Note to the Forum: It has been a long time since we have aired any ecumenical dirty laundry here at the York Forum. I believe our policy of conflict-avoidance has served us well, insofar as there have only been a handful of minor dust-ups (that I can recall) since 2006. Even the exodus of our Western Rite Orthodox friends and the establishment of the Ely Forum -- which has come to be considered a sister forum to this one -- was handled as quietly as one might hope under the circumstances.
Nevertheless, charity and good will among friends do not rule out discussion of controversial subjects. At times we have a duty to reprove and rebuke. So long as such discussion takes place in a spirit of charity, without ad hominem attacks or the usual childish behavior unworthy of Christian men, it will be welcome here.
Now, most of you are already aware of the current animosity between the The Continuum and The Anglo-Catholic blogs. For those who are not aware of it, I will not rehash the whole sad spectacle here except to say that The Continuum -- which is now solely managed by four priests of the Anglican Catholic Church -- sees in Anglicanorum Coetibus nothing more than a slightly expanded Pastoral Provision and an opportunity for Anglicans to utterly betray their heritage.
Below I have posted some comments I had made (actually, this was a follow-up post) in response to one of Fr. Robert Hart's latest posts entitled "The ex-Anglican Mob," by which he means the TAC leadership. You can read that blog entry here. I am reposting my thoughts in this forum for future reference, and to share them with you all for additional critique and discussion. Going forward, I may (re)post more thoughts on posts from The Continuum, if for no other reason than to make it clear to my friends where I stand in defending Anglicanorum Coetibus and the profoundly generous spirit of its author, our Holy Father in God, Pope Benedict XVI, gloriously reigning.
As you say, Fr. Hart, it is important to know the facts. So when you insist (above) that I did not contradict Fr. Wells, "though it seemed like [I] wanted to," I think we need to clarify that I did indeed contradict Fr. Wells.
Again: Fr. Wells sought to examine "the meaning of the term coetibus"; and he maintains that, translated, "Anglicanorum Coetibus could be 'The Anglican mob.'" In fact -- as I remarked -- no, it could not. Both Classical and ecclesiastical Latin use the word turba or vulgus for a "mob" in the sense Fr. Wells (and you) want to suggest. Coetus simply means a group, gathering or assembly -- nothing more. There is nothing here about a "street," or suggesting unruliness.
Fr. Wells was incorrect; and you were incorrect to adopt his mistranslation for the title of this post.
Incidentally, I thank you for attempting to correct the original post. "[T]he image of the Latin phrase... is more the image of a crowd in the street," is slightly better than the original, "...is more the image of an unruly crowd in the street that has the potential of rioting." It's still not correct; but at least it's an improvement.
Furthermore, being in the ablative case, it means the mob is being carried away or moving away from something. So, it suggests a mob distancing itself from Anglicanism.
There are a few important facts to note here. First, Anglicanorum Coetibus was composed in English, not Latin. We know this because the Latin version hasn't been made available yet. The title is simply drawn from the first two words of what will be the official Latin version. (It is not uncommon for Vatican documents to be composed in French, Italian or English nowadays and only afterwards translated into Latin for official publication in the Acta.)
Second, coetibus is almost certainly dative, being the object of a verb involving motion or influence -- "[T]he Holy Spirit has moved groups of Anglicans...".
Third, lacking one of the usual prepositions -- e.g., a/ab, e/ex or de -- there is nothing about the ablative case that suggests "being carried away or moving away from something." Your translation is incorrect. You've read into the phrase a meaning that quite simply and manifestly is not there.
[I]t is the Vatican that named their unilateral constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, so the implications we derive have come from their choice of a title.
Once again: There is no "implication" in the title of this document. You chose to see an implication where none exists.
The final implication is simply to make use of the phrase that is suggested throughout the body of the constitution, "former Anglicans." For, that too is a valid interpretation of the name Anglicanorum Coetibus, and appears to be the intended meaning: "Former Anglicans."
It is good that my original reply above had moved you (tibi, dative case) to go back and change the phrase "found throughout" to "suggested throughout", because the former was plainly wrong and undermined your claim of familiarity with the text of this Constitution. And I know this wording was changed and that this isn't a memory lapse on my part, because a copy of my original post can be found here. One might ask you to own up to the error.
Fr. Wells has defined the word, and shown that it is significant in understanding the Roman mind behind the constitution
Fr. Wells has done nothing of the kind. What he has done is carelessly -- I won't say purposely -- mistranslated the word coetus. This was a poor attempt at a rhetorical flourish meant to ridicule the TAC leadership.
"A man is not made Bishop by consecration, but is pronounced so at Rome in Consistory; and he has no jurisdiction given him by consecration, but only the rights of his Order, namely, consecrating of children, et caetera." It was stated by William Warham (c. 1450 – 22 August 1532), Archbishop of Canterbury, a loyal Papist.
I thank you for the source. Now we see that you were quoting one man who lived 500 years ago, not even a school, and still less a current Roman authority. By quoting Abp. Warham out of context and without attribution, you implied (at least to the casual reader) that his opinion is current Roman Catholic doctrine -- which, you should know well enough, it is not. That consecration effects nothing until one's name is read in consistory isn't even previous Roman Catholic teaching.
Episcopal jurisdiction is another matter, and one that has long been debated in the schools according to that liberty which Roman Catholic theologians have always enjoyed in matters that the Church's Magisterium hasn't found necessary to settle in favor of a single view. In the quote above, Warham seems to treat more of jurisdiction; and with his background in practising law, this was a subject which he no doubt found interesting.