Talk:Personal ordinariate

Christianity: Catholicism / Anglicanism Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Mid-importance).

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[particular Church#autonomous particular Churches or Rites|particular church]]

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Personal Ordinariates not exclusive to Anglican Ordinariates

The personal ordinariate is a canonical structure that already existed in the catholic church, and was applied to use for these disaffected anglicans. This article makes it sound as if the only Personal Ordinariates are the Anglican Ordinariates, but this is not so... the most common form are the Miltiary Ordinariates, which govern the chaplaincies for military personel in each country. If this is going to be about 'personal ordinariate' it should define what that is in general, then give more information on the two common types: Anglican and Miltiary. 95.227.111.12 (talk) 16:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church

Apart from the Traditional Anglican Communion, the article should really consider verifying whether groups such as the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church have ever sought a similar canonical structure to the proposed personal ordinariates. ADM (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article's references were called to my attention as Metropolitan (Primate) of the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church (ALCC) by Bishop Edward Steele, the ALCC's Director of the Office for the Doctrine of the Faith, as seriously misrepresenting the ALCC, and having the potential to severly damage the ALCC's efforts to simply become a part of the Roman Catholic Church, to enter the Roman Catholic Church as a Priestly Society (or whichever form the Vatican deems appropriate.)

Accordingly, rather than argue these points on this article on the Personal ordinariate, I have simply removed (by editing) the references to the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church, making no other modifications or changes to the article.

The full text of the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church's formal petition to enter the Roman Catholic Church which was filed in May of 2009, Is actually posted online on the following website (http://www.stmichaelsalcc.org at the bottom of the "News" page ( http://www.stmichaelsalcc.org/News.dsp) and as you will see when you read it, the ALCC is not, repeat not interested in entering the Catholic Church in a form similar to that of the Eastern Catholic Churches. It just wants to do its part in "un-doing the Reformation" and come home to the Roman Catholic Church. When you read the text of the ALCC's petition on the above-referenced website, you will see that it asks for help in finding a way for the ALCC as a Priestly Society (like the Priestly Society of St. Peter or those elements of the SSPX which have returned to the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church.)

The Position Paper on the Papacy on the website of Christ Lutheran Church ALCC is many years old, was withdrawn by the ALCC years ago, and is no longer the position of the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church or of any elements within it. Accordingly, I have ordered the removal of that position paper from Christ Lutheran Church's website.

You will find the ALCC's official positions on the above-referenced website (http://wwwlstmichaelsalcc.org / http://www.stmichaelsalcc.org/News.dsp , and on the ALCC's official national website, http://www.anglolutherancatholic.org, the section, More Frequently Asked Questions (http://www.anglolutherancatholic.org/ALCC/page46/page46.html) which is an official document stating the current position of the ALCC states the following about the Papacy: "How is the ALCC different from the Old Catholics and Independent Catholics? Unlike Old Catholics, the ALCC accepts and enthusiastically proclaims the doctrines of Papal Primacy, Papal Infallibility, and the teachings about the Blessed Virgin Mary proclaimed by the First Vatican Council." It continues (on http://www.anglolutherancatholic.org/ALCC/page46/page46.html): "Then why doesn't the ALCC simply join the Roman Catholic Church? The ALCC is actively working on just that, and is making excellent progress toward that goal. But this takes time. Visible, corporate union with the Roman Catholic Church in whatever form is deemed appropriate by the Pope, bringing along as many other Lutherans and Lutheran Churches as possible along with it is the ALCC's apostolate and goal." Gladfelteri (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for that very interesting explanation. ADM is no longer available to give a response. Esoglou (talk) 17: 12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Additionally, on the "News" page of the following website (http://www.stmichaelsalcc.org/News.dsp) at the bottom of the page is the following under the heading of "The Mandatum": "The Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church requires all its Bishops, Priests, and Deacons to sign the following enhanced version of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishop's Mandatum: "I hereby declare my role and responsibility as a Deacon [ ] Priest [ ] Bishop [ ] of the Church. Therefore I am committed to teaching Catholic doctrine and to refrain from preaching, teaching, writing, or publishing anything contrary to the Magisterium." Gladfelteri (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Anglicanorum Coetibus article

This shares much of the same information as in in the Anglicanorum Coetibus article. Do we need two articles? How do we make sure that they are not duplicate efforts? --Bruce Hall (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My honest opinion is that the only article that should be kept is this one on the (future) reality that the document is about. The reality is what counts. An article on the document as such would properly be about its length, title, date, language etc., matters of limited general interest. If the "Anglicanorum coetibus/Personal ordinariate for former Anglicans" initiative is successful, the reality will remain and develop, and may well undergo adjustments praeter and even contra what is in the document (i.e. introducing matters not envisaged in the document or even making changes contrary to the provisions of the original document). The document will be remembered as simply something that in history served to start it all and as such deserving of a mention in the "History" section of an article on the ordinariates.

I regret that a very active editor (at no point, I think, involved in this particular question) carried out a few months ago a rather extensive campaign of removing from Wikipedia articles on religious affairs material that spoke of directives given in Church documents and using that material to create new articles on each of the documents. In my opinion the chief result of that was to impoverish the main article and to complicate study of the subject. So here too I think that the Anglicanorum coetibus article should be no more than this: "An apostolic constitution of such-and-such a date authorizing the establishment of personal ordinariates for former Anglicans."

Note that I am here anticipating what I think is likely to be the name given to this particular class of ordinariates when (and if) they come to be. (I believe they will come to be, but will remain rather small.) But for now it may be best to keep the present Wikipedia title for the article.

Other editors supported the initiator of articles on documents composed of material removed from articles on the subjects of the documents. I realize that the same attitude may prevail here also. Esoglou (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Esoglou. Put simply, the document itself really shouldn't have an article unless it is significant for being a document. If its only notability is established by its content, then point to what was written about. I guess the one concession is for a redirect for Anglicanorum Coetibus to this page :D. 118.90.111.248 (talk) 07:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You may be correct, but your answer has nothing to do with Wikipedia! The issue of having a separate page is not a question of canon law (I am not a canon lawyer). See WP:CRYSTAL aka WP:NOT (we're not here to speculate on future developments in canon law, even if its not explicit.). Until the time we need separate articles, I think the two articles should be combined ("how" is not material: stick the AC stuff in its own section...). For the present time, the two topics have one-to-one correspondence in terms of subject matter (namely to do with former Anglicans wishing to become Roman Catholics). [ CD-ROM is an example: CD drives only exist alongside the discs themselves. I admit there are separate articles, but only because they are so long, and are still treated in the main article.] The article split can occur when it needs to in the future. 118.90.90.9 (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Esoglou. The document itself is really not significant. It is in its implementation that it will be fleshed out. The Ordinariates are what are (or will be important). This can be seen in the fact that Anglicanorum Coetibus was released simultaenously with the Complementary Norms, media interviews and other information. Anglicanorum Coetibus is not the complete story. Some things will only become clear with implementation, such as how many married priests there will be. Will others beside Anglicans also set up Ordinariates? A very good question, appropriate for a discussion of Personal Ordinariates, but Anglicanorum Coetibus only applies to Anglicans as the title makes clear. Perhaps redirecting Anglicanorum Coetibus to this page is the easiest solution. That would tie the two articles closely together. I doubt many will be searching for Anglicanorum Coetibus without also be interested in all full context and consequences. --Bruce Hall (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Personal ordinariate" is the generic term (or "genus" in logic) used in speaking collectively of all the various organs or parts through which a Catholic ordinary exercises authority (as, for example, in military ordinariates). In dropping the modifier "Anglican" you make no distinctions concerning the term "personal ordinariate" (which encompasses ALL ordinariates) for the sake of clarification.In other words, you are making "personal ordinariate" SYNONYMOUS with the "Anglican Ordinariate," as if the generic term "personal ordinariate" applies ONLY to an ordinariate created for Anglicans. That is simply poor logic. Not bright!Prattlement (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree in principle, and I have been expecting that, when the ordinariates in question are up and running, a specification would be added. Until then, we must keep to what the official documents say. "Anglican" I do not see as a possible specification: the ordinariates will be (Roman and Latin) Catholic, not Anglican. Indeed, your suggestion of "Anglican ordinariate" as a name for the structures makes me think that, contrary to what I have until now been expecting, it is quite possible, even likely, that "personal ordinariate" will continue to be the official term. (The structure indicated for what as yet are officially called simply "personal prelatures" is different from that of "military ordinariates"). As "personal prelature" is used as a generic term, without any specification such as "for Opus Dei", so "personal ordinariate" could well continue to be used as a generic term, without any specification such as "for former Anglicans". If the new entities survive, they will in time include many faithful who have been born and baptized within them and have never been Anglicans. Esoglou (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources for definitions

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Would the editor who has added a complaint about information in this article being based on primary sources please explain in what way he or she views this Wikipedia rule as violated by referring the reader to the official documents that created the new entity of the personal ordinariate for former Anglicans for information on what the new entity is? Esoglou (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is link to in the box. Spshu (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is linked to in the box states: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." In what way do you think the article violates this Wikipedia rule? What is there in the article that you, as an educated person, cannot verify as supported by the sources? Esoglou (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First thing it says is "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." & " Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." Meaning that you should use nonprimary sources first and foremost. About 95% of source are from the Roman Catholic Church or blogs. Spshu (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you should use secondary sources first and foremost, if they are available, rather than primary or tertiary sources. If reliable published secondary sources are not available, then we may and should use reliable published tertiary and, with the proviso that Wikipedia indicates, primary sources. Wikipedia explicitly allows the use of primary sources "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source." Can you point to any concrete statement in the article that is not covered by that Wikipedia rule, so that we may eliminate it? Esoglou (talk) 19:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I set the example of removing primary source references for you. Then you in effect reverse my work and slap back the primary sources with some more primary sources. Then you want me to talk about it!! I already stated the WP policy. Spshu (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your contention about the use of primary sources has been unanimously rejected by other editors (see below). Esoglou (talk) 19:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unanimous means I agree too, I do not. This is not a democracy. Spshu (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unanimously rejected by (all) "other" (other-than-you) editors. Esoglou (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are allowed. WP policy is clear on that. Other more interpretative sources are preferred. That is also clear policy. I am not sure what in the article Spshu thinks violates the WP policy allowing primary sources or why it does and would welcome some substantive clarifying comments from him. At this point I agree with growing consensus to include primary sources. --Bruce Hall (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar removal question

I don't really object to the removal of the calendar section but I am wondering on what policy principle it was done. I don't see how "self source" is a policy problem when it comes to such apparently straightforward and uncontentious information. Anglicanus (talk) 14:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source" - as in this case. Esoglou (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this comment really belongs on the talk page not of Personal ordinariate, but of Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham and is in relation to the repeated removal of the calendar from that article without discussion. I am therefore copying it to that page. Please excuse me if I am mistaken. Esoglou (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On that other page Elizium23 has made the following comment, which applies also the the discussion immediately above this one (Primary sources for definitions):

"I have no objection to including the liturgical calendar on Wikipedia. It is even possible to split this into a separate article, given that it will probably be shared by the other Ordinariates as they come into being. But just because it is a primary source is no reason to exclude it. No interpretation of the facts is being made" (Elizium23). Esoglou (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the calendar being included or as a separate article. The calendar is one of the distinctive, and therefore defining, features of the Ordinariates. As an aside, I note that there is a disturbing pattern of making changes, some major, with little or no discussion or explanation beyond often a short phrase in the edit summary field. We should avoid that. Whenever I make substantial changes to an article, I make it a point to always leave a substantive comment on an article's Talk page explaining what I did and why and inviting others to comment. To me it is a matter of showing respect to other editors. It is also an opportunity to learn more and to improve my work. --Bruce Hall (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Francis expands rules for Ordinariate membership

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-says-catholics-seeking-confirmation-can-join-anglican-ordinariate/ Elizium23 (talk) 02:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Esoglou (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Anglican ordinariates"

The accusation directed against me of trying to hide the fact that the term "Anglican ordinate" is used is both offensive and baseless, since I have mentioned the fact more than once in the article and have elaborated upon its significance. But it is out of place to open the article by putting on the same level as the official name a colloquial expression never used in official sources, a colloquial name whose openness to misunderstanding is explained in the article. It is especially out of place to do so when no mention is there made of another name, "personal ordinariate for former Anglicans", which, though not the official name and open to a less serious misunderstanding, is used by official sources. It is out of place also because presented on the sole basis of a blog: in Wikipedia, blogs are considered as not ordinarily reliable sources for a statement of fact, rather than for a mere statement that "a blog says this". The lead now has a mention of both non-official names, not of one alone, and not on the same level as the official name. I hope that will be seen as sufficient. Esoglou (talk) 18:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, Esoglou. I must clarify, however, that these different terms are not all of a kind. As you have noted in your language elsewhere in the article and Talk sections, the phrase "personal ordinariates for former Anglicans" is a 'description' not a name. Furthermore, "Anglican ordinariate" is not something added to the top of the article simply because "a blog says this". This is in fact the common name used by members of the ordinariate in the US, Canada and the UK. I don't know what they call it in Australia, but these three other countries do use "Anglican ordinariate" more commonly than anything else. It is not the blogs and newspapers that have set this usage; rather the blogs and newspapers are reflecting this common usage. No one calls is a "personal ordinariate for former Anglicans" in common speech. What a mouth full! Anyway, as you've also noted, there is ample explanation in the article as to the meaning of the phrase. There is also further discussion of the need for this more commons terminology in the Talk page above from previous commentators. Thanks, I hope this helps. -Anglocatholichinge Anglocatholichinge (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Until we have reliable secondary sources which document this usage, then we must stick to what the existing sources say, because Wikipedia does not engage in original research or anecdotes by its editors. I support Esoglou's view. Elizium23 (talk) 20:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hinge, I'm sorry to see you have not taken account of Elizium23's comment. Anglicanus told you exactly the same thing. You are still new to Wikipedia and I beg you to take note of such comments and of the advice that others have offered you on your personal talk page. No matter how correct your statements are, you cannot put in Wikipedia anything that is not already given in a reliable published source. A blog is not a reliable source. Read, for instance, WP:UGC. Why are you not satisfied with the edit by Anglicanus, which left in the lead the mention of the term "Anglican ordinariate"? The mention of that term and of the term "personal ordinariate for former Anglicans" in the lead is justified by the reliable support for them in the body of the article, of which the lead serves as a summary. But why insist on inserting the reference to a blog, which gives the impression that the phrase has no reliable source and must therefore be deleted from Wikipedia? Esoglou (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hinge, I think WP:BRD must be applied. Discuss your proposed changes here first. Otherwise they will simply have to be deleted until discussed. Esoglou (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support Esoglou on this matter. Your repeated inclusion of blogs which fail the reliability criteria, as well as your often inadequate understanding of things and verbose expression, is not improving the article. Anglicanus (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have dropped blog references, per the conversation. Hope this helps. By the way, what's the proper wiki code for the signature after your comments on these talk pages? (i.e. user name followed by time & date?) Anglocatholichinge (talk) 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I failed to notice this comment and query earlier today. The way to add your signature with date and hour is indicated at the top of whatever talk page you are editing: "... remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~)". If you type three tildes or five instead of four, the result is different. Esoglou (talk) 10:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Persistence

Hinge, I think WP:BRD must be applied. Discuss your proposed changes here first. Otherwise they will simply have to be deleted until discussed. Esoglou (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support Esoglou on this matter. Your repeated inclusion of blogs which fail the reliability criteria, as well as your often inadequate understanding of things and verbose expression, is not improving the article. Anglicanus (talk) 16:12, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hinge, I will stop removing your mistaken edits one by one, and clean them up in groups instead. Why on earth have you now once again removed the information that people other than Anglicans (and Catholics) can be accepted in a personal ordinariate, replacing it with a duplicate of the information that even those who are already Catholics by baptism, but who have not received all three sacraments of Christian may become part of the ordinariate that brought them to the faith and its practice? What do you think Anglicanorum coetibus meant when it said that the members of an ordinariate could be people;

either "originally belonging to the Anglican Communion and now in full communion with the Catholic Church" (former Anglicans)

or "who receive the Sacraments of Initiation within the jurisdiction of the Ordinariate" (The "either ... or shows that these members of the ordinariate are not former Anglicans - and there is no indication that somehow they must be Catholics rather than atheists or Muslims or Lutherans or ...)?

That is still the rule about membership and was so even before the official indication that even those who, because of being baptized in the Catholic Church, are already Catholics can, if evangelized by an ordinariate, receive the other two sacraments of Christian initiation within the ordinariate.

Since you persist in repeatedly making such nonsense edits without previously discussing your ideas, it will be simpler to remove the edits at one blow once a day. Esoglou (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a breath, Esoglou. The fact remains that you're reading something into the Apostolic Constitution that isn't there. Someone mentioned below Canon 35 of the Code of Eastern Canons, which applies to those who have belonged to Orthodox and Apostolic Churches. When someone is received into the Catholic Church, unless they were previously Catholic this is done by profession of faith and anointing. It's true to say that anyone is eligible to belong to the ordinariate if they're received into the Church through it. The only valid exception is the one mentioned below, based on Canon 35 (which would also imply Anglicans have some obligation to belong to the ordinariate once received, contrary to another of your edits to the article. anglocatholichinge (talk) 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It is good of you, Hinge, to discuss the question, rather than edit away regardless. I thank you for that. Unfortunately, some of your statements are baseless. What you call "anointing" (by which you seem to mean [[[Confirmation#Roman Catholic view|chisming, confirming]]) is not administered - indeed cannot be administered - to converts who have already been chrismed/confirmed validly, people such as Eastern Christians or those Western Christians who belong to churches the validity of whose holy orders the Catholic Church recognizes. It is also false to say without limitation that "anyone is eligible to belong to the ordinariate if they're received into the Church through the ordinariate". That is true only if the ordinariate receives them into the Church by administering to them at least one of the sacraments of Christian initiation. If the ordinariate receives into the Church someone who has already (validly) received the sacraments of initiation, it can do so only by profession of faith alone. More could be said about your remarks, but that is enough of a response for now. Esoglou (talk) 19:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I leave until tomorrow the undoing by me of your deletion of sourced information and the insertion of your mistaken personal idea that "Unless barred by Canon 35 of the CCEO or a similar restriction, even if someone has received all sacraments of initation they are not prohibited from belonging to an ordinariate unless they have previously been baptized within the Catholic Church." But perhaps someone else will undo it before then. Will you yourself undo it? Esoglou (talk) 19:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly willing to amend it. I agree with you that if someone has received all sacraments of initiation they wouldn't receive them again upon entering the Catholic Church. In this instance it would be a simple profession of faith that would occur upon their reception (i.e. a recitation of the Creed followed by "I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.") At that point, if the person was previously Eastern Orthodox Canon 35 would normally apply, as far as I can tell. If they weren't Orthodox, then it seems they would automatically become a member of the ordinariate. This would accord with the ordinariates' evangelical mission. Unless they were previously RC, in which case they're ineligible. Are there cases in which we're still in disagreement? If so, I'm happy to take them into account as well.anglocatholichinge (talk) 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Esoglou, I think we're only disagreeing about the group of people to whom would apply the Complimentary Norms' bit "those who have received all of the Sacraments of Initiation outside the Ordinariate are not ordinarily eligible for membership". That seems to be speaking solely about Catholics who have received all sacraments of initation, not those outside the Church who might have. I'm not clear how someone can receive all sacraments of initiation outside the Catholic Church but then be inadmissible to any particular jurisdiction of the Catholic Church on grounds other than Canon 35. The context of that particular exclusion seems to be those who were previously Catholic, having received all sacraments of initation, and then became Anglican and then tried to join an Ordinariate. It does not seem to apply to anyone who was neither Eastern Orthodox nor Catholic, but has somehow received all sacraments of initation. The background to the 2013 amendment Pope Francis promulgated is that one of the C of E bishops who joined the UK ordinariate had been baptized in the Catholic Church before becoming Anglican. Previously it was unclear that he was eligible (but he obviously was judged eligible by the Holy See since he was both admitted to ordinariate membership and made Monsignor), but since the 2013 amendment it has been clear that all three sacraments of initation would have had to have been received to have made him ineligible to switch from Catholic to Anglican and then to ordinariate. The sacraments of initation restriction makes no sense unless it's speaking specifically about Catholics.Anglocatholichinge (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read the founding documents and don't replace them by your own suppositions. Apart from families of existing members, the only non-Anglican category of members is that of those received by administration of at least one of the sacraments of initiation, not by profession of faith alone. Whatever about other jurisdictions, that's the rule for the personal ordinariates. Stop inventing unsourced and objectively false ideas such as that the only people who have received all of the Sacraments of Initiation can only have received them in the Catholic Church and then applying those false ideas here instead of sticking to what the documents actually say. Good night for me, have a nice day for you. Esoglou (talk) 21:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're very clearly misunderstanding. I didn't suggest "only people who have received all of the Sacraments of Initiation can only have received them in the Catholic Church". I just asked you for an example of someone who had received all Sacraments of Initiation outside the Church who would then be inadmissible to the ordinariate. I'd like a source as well that that is the case. You yourself have written in the article that the ordinariates are not just for Anglicans. Please give me an example of someone who would have received all sacraments of initation outside the Church who would also be inadmissible to the ordinariate. I think you'll find that that mention in the Complimentary Norms is talking about Catholics only, i.e. it's making a distinction. An important distinction. Anglocatholichinge (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your recent edits as you have been asked to discuss some issues with your changes to the article on here ~ as per WP:BRD ~ as a number of your changes have been objected to by other editors. Therefore you shouldn't be making any major changes to the article at present. Unless you can persuade other editors of the validity of your changes then you won't get anywhere without consensus even if your arguments are in fact valid. For better or worse this is how editing on Wikipedia works. As to your comments above, as you will see in the discussion below, there are canonical reasons to believe that former Orthodox are not, at least not without a form of dispensation, permitted to be become formally enrolled members of an ordinariate. My understanding of things is that the only people who can normally become formal members are: 1. Former Anglicans and Protestants. 2. Baptised Roman Catholics who haven't received one or both of confirmation and first communion. 3. Roman Catholics members of an ordinariate family. Both Esoglou and Elizium share my belief that former Orthodox are not permitted ~ due to canon law specific to them ~ to become formal members of an ordinariate without a dispensation. It seems possible to me, however, that any former Orthodox who are now Eastern Catholics and also members of an ordinariate family could more easily become a member themselves. But this is speculation by me rather than an established fact. We cannot assume that A plus B equals C. Anglicanus (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you've written above isn't exactly what I'm objecting to. What I object to, and what I'm arguing is completely false, is the suggestion that the restriction on eligibility for the ordinariate has anything to do with sacraments of initation as far as non-Catholics are concerned. So far the only restrictions on membership that anyon has been able to demonstrate with any kind of reference is

1) Existing Catholics, who can only join if they a) haven't received all sacraments of initation or b) have ordinariate family members;

2) Eastern Orthodox, because of Canon 35.

Otherwise, there are no restrictions on membership. You keep adding in an unsourced and speculative hypothesis (which is completely false and unsupported) that the mention of 'sacraments of initation' has anything to do with non-Catholics who want to be received by and belong to the ordinariate. How's that for clear?Anglocatholichinge (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been told several times that you need to seek consensus before making further major changes to the article as per WP:BRD. Therefore your most recent edits have been reverted and you will continue to be reverted until you properly engage in this process. I get the feeling that you haven't even bothered to look at the BRD process ~ which requires discussion, not posting comments on the talk page and then editing the article before other parties respond. As it is Esoglou's editing rather than mine that you are principally objecting to then you should allow him to respond to your objections. Until you can reach an understanding on these matters with him then neither of you should do any significant editing of the article. Anglicanus (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hinge, I ask you again to please stick to what the sources say. They say that the members of an ordinariate can be either former Anglicans, or persons who have received the sacraments of Christian initiation (at least one of the three) within the ordinariate, or families of existing members. They do not say what you seem to envisage, that there is some other category of members, such as that of non-Anglican, non-family members who had received all the sacraments of Christian initiation before becoming Catholics. They do not say that a Coptic, Latin or Melkite - or Latin personal ordinariate - priest who receives a convert into the Catholic Church necessarily receives that person into the priest's own particular Church (Coptic, Latin or Melkite) or his own particular jurisdiction within it: whatever particular Church or jurisdiction the person will belong to on becoming a Catholic has nothing to do with the identity of the priest who receives the convert into the Catholic Church. They do not say that a priest who receives into the Catholic Church someone who will belong to a different particular Church or jurisdiction is only acting on behalf of some other defined or undefined priest. They do not state that there are no non-Catholic Christians other than Easterners who receive all three sacraments of initiation, which seems to be your idea, since you ask for "an example of someone who had received all Sacraments of Initiation outside the Church who would then be inadmissible to the ordinariate". You obviously know little, if anything, about, for instance, "the Old Catholic, Old Roman Catholic and Polish National Churches". (Now I come to think of it, these are already mentioned in the source given as footnote 44 in the article - the book by John Huels.) And you seem to have no idea why in several documents in which it reserves the word "Church" for those that have valid holy orders and Eucharist - including a document by the Second Vatican Council - the Catholic Church distinguishes between Western "Churches and ecclesial communities". There are Western non-Catholic "Churches" as well as Western non-Catholic "ecclesial communities". Enough for now. Esoglou (talk) 09:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding nothing that the sources do not say. Esoglou, you say "stick to what the sources say". So let's do that. Let's put up what the sources say. In other words, we won't add any of your false interpretation about the relevancy of Sacraments of Initiation for non-Catholics in addition to Canon 35. Add Canon 35, because it's clear and applicable. But your ideas are completely unfounded and unsourced. It is therefore incumbent on you to source them before adding them to the article.Anglocatholichinge (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anglocatholichinge, please specify what statement or interpretation do you say lacks a reliable source? Esoglou (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reception into the Catholic Church and enrolling in an ordinariate

This edit departs from the cited source by suggesting that anyone received into into the Catholic Church through a personal ordinariate become a member of the ordinariate: "Membership of the personal ordinariates is not limited to former Anglicans, even in the broad sense indicated above. Any non-Catholic 'can be received into the Catholic Church through the Ordinariate'." In effect it changes the cited source, which only says that "Anyone who is not already a Catholic can be received into the Catholic Church through the Ordinariate" into a claim that "Anyone who is not already a Catholic can be received into the ordinariate Catholic Church through the Ordinariate". An Anglican received into the Catholic Church by a priest who does not belong to the ordinariate can become a member of the ordinariate, but a member of the Polish National Church who has received the sacraments of initiation and is then received into the Catholic Church by an ordinariate priest cannot become a member of the ordinariate, since the norms governing the personal ordinariates explicitly states that "those who have received all of the Sacraments of Initiation outside the Ordinariate are not ordinarily eligible for membership" - unless, that is, they belong to the family of an existing member of the ordinariate. Esoglou (talk) 16:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Those who have received all of the Sacraments of Initiation"

While you may well be correct it doesn't seem to me that "those who have received all of the Sacraments of Initiation outside the Ordinariate are not ordinarily eligible for membership" has actually been explicitly clarified to include the Orthodox and others with recognised sacraments of initiation such as the Polish National Catholics. I agree with you about the difference between being received into the RCC through the ordinariates and being eligible for membership of an ordinariate. They are two separate issues. Anglicanus (talk) 16:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are right, but I still incline to the other view. I think it most natural to understand as applying also to those who have received the sacraments of Christian initiation anywhere what Article 5 §1 of the [complementary norms (not "complimentary norms", as someone else calls them) - "Those who have received all of the Sacraments of Initiation outside the Ordinariate are not ordinarily eligible for membership, unless they are members of a family belonging to the Ordinariate." Do you think the "those" in question are only former Anglicans? In that case, it is true that the "those" does not include Orthodox etc. That question requires more careful thought and searching for reliable clarification. I presume you don't think that the 2013 amendment also concerned only former Anglicans who have become Catholics by baptism alone and who are brought back to Catholic faith and practice by an ordinariate before being given confirmation. The amendment has certainly been generally interpreted as wider than that. But, as I say, maybe I am wrong and you are right. Esoglou (talk) 17:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have a "position" on these issues so it isn't a matter of me or you being either "right" or "wrong". It does seem to me, however, that some things haven't been made explicitly clear in the ordinariate documents and this is leading to some differences of interpretation of exactly what some regulations mean and who they apply to. Anglicanus (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the Holy See documents are not explicit enough. We must hope for news about a concrete case or a statement in which a personal ordinariate indicates its interpretation, as happened with the definition of "Anglican". Even among Anglicans, only a very small number choose to join a personal ordinariate. Eastern Christians are unlikely to want to, and followers of the Western churches that have valid orders are few. Will our wait be long? Esoglou (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to know. There have been some notable exceptions to the "rules". I know of one ordinariate priest who received all the sacraments of initiation as a young person in the RCC but later began attending Anglican services and was then ordained in that tradition as he was married. The reasons given for allowing his subsequent acceptance into the ordinariate and (re)ordination were unconvincing to my mind. Another ordinariate priest known to me had originally been received into the RCC many years ago but subsequently returned to Anglican ordained ministry for a long time before being "received" back again (technically not "reception" in this case). This fact has been glossed over by church authorities. I also know an ordinariate priest who has been divorced and remarried. Obviously he received an annulment for his first marriage but it still seems to be a highly exceptional bending of the usual regulations. Church authorities are very clever at getting around some of the rules when it suits their purposes. Anglicanus (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These examples perhaps fit the rules without any broadening of terms such as that by which personal ordinariates have interpreted the term "Anglicans" as including Lutherans and Methodists. The first might come under the "family members" rule, if the man's wife was Anglican, but it is surely more likely that he was simply considered to be one of those "Anglicans who wish to enter the full communion of the Catholic Church, bringing with them some of the traditions and beauty of the Anglican heritage in which they were nurtured, may do so." He had become an Anglican, hadn't he? The second was simply a Catholic who had been reconciled with the/that Church and who, being of Anglican background, was then free to choose to be a member of a personal ordinariate. Esoglou (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if there's such confusion about the issue the 'interpretations' should all be left out of the article? You've once again added the interpretation that a Polish National Catholic, or someone in his shoes, is ineligible for ordinariate membership; and yet that interpretation has never ever been backed up by a source, and that is precisely what I keep pointing out is a false interpretation.Anglocatholichinge (talk) 06:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a "false interpretation" by Esoglou just because it isn't explicitly supported by a source. It is an interpretation, which may be false, based on the primary documents of the ordinariates. Your opposing views on this issue, as far as I can tell, are based on your interpretation of comments by an individual English bishop who was, perhaps, generalising about circumstances in his country and not fully aware of the restrictions on formal membership in an ordinariate in more specific circumstances which would be significantly rarer in the United Kingdom than the United States. We really need to seek some clarification on these issues from a canon lawyer or an ordinariate authority. Otherwise things are too open to personal interpretations by people such as ouselves. Anglicanus (talk) 08:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think nobody disagrees with Hinge's comment on the need to exclude unsourced interpretations from the article. There is no objection to presenting them here on the talk page. Later today I hope to be able to identify any such interpretations about this question that may now be in the article and to rephrase the text accordingly. Esoglou (talk) 08:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am attending to this later than I hoped. Perhaps the only unsourced interpretation was that which took the second category of membership (those receiving in the personal ordinariate the sacraments of initiation) to include people who have been neither Anglicans nor reevangelized incompletely initiated Catholics. I have rephrased references to this interpretation as merely a hypothesis. I have not (yet?) found any reliable source that explicitly gives that interpretation or that explicitly contradicts it. Does any other unsourced interpretation in the article need attention? Esoglou (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Former members of the Orthodox churches.

I am still not convinced that members of the Orthodox churches who want to become Roman Catholics can ordinarily be received within an ordinariate. It is my understand that they are usually required to be received within an Eastern Catholic church. This issue needs to be clarified. The provided reference supporting "anyone" without a Roman Catholic background being received in an ordinariate possibly didn't consider the particular circumstances of the Eastern Orthodox. Anglicanus (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, they cannot be members of a personal ordinariate. If they are members of an Orthodox church, they have been baptized and confirmed (on the same occasion) and given the Eucharist on the same occasion or on the following Sunday (for infants under the form of wine). They cannot "receive the Sacraments of Initiation within the jurisdiction of the Ordinariate" (Anglicanorum coetibus - the reference to the Eucharist being obviously in regard to first reception of the sacrament), since they have already received them. The only way the norms for the ordinariates would allow them to be enrolled would be in the unlikely event that they were family of existing members (adopted children?). Esoglou (talk) 18:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Canon 35, CCEO: Baptized non-Catholics coming into full communion with the Catholic Church should retain and practice their own rite everywhere in the world and should observe it as much as humanly possible. Thus, they are to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the same rite with due regard for the right of approaching the Apostolic See in special cases of persons, communities or regions. Therefore, no Orthodox Christian would be enrolled, that is, ascribed to the Latin Church, but to the Eastern Catholic Church which most closely corresponds to the Church of his patrimony. A person who wishes to change his canonical ascription later must petition both his own bishop and the receiving bishop, and normally these transfers are granted to those who have been practicing for quite some time as a member of the ritual Church which they wish to join. Elizium23 (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. An Orthodox Christian cannot normally become a Latin Catholic of any kind. Becoming a Latin Catholic of the personal ordinariate kind is doubly excluded, for not only is the ordinariate part of the Latin Church but the Orthodox Christian, having already received all the sacraments of Christian initiation, cannot be baptized, confirmed or "Eucharistized" in the ordinariate and so fits into neither of the two main categories of members. And so it is simply not true "that members of the Orthodox churches who want to become Roman Catholics can ordinarily be received within an ordinariate" - unless, of course, in "special cases" an exception is obtained by requesting it from the Holy See. Esoglou (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Esoglou: In both of your responses above it seems that you may have thought I was saying the opposite of what I was actually saying ~ which was to doubt that Eastern Orthodox can ordinarily be permitted to be received into the RCC in an ordinariate for the reasons which both you and Elizium have elaborated on. The reason I said "ordinarily" was because I personally know of one person, who became an Eastern Catholic priest, of Greek Orthodox background (baptised etc) who was received into the RCC by a Latin Rite priest even though he could have been received by an Eastern Rite one where he was living. Of course this didn't necessarily make him a member of the Latin Church and I presume he was still even then formally considered a member of the Eastern Rite. He was also, of course, received by profession of faith alone without any sacraments of initiation. I think we need to make a distinction between being received into the RCC within the Latin Rite (including within an ordinariate parish) and being received into that rite as a formal member. Anglicanus (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not forget that everyone is a member of a Church, not a Rite. The Latin Church comprises several Latin liturgical rites such as Roman, Ambrosian, Dominican, etc. The Byzantine Rite is shared by many Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Churches. The Anglican Use of the Ordinariates is considered by the Catholic Church to be a part, or sub-rite, of the Roman Rite. Members of the Ordinariates are members of the Latin Church. One interesting "corner case" might be a member of Western Rite Orthodoxy entering the Catholic Church - could he choose the Ordinariate? Anyway, except for the CCEO canon I quoted, we are engaging in some WP:OR here. Let us stick to what the sources say and we will be fine. Elizium23 (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must have been wrong in thinking the initial comment was opposing the idea that it is ordinarily possible for members of the Orthodox churches who want to become Roman Catholics to be "received within" an ordinariate in the sense of being enrolled as members of the ordinariate. That idea exists neither among us here nor in the text of the article. On becoming Catholics, Eastern Christians automatically become members of whatever Catholic ritual church is closest to that of their background. It makes no difference whether the priest who receives them into the Catholic Church(of course, by profession of the Catholic faith) belongs to the ritual church the new Catholics belong to or belongs instead to a different Eastern ritual church or to the Latin. Esoglou (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Gledhill

Ruth Gledhill's predictions about the growth and impact of the Ordinariate have proved wildly inaccurate. Yet they are allowed to stay and my attempts at correcting them have been dleted. It is simply not the case that "hundreds,possibly thousands of lay ministers" (whatever "lay minister" means) were likely to join the Ordinariate, though it is a good example of the media hype when the Ordinariate was established. To maintain a balance, this should be corrected.Poshseagull (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia sourcedly reports Gledhill's comment about a possibility. It make no unsourced comments on actualization of possibilities. It does not unsourcedly call a possibility a likelihood nor unsourcedly call a comment about a possibility a prediction of actualization. WP:OR. Esoglou (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But it was a possibility that patently hasn't materialised. So surely it is encyclopaedic to point out that her predictions were inaccurate. Or does this worry you?Poshseagull (talk) 07:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it time to read WP:OR and learn what is acceptable on Wikipedia? Esoglou (talk) 11:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have done. So don't try and patronise me and/or fob me off. I can see no reason why I should not point out that Ms Gledhill's predictions were flawed. But I am used enough to Wikipedia to know that it can be manipulated in the way you're behaving. "Don't like it: delete it". Well, at least you concede that Newton accepts that growth has been disappointing. Whether pointing out that Ms Gledhill was wrong will hinder the faltering growth of the Ordinariate, I doubt. Poshseagull (talk) 07:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More Personal Ordinariates

I think the article could mention if there are any proposals to create more Personal Ordinariates in places where they are currently absent, like in Africa and Asia.Mistico (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Married Priests--in consideration of Anglican ecclesial tradition and practice

Does Anglicanorum Coetibus allow for married candidates for the priesthood who weren't Anglican ministers before? The article conflates AC VI§1 and 2.

AC VI. § 1 states that former married clergy may be accepted as Catholic Ordinariate priests. Then a NEW section (VI. § 2) deals with exceptions to the rule of celibacy on a case by case basis. If it's just former clergy then VI§1 has dealt with the issue. Why have a new paragraph? Additionally, Complementary Norm 6c1 sheds more light on the matter. It says that it is "in consideration of Anglican ecclesial tradition and practice" that requests for dispensations from the norm of celibacy be applied for.

Mgsr Peter Elliot who grew up as the son of an Anglican minister and who is now an Australian Catholic bishop went on record as interpreting AC as providing for married priests in a similar manner to the Eastern Catholic Churches. It is true that the Vatican has currently backed-down from this and said that AC VI§2 REALLY meant, and was restricted to, married Anglican seminarians who convert.

ANyway, shouldnt the main article mention this? Right now one would think from reading the main article that derivations from the law of celibacy are ONLY for former clergy, which has been provided for since 1967 in Sacerdotalis coelibatus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.129.96.141 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 25 January 2016

Especially since you have explained that there is some doubt about what the situation is, we need reliable secondary sources that analyze the issue. We don't do our own interpretations of primary sources like Anglicanorum coetibus. Elizium23 (talk) 16:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to speculate - it's already happened. [1]. However, Harding was already training for Anglican ordination, and a statement was apparently made that this was not something the ordinariate expected to be permitted in future. TSP (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Personal ordinariate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Black and Jewish ordinariates

Pinging @Natemup: For a while, this article included a section regarding the premise of Jewish and Black Catholic ordinariates the structures. While there has certainly been some discussion of both proposals in reliable sources, there are reasons to exclude both from this article. The first is that the notion of a Jewish ordinariate seems to have been floated without any extensive consideration within the Vatican for such an establishment, so we have to weigh the merit of including it as imperative in encyclopedic coverage.

The matter of a Black ordinariate in the Americas is a different issue. The idea of such a body generally tracks back to a 1920 effort. The source provided is Desegregating the Altar, which details the proposal of an apostolic vicar for Black Catholics in the U.S. Two problems arise: the author (Ochs) acknowledges that the establishment of an ordinariate is only a potential implication of such a proposal and that the ordinariate structure implicitly referenced is the model of the ordinariates for Eastern Catholic faithful. As the proposal for a Black Catholic ordinariate was not explicit, it was likely based on a different ecclesial structure, and it predated the personal ordinariate structure by more than 80 years, I think it shouldn't be in this article (but could be on the Eastern Catholic ordinariate article). ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:56, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One peculiar source to me is the Kesher Journal web article provided as a source regarding the possibility of a Jewish ordinariate. Such a source seems to me to be somewhat dubious. Unusual recriminations (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]