’ll have to correct me if I have this wrong. But my understanding of the matter is sorely weighed down by years of an outsider’s understanding.
Regardless, I go back to what I said in my original post. As someone who is not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, who was not Baptized or Confirmed by RCC clergy, and is newly entered in a non-RCC Catholic tradition, it boggles my mind that I have a greater respect for the traditions of the Church than an actual priest.
Sorry this was so long. I’m verbose and have a lot on my mind.