Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-28T13:26:03.102Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Treasure to be Shared: Understanding Anglicanorum coetibus Walter Oxley and Ulrich Rhode SJ (eds) The Catholic University of America Press, Washington DC, 2022, xi + 182 pp (paperback $34.95), ISBN: 978-0-8132-3516-5

Review products

A Treasure to be Shared: Understanding Anglicanorum coetibus Walter Oxley and Ulrich Rhode SJ (eds) The Catholic University of America Press, Washington DC, 2022, xi + 182 pp (paperback $34.95), ISBN: 978-0-8132-3516-5

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2023

W Becket Soule*
Affiliation:
St Margaret of Scotland Catholic Church, Maggie Valley, North Carolina
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Book Review
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2023

This is half of the book that it ought to be. On the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the apostolic constitution Anglicanorum coetibus, an academic symposium in 2019 sponsored by the Pontifical Gregorian University and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and timed to coincide with the canonisation of John Henry Newman, tried to provide context to the document that established personal ordinariates for Anglicans coming into full communion with the Catholic Church. The book presents four papers on the historical, liturgical, canonical and ecumenical dimensions of that document.

The first, by Archbishop Augustine DiNoia OP, of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, traced the historical development of the Constitution from the 2007 signing of the Catechism of the Catholic Church by bishops of the Traditional Anglican Church (TAC) through the promulgation of Anglicanorum coetibus in 2009. With the exception of Pope Benedict XVI, however, no individual is named here, although, as a video of the TAC bishops signing the catechism is posted on YouTube, it would be easy enough to find out who they were. DiNoia also hints about objections to the document lodged both within and outside of the Roman Curia, but does not say what those objections were, or who made them.

The third paper was given by Hans-Jürgen Feulner from the University of Vienna on the liturgical development of the communities of the Ordinariates: this is a valuable summary of the several service books promulgated over the past decade. A tremendous amount of work went into drafting these books, and Feulner provides a rather detailed description of what went into each one. Unfortunately, he completely bypasses the question of whether the final product does violence to the integrity of both Anglican and Latin Catholic worship. The process assumed that bits and pieces of text and practice can be taken from the Sarum Rite, the Books of Common Prayer, different ‘Anglican’ Missals (begging the question of to what extent something like the English Missal can be called Anglican at all), the Tridentine Rite, various rites authorised after the second Vatican Council, and other original texts (which can usually be identified by their solecisms); when all of it is shaken and stirred, it is not always appealing. One collaborator is reported to have said that Anglicans, either present or former, cannot be trusted with identifying the Anglican patrimony, because they are ‘too close’ to it. The drafting process must certainly show what happens when people who are too far away from it try to identify the Anglican liturgical patrimony. I also find it astounding that anyone can discuss Anglican liturgy without mentioning music even once.

None of the papers engage with the non-liturgical parts of the Anglican patrimony: much of the Anglican patrimony of preaching, spiritual life, pastoral care, scriptural interpretation and law is consistent with Catholic faith because so much of the tradition predates the Reformation, and has preserved parts of Christian life and practice that have fallen apart in post-Reformation Catholicism.

The fourth paper by the late Monsignor Mark Langham, who served in Rome at the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity as head of the office for Anglican and Methodist relations, gave an ecumenical perspective, although most of it consisted of a critique of the rather fractured nature of Anglican doctrine and polity. This paper was valuable for its somewhat anecdotal presentation of how Anglicanorum coetibus was received after its promulgation. This presentation also was limited by the fact that it focused almost exclusively on the situation in England, to the exclusion of the other Ordinariates in the United States/Canada and Australia.

Almost half of this book is taken up with a canonical discussion by (now Cardinal) Gianfranco Ghirlanda SJ. It is here that the book most falls short. The presentation is very heavy on theory, with only occasional reference to how the canonical principles were being put into practice. For example, Ghirlanda notes that Anglicanorum coetibus identifies the ordinary's power as ‘vicarious’, but this would seem to forestall the rather anomalous situation of having the vicar of a vicar. In fact, the ordinaries do have vicars (and this reviewer was one). Ghirlanda issues a rather arrogant dismissal of all Anglican canon law, simply on the grounds that each Anglican Church is autonomous: as Anglicanism cannot speak with one voice, it does not deserve to be heard. Ghirlanda gives his opinion on what qualities an ordinary should have, and then notes in a footnote that the first bishop appointed for the Ordinariate in the United States and Canada ‘does not have any relation to Anglicanism,’ but says that this deficiency is overcome ‘by the will of the Holy See’, which is something that only a Jesuit can say with a straight face.

The principal issue Ghirlanda discusses is the relationship between a personal ordinariate and a diocese (or a ‘particular church’) on the one hand, and other non-diocesan entities on the other, such as personal prelatures, apostolic administrations, and those institutions which are called, somewhat confusingly, ‘ordinariates’. While he opines that a personal ordinariate is like the first, and is clearly distinct from the others, he is unable to give any authoritative text which says that a personal ordinariate is a particular church. Perhaps Ghirlanda's main source is Lewis Carroll: ‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’ ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master.’

Ultimately, this book does show, and not unreasonably, that the ordinariates are a work in progress, and no one, either in or outside the Roman Curia, can tell the whole story. As a former ordinary noted, examining the structure of the ordinariate is like watching a plane being built as it is taking off.