Anglican Catholics

The news that 100 traditional Anglican parishes in America are joining the Ordinariate is yet another indication that Pope Benedict’s scheme is beginning to take off, and it led me to a recent speech by Bishop Peter Elliott, Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne, who helped persuade the Australian branch of Forward in Faith to vote to convert en masse.

Bishop Elliott is a world-renowned liturgist whose work is admired by the Pope. “The Anglo-Catholic”, a traditionalist US website, has the text of his address to FiF Australia, and I learned more from it about the Ordinariate than I have from any other non-papal document.

Including this rather startling fact: according to Bishop Elliott, members of the Ordinariate are perfectly entitled to call themselves “Anglican Catholics”. Here’s the reference:

… while legally being Catholics of the Roman Rite (i.e. “Roman Catholics”), the distinctiveness of the Anglican patrimony — which is much more comprehensive than mere liturgical deviations from the norms of the Latin Rite — will truly justify the appellation “Anglican Catholic” for our people.

Anglican Catholic? You don’t find that term being bandied about by the Bishops of England and Wales, so desperately afraid are they not to upset their Anglican counterparts. Is Bishop Elliott basing his observation on any precedent? Yes, he is: that of Cardinal William Levada, head of the CDF, who referred to “Anglican Catholics” in January when he quoted TAC Archbishop John Hepworth’s initial letter to Rome.

I urge anyone interested to read the full text of Bishop Elliott’s talk, which emphasies the generosity and possibilities of the Ordinariate in a way that our timid hierarchy has not done. More on this subject later. Meanwhile, I must say I rather like the idea of Rome appropriating the word “Anglican”; it makes up for Protestants calling themselves Catholics. (Damian Thompson)

The Bishop clarifies:

I have had a friendly letter from Bishop Peter Elliott of Melbourne pointing out that the term “Anglican Catholic”, which I ascribed to him, was actually part of a commentary by someone else woven into his speech on “the Anglo-Catholic” website. Does this leave me with egg on my face? Yes, it most certainly does – although I could throttle the author of the website for not making sufficiently clear what was and wasn’t commentary. Anyway, here is the bishop’s letter, which I urge you to read carefully, followed by the unedited text of his address. I apologise to him for the embarrassment I must have caused. He is an inspiring bishop; what I wouldn’t give to have his equivalent over here.

Dear Damian

First of all thank you for your sterling work in promoting the Ordinariate Project.

However, in an article sent to me yesterday you quote me as saying that members of the Ordinariate can call themselves “Anglican Catholics”. In fact I did not say that in the paper I gave on February 13th. Those words form part of a commentary on my paper, interspersed through my text, by the man in charge of the “Anglo Catholic” website in the United States.

The terms are an inference he may wish to make, but for the record, this is not something I said in my original text, which I attach.

My paper was dealing with the essentials of the new structure. Currently “Anglican Catholics” a term used by themselves to described those Anglo Catholics who take a pro-papal stance. This term may survive to describe members of the Ordinariate, but at this stage, it is too premature to say what language will be used.

Your promotion of the Ordinariate is much appreciated, especially to dispel misunderstandings about the generous provisions made by our Holy Father.

In Dno.

Most Rev Peter J Elliott

Titular Bishop of Manaccenser

Auxiliary Bishop, Melbourne