But then I was side-tracked by one of his sentences:
"Not everything is fully accepted — there are no signs of married laymen being presented for ordination — but there are interesting aspects to governance that have clear Anglican precedents."So if the Catholic church is not ordaining "married laymen" - then what does he think it is doing when ordaining people who are priests in the Church of England?
Anyway, back to the ecumenical instrument. There's no mention of it in the article, which is a bit dispiriting. But I suspect it's an ocarina. That's a truly ecumenical instrument. Nobody likes it.
It is interesting that the practice of (generally) ordaining married men only if they were previously 'ordained' elsewhere predates Vatican II and its recognition that some Catholic gifts are still found in separated communities. What was the theological justification in the 1950s I wonder?
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, it is best not to ask Ordinariate clergy too many questions about their acceptance of the "absolutely null and utterly void" character of their previous orders.
ReplyDeleteUnless, of course, you particularly wish to create a situation of social embarrassment.
If anyone's *really* interested you can read the text at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apc_20091104_anglicanorum-coetibus_en.html
ReplyDeleteThe bit about ordination is VII. Mgr Burnham's talking about people who were Anglican laymen; the document speaks of 'Anglican bishops, priests & deacons, viz. Fr Will's point.
Sorry - my comments on this blog are getting rather pedantic and boring! I'm trying to think of a suitable Ecumenical Instrument: something about Gracie Fields taking her harp to a party and nobody asking her to play..?
Apols - bit re marriage is VI. I really should get out more.
Delete