Talk:Anglicanorum Coetibus

Good English news source

{{cite news | url=http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/vatican-releases-rules-ex-anglicans-insists-no-change-celibacy | title= Vatican releases rules for ex-Anglicans, insists 'no change' on celibacy | last=Allen | first=John L. | publisher=[[National Catholic Reporter]] | date=2009-11-09 | accessdate=2009-11-09 | authorlink=John L. Allen, Jr.}}

Yes it's a blog but Allen is one of the best Catholic journalists in the world. For factual information it is fine. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Anglican Use

This is somewhat confusing, are the Anglican Use groups going to be part of this too? - Yorkshirian (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not a canon lawyer, however, based on my reading of the constitution and complimentary norms, I would think they could. From the constitution:

IX. the lay faithful ... originally part of the Anglican Communion, who wish to enter the Personal Ordinariate, must manifest this desire in writing.

From the norms:

Article 5 §1. The lay faithful originally of the Anglican tradition who wish to belong to the Ordinariate, after having made their Profession of Faith and received the Sacraments of Initiation, with due regard for Canon 845, are to be entered in the apposite register of the Ordinariate. Those baptized previously as Catholics outside the Ordinariate are not ordinarily eligible for membership, unless they are members of a family belonging to the Ordinariate.

The "originally" in both paragraphs suggests to me that those currently using the Anglican Use could be included in a personal ordinariate if they wish. Additionally, the restriction of those baptized into the Catholic Church shouldn't be a hinderance, as Anglican baptisms are valid, so Anglicans who have previously come into the church wouldn't have been re-baptized. Gentgeen (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The Anglican Use parishes all expect to join and even be a core of any new Anglican Ordinariate within the US. Indeed, some of the Anglican Use parishes are quite well established and therefore could provide the needed financial and institutional support to get an Anglican Ordinariate off the ground. It might be that the first Anglican Ordinariate to be created will be in the US because of this. However, the Pastoral Provision only applies to the US and so there was a need for some structure to accommodate the worldwide TAC and other interested groups outside the US. The Anglican Ordinariate can be seen as a natural extension of the Pastoral Provision and Anglican Use (a) across the globe and (b) into the future. The Pastoral Provision is after all a generation old and there was a growing question of what was to come next for the Anglican Use parishes now that they have established and proven themselves. --Bruce Hall (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Married Anglican bishops

It is a very odd situation that ordinariates (which have all administrative attributions of a bishop) can be simple priests. The reason why priests can be ordinariates is most probably that married Anglican bishops cannot be ordered as Catholic bishops, but this rule must not lead to the beheading of Anglican communities when their natural leader is married. Given the rules formulated by Anglicanorum Coetibus and the complementary norms, married Anglican bishops are given nearly all attributions of Catholic bishops, the only restriction being that they cannot consecrate priests (that can only be done by a full-fledged bishop). Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 07:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There are other cases where the ordinary of a particular church is a priest, but exercise the administrative functions of a bishop. The ordinaries of territorial prelatures, territorial abbeys, personal prelatures, and missions sui iuris can all be priests, as can diocesan administrators and apostolic administrators. In all cases, if the ordinary is not a bishop, he has to call in one to confer the sacrament of Holy Orders. The situation is not unique to the new personal ordinariates. Gentgeen (talk) 03:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Jargon?

Would whoever attached the tag complaining of too much jargon please be specific, so that we can attend to the matter. Technical language is unavoidable when dealing with technical matters, whether in physical sciences such as chemistry or in the legal questions of canon law. Esoglou (talk) 18:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Background

My understanding is that creation of the Anglican Ordinariates is a response from the Vatican to more than the request from the TAC. Others were certainly asking that question including Anglican Use Catholics, other Continuing Anglican groups, and members of the Anglican Communion? How do we include all of these streams? Currently the background section reads as if it is only a response to the TAC. However we do not want a very lengthy section especially since it is such a new decision and much of the background is not known yet.

What are some of the other groups outside of the TAC that have been in conversation with the Vatican?--Bruce Hall (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there really any doubt that the catalyst for the Holy See's decision was the formal request by the TAC? If the TAC had not formally requested full corporate union, do you think action would have been undertaken at this time? Did any other group of even loosely comparable size present a similar petition? Anglican groups with a similar attitude may also have been in mind when the document was drawn up, but what was of decisive weight was surely the TAC formal initiative. The TAC presented a concrete request that required a concrete answer. They got a concrete answer. Esoglou (talk) 18:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Personal ordinariate article

This shares much of the same information as in in the Personal ordinariate article. Do we need two articles? How do we make sure that they are not duplicate efforts? --Bruce Hall (talk) 17:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have replied on Talk:personal ordinariate. Esoglou (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. If non-Anglicans decide that they want to have a personal ordinariate as well, there will perhaps be a distinct document for them too. It is rather short-sighted to imagine that the initiative for personal ordinariates was conceived exclusively for Anglicans. ADM (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I too replied at Talk:personal ordinariate. --Bruce Hall (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Undo Redirect

Anglicanorum Coetibus is an apostolic constitution of the Holy See. As a major official document of the pontificate of Benedict XVI, it certainly meets the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Perhaps the previous article that was located at Anglicanorum Coetibus dealt more with the personal ordinariates than with the apostolic constitution itself. Perhaps its content should have been merged. However, there should be a article on the apostolic constitution itself, and editors should be careful to exclude information on the implementation of the personal ordinariates. If you're going to merge Anglicanorum Coetibus into Personal ordinariate, then according to the same logic, Summorum Pontificum should be merged into Tridentine Mass, and Humanae Vitae should be merged into birth control. Editors should removed content (especially speculative content) on the Anglican ordinariates from the article on the apostolic constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, but still, we need to have an article on the apostolic constitution itself at the appropriate namespace. I will leave this here for a few days for comments. The text of the article I proposed can be found here [1]. 5-HT₈ (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

See also my comment at: Talk:Personal_ordinariate#Scope_of_article 5-HT₈ (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

As it's been a month, and no one has raised any concerns or objections, I'm going to go ahead and proceed with the aforementioned changes. It will require consistent editing to keep speculative content on the Anglican ordinariates out of both articles, but that's what we're all here for. If anyone wants to discuss things further, I'd be happy to do so on either talk page. Thanks! 5-HT₈ (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I have confidence that you will do a good job, and that you will prevent the two pages returning to having almost exactly the same text, as before. I suggest that the structure of the personal ordinariates (though these do not as yet have concrete existence) be left in the personal ordinariate page, which will then not need to be completely rewritten when (and if?) they are in fact set up. It is certainly possible that these ordinariates will be very few, since it has been commented very recently that most of those interested have an ecclesiology very distant from that of the Church they propose to join, and the bishops conferences may judge that in several cases setting up such a structure for them would be inappropriate. But that is mere speculation, with which we are free to indulge ourselves on a Talk page, but not in the article itself.

I wrote the above before looking up the text to which you have given a link above. The fact that I had forgotten it is a sign that when I read it last month, it raised no objection in my mind. Esoglou (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)