It will be very interesting to see how this unfolds in the next few years. I am wondering if it will be the dud that a simiar gesture in 1895 proved to be and whether Rome will regret this PR stunt in the long run.

Well, I suppose this does offer Clarence Pope something of what he once expected. Since he is already a Roman layman, he is in perhaps the simplest state of all outside the Traditional Anglican Communion, for whom this was crafted in the first place.

I wonder what this will do to ACNA, and especially to those who "sought refuge" in the very evangelical Province of the Southern Cone. This would seem all but tailor made for, say, Schofield, Iker, and Ackerman. Will they attempt to depart with congregations to yet another jurisdiction?

Marshall Scott

Does "sacramental ministry" include the right to ordain? That would be a serious break with tradition. (I assume they will be able to confirm, since the RCs already allow priests to do that.)

I wonder about the property question, too, Marshall. If I remember correctly, the Roman Catholic Church holds property as a corporation sole, while in the Episcopal Church parish property is held in trust for the general Church. While these methods, are distinct, they both rely, in some measure, on the courts accepting that hierarchical churches have the authority to determine how property is held within their church. I don't think the Roman Catholics want a court fight with Episcopalians because it would be terrible for ecumenical relationships. But, beyond that, it might not be in their self-interest to go to court and get a ruling that, unless narrowly tailored, might undermine their authoirty as well as ours. All that said, I am out of my legal depth here, and hope someone who knows more than I do will weigh in.

At least one English paper predicts huge friction within FOCA and a split between the conservative forces. I would expect some defections from ACNA here and a new look at the Common Cause Partners too. Since you can now truly Anglican Liturgy (which some obviously confuse with Anglicanism) and unity with Rome, it seems the perfect solution.

Nick,

The former Anglican bishop is to be re-ordained specifically as a priest. He then may exercise jurisdictional authority, but only has the sacramental authority of a priest. It appears he cannot ordain.

Granted the sacramental distinction David, but that's separate from the praxis aspect of the day-to-day running of the Ordinariate.

What will be interesting to see will be whether or not there is sufficient interest in this program to recruit enough celibate men to this episcopate.

I agree. but a bishop who cannot ordain is no more a bishop than a priest who cannot celebrate the eucharist is a priest. It in effect creates a temporary "second-class" administrative episcopacy, and anyone who has experience with the RC church knows that they will be reminded of their lesser status on a regular basis.

It in effect creates a temporary "second-class" administrative episcopacy

Like the nuns who run priestless parishes.

@Peter Pearson

I wonder if this can really be considered a 'PR stunt' per se. Perhaps a very targeted one.

If however, they really wanted to improve their public image, there's a lot of other things they could be doing. Witness the discussion (and linked videos) over on this Wondercafe thread: http://wondercafe.ca/discussion/religion-and-faith/catholic-church-force-good-world

Jim:

While there may be a few places where there are issues of property, I don't know that there will be many, or at least many new ones. Remember that the folks originally concerned are with TAC/ACA, and have already settled in new places. Too, many of the ACNA congregations that came from, say, Kenya were also already separate - indeed, never part of the Episcopal Church as parishes.

I did note something in the documents about negotiating arrangements, but my initial thought was it would be far more likely for a new congregation of the Anglican Ordinariate to negotiate with a Latin Rite Catholic parish than with an Episcopal or COE congregation that folks were leaving. But, stranger things have come up.

Marshall Scott

Two things strike me right off the bat: 1-the contortions the Vatican went to in order to get around its own self-imposed absolute rule of no married bishops, and 2-the harshness toward present and former Catholics. On the first, it was obviously very important to get Anglicans bishops to convert, perhaps hoping this would bring in lots of laypeople. On the second, perhaps the harshness was to heighten the generosity supposedly shown to Anglicans. Of course, there are still lots of unanswered questions, so this generosity is still covered in fog.

(Editor's note: Hey, Alabama, we are glad that you keep coming back to comment, but this is really the last time we can run one of your comments without your real, full name, Cheers.)