In fact, the chaplain for Catholic Answers is an Anglican priest who converted[2]. I find the segments where he’s on quite interesting. Many people are surprised to learn that there are Catholic priests who are married with children!
I'm confused because it does seem somehow officially okay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_Ordinariate_of_the_Ch...
[1] https://canonlawmadeeasy.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/are-they-r...
However, there is no rule that this is the case. Any man can be ordained a priest or bishop, married or not.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacerdotalis_caelibatus
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_celibacy_in_the_Catho...
Married priests (that is, people who are priests and simultaneously are married) are and always have been fine with Rome. But, since about the 14th Century, (as a measure to address a number of scandals that were occurring that had the common theme of married priests favoring, or being seen to favor, their family over their clerical duties) it has normally been impossible for new married priests to come to exist in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church, since priests have never been allowed to get* married in the Catholic Church, and, as a matter of discipline (not a doctrinal rule) married men have since then not been regularly ordained priests in the Latin Rite (though they continue to be in the Eastern Rite particular churches that are in union with Rome, of which there are more now than there were when the Latin Rite adopted the celibacy discipline.)
But, because this is a discipline and not a doctrinal rule about the validity of the sacrament, exceptions can be and have been granted; one of the more common ones is that married who have been ordained as priests in the Espicopal Church convert to Catholicism, they are generally permitted to be ordained as priests (after the usual preparation) in the Latin Rite despite being married.
* The rule was first stated by a Pope then, but not adopted in the form of canon law until quite a while later (apparently, the 1917 Code of Canon Law), but was accepted as the practical norm prior to that formal adoption, so its hard to date precisely.
And yes, I’ve read Lumen Gentium, Ut Unum Sint, Unitatis Redintegratio, etc., so I know that the current position of the Vatican is somewhat more nuanced than it used to be w/r/t the grace operative among those ecclesial bodies deemed to be in “impaired communion” with Rome. There is an acknowledgement that grace (perhaps even salvific grace) is present in the sacramental acts of non-Roman and non-Orthodox churches, but it’s never really clarified what, exactly, that would mean from an ecumenical standpoint. Nonetheless, the situation doesn’t seem to have developed much since Apostolicae Curae: Anglican orders remain “absolutely null and utterly void” in the eyes of Rome. I think there are serious theological flaws with that bull, and those flaws are reified in the handling of Anglicans entering the Roman communion under the Ordinariate. It seems fundamentally anti-ecumenical. (And, I would note, there’s no reason why these ordinations couldn’t be conferred conditionally; there are at least a couple of examples of Anglicans priests—such as Fr. John Jay Hughes—who were so ordained.)
After much research and prayer, I remain convinced that my orders are valid, and I cannot in good conscience consent to the repetition of two sacraments of character (namely, confirmation and ordination). I don’t begrudge anyone who examines the case and arrives at a different conclusion, who feels that the imperative of full and visible unity outweighs the qualms that I have. The situation in the Church generally is such a mess these days that we all have to pray, think, and hope for the best.
So, that’s the major issue. Beyond that, I have some objections to a few of the papal claims. Plus, I’m not convinced there is much of a future for the Ordinariate. I’ll be surprised if it makes it a full generation before it disappears or is effectively suppressed, as the TLM communities have been. Maybe I’m wrong about that, but I’ve gotten that sense from conversations with folks in the Ordinariate (including folks who are close to the hierarchy).
I can see where you're coming from and I bet I'd feel the same if I were in your shoes. I'm just a lay Catholic who likes to read, but I also can't see any reason a conditional conferral of those sacraments should be a problem. Of course as a somewhat educated lay Catholic I'm obliged to believe what the Church teaches with respect to Anglican orders, but as you say I think there's some nuance there and I don't claim to understand the theological technicalities. Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that we both believe Apostolic succession is of vital importance to the Church that Jesus personally founded and that we're both members of.
I would however urge you to never view your current ministry as in any respect a sham, regardless of where God guides you. I do believe that some of the goofier Episcopalians are playing Church, especially the ones ordaining women and otherwise going all in on scandal of various sorts, but that's not you. Obviously I don't know you, but based on charity and your other comments I'm inclined to believe that God has conferred real and significant graces on you to aid in your ministry.
> After much research and prayer, I remain convinced that my orders are valid, and I cannot in good conscience consent to the repetition of two sacraments of character (namely, confirmation and ordination).
Given those conditions, your position is entirely theologically sound to my understanding and I wouldn't dream of telling you to go against your conscience. I'm no apologist so I won't try to change your mind, but know that I'll pray for you and that I wish you the most successful possible ministry. I'll also pray that the Catholic hierarchy understands and properly addresses the concerns you have and share with many other Anglicans.
> Beyond that, I have some objections to a few of the papal claims
There's a fair bit the various Popes have said that I also disagree with where I'm free to do so.
> Plus, I’m not convinced there is much of a future for the Ordinariate. I’ll be surprised if it makes it a full generation before it disappears or is effectively suppressed, as the TLM communities have been.
Yes, the current Pope's desire to enforce uniformity at the expense of unity strikes me as grossly imprudent and a huge step back from the achievements of his two immediate predecessors. It would appear that some of the hierarchy have a paranoid fantasy of sedevacantists hiding behind every copy of the 1962 Roman missal. All I can do is pray for him and them and accept that perhaps they have knowledge that I don't that makes these apparently wrong decisions make sense. But in any event, popes come and go—it's the magisterium that endures. That's not to dismiss the reality that the successor of Peter is the visible head of the Church, but I'm confident that Latin will not only retain its place in the Latin rite, but its role will continue to grow, by the grace of God.
I'm a little surprised that the Ordinariate is getting caught up in that panic though. It's indisputable that no Anglican seeking communion with Rome can possibly be a sedevacantist. Similarly I'm not aware of any movement to suppress any of the eastern rites. But there's much that I'm not aware of, so take that with a grain of salt.
God bless you.
Honestly, I do understand where Rome is coming from on this question. There is a sufficient diversity in Anglican sacramental theology regarding the priesthood that it probably makes sense from Rome's side of the table to insist upon ordination de novo for every Anglican priest coming over. It saves the trouble of having to conduct an investigation of the circumstances of every Anglican ordination. Plus, with some of the changes in the Episcopal Church and the Church of England in the past fifty years, I do think there are valid questions (no pun intended) about the status of some of those ordinations. (I'm in a jurisdiction that has, thankfully, avoided those problems.) I just wish there was some flexibility in making a determination about whether or not a conditional ordination is warranted in some cases.
>Nevertheless, I think it's fair to say that we both believe Apostolic succession is of vital importance to the Church that Jesus personally founded and that we're both members of.
Absolutely. And it's a mark of real ecumenical progress over the past century that we can affirm that we are indeed both members of the Church that Christ founded--even if we're in a state of imperfect communion.
>I'm no apologist so I won't try to change your mind, but know that I'll pray for you and that I wish you the most successful possible ministry.
I truly appreciate your prayers and your kind and charitable comments. Be assured of my prayers as well. I wish more of these conversations went this way rather than devolving into opportunities to score argumentative points, which often seems to happen. As I've gotten older, I've come to appreciate more and more the fact that we're probably approaching a point where many of the less-significant divisions among "small-c catholics" (i.e., orthodox Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, etc.) will fade away as we lose the luxury of clinging to what separates us. And I do believe the Petrine See will necessarily play an essential role in the future unity of the Church, whatever that looks like.
I do hope that the Ordinariate continues to exist and to thrive. The Anglican patrimony has much to offer Rome, and the Roman tradition has much to offer in terms of correcting Anglicanism and bringing it back into the historical mainstream of the Western Catholic tradition. I'm convinced that tradition was never lost in Anglicanism; it simply became somewhat submerged (which Unitatis Redintegratio 13 acknowledges).
A prayer from the 1928 Book of Common Prayer (American) that I often pray: "O God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, our only Saviour, the Prince of Peace; Give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions. Take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatsoever else may hinder us from godly union and concord: that as there is but one Body and one Spirit, and one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may be all of one heart and of one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify thee; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."
That line about "lay[ing] to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions" always strikes me. May those unhappy divisions cease. Thanks again for a good conversation. And God bless you, too!
More seriously, I think there is still hope for a full reunification. The Miaphysite heresy was resolved in 1990 after 1549 years. The Great Schism could go another 500 on that track record, and the protestants another 1000. At the rate things are going though, most denominations will just disappear from evaporation and increasingly lax doctrine long before that.
Curious about this statement. Are you saying that doctrinal purity is required? I would have thought that Anglicanism especially tolerated an incredibly wide set of viewpoints. I still recall a one time Bishop of Durham saying that we had no right to insist on the veracity of the Virgin Birth. Is doctrinal laxity something measurable or simply a complaint the orthodox make when their fellow believers have moved away from them but are simply in the process of coalescing around a new set of principles?
To much purity and the religion faces a "no true scotsman" decline resulting in schisms and deconversion
To little, and it becomes too diluted to hold any significance.
The way a religious macromeme manages the level of purity in an evolving social environment is natural selection at work.
Sure, I would agree with that wholeheartedly. Just based off of previous experience I've had on here mentioning any facet of religion, has resulted in an overwhelmingly negative outcome, to the point of irrationality. The context was in how to get a desired outcome without resorting to legal action[1], I thought it was fairly innocuous. I wasn't exactly exposing "You need to think like I do on XYZ.", but there was a bizarre sort of backlash that resulted.
If I had to guess, perhaps the commenting audience that article drew in was a bit less welcoming than this one? However, I did see a few flame-y comments in here as well, that got greyed out. It's hard to really get a feel for the general audience on this site. It's not a Christian forum, but it's also not /r/atheism, either.
Overall, I'm just glad when I see responses that aren't purposefully malicious, you know? It's much easier to be mean to people than to be nice. It was refreshing to see people be nice to one another, even though they disagree on so many issues.
But what I meant by that particular comment was that there was a fitting consonance between using bread whose proceeds went toward helping those in need and the works of love and mercy to which the Eucharistic Lord calls us.
Edit: And I certainly didn’t read any dunking into your question! Anglican Eucharistic theology is sort of all over the place. The vast majority of Anglicans adhere to some understanding of the Real Presence (and the Anglican theological tradition has generally tended to exclude memorialist understandings of the Eucharist, fwiw). I tend to have a very “Anglo-Catholic” sacramental theology.