Damian Thompson reports on the launch of a new website Friends of the Ordinariate (FOTO) by Forward in Faith in the U.K. The new site says:
We are Anglicans in the UK who are members of
The Church of England - The Church in Wales
The Scottish Episcopal Church - The Church of Ireland
and we invite you to join with us as Friends of the Ordinariate
in order to signify your interest in
the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus.By joining us you will not be committing yourself
to any course of action, present or future.
Is there any reason why the TAC was left off? Do the people who formed this know about The Anglo-Catholic?
Here are some questions I have for those who are more in the know than I am.
- Could we end up having separate ordinariates in the United Kingdom or elsewhere for those Anglicans wishing to become Catholic who are already doing the Novus Ordo and will just make the transition to the new English translation of the Roman Missal?
- If there is only one ordinariate per country, is there any way to preserve disciplines such as no altar girls, or no "Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion"?
Or will we have ordinariates where it will be the choice of the bishop (or the priests?) on what of the three forms of liturgy approved in the AC will be used?
Thanks!
I was about to send them my particulars to say I was interested in this initiative. But the application invites us to choose which Church of the Anglican Communion and Diocese we belong to.
Interesting. Are these people sitting in the First-Class carriages of the Kasper Express, as if the TAC could just get a polite (or not so polite) brush-off? They seem to forget that without our Bishops' meeting in Portsmouth and the Petition of October 2007, those people would still be waiting for a squeak from Rome.
I have just sent them an e-mail:
Well as I understand it, this initiative is meant to tally up the number of potential converts from those* churches for the sake of the FiF UK leadership. This is their medium of taking a head count.
Therefore, it is not directed at anyone else.
I found the same thing. I don't know whether you've had a reply yet, I was candidly told that it WAS indeed intentional! Very politely of course.
You know, looking at the two questions, it occurs to me that the TAC in England could form an Ordinariate under the CDF, and the Church of England people using the modern Roman rite could simply go under some structure established by the English Catholic bishops – depending on who is in whose diocese. There's nothing to restrict Anglicans to the terms of the Apostolic Constitution, even for collective conversions.
That would solve many problems. If they want to be snotty and "pukka", well nothing's stopping them! I'm English too and went to a public school*!
* What we call public schools in England are private schools, often several centuries old. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuS009kTppo&feature=PlayList&p=7D04F88026035BEA&index=9
It does look rather like a snub, but let's try to put the very best face on it. Since we don't know how the Ordinariates are going to be organized in a given country, it's possible that folks from TAC will be in the same jurisdiction as the Canterbury refugees. Prayer and kindness, with a large dose of charity, is never wasted — especially towards those with whom you might end up sharing a room!
Well again, as I mentioned earlier, it is not a snub. It is simply FiF UK taking a head count of their people. It is meant for the FiF UK leadership to track interest in their ranks.
I'm actually surprised anyone took it as a snub.
#6 – I think Occam's Razor would dictate this probable explanation, going by what is most likely. The Fif bishops in England and Archbishop Hepworth are very friendly. But, some of the clergy need to spend time warming themselves by the fire!
Or could the omission be simply because the TAC is perceived as already having made its decision concerning Anglicanorum Coetibus? We Anglicans who are still part of the Anglican Communion do not have the option of making the same kind of corporate response and have to make decisions for or against the Apostolic Constitution as individuals within organisations such as Forward in Faith (which is a very broad coalition of Anglo-Catholics, and by no means uniformly Anglo-Papalist.) I don't think our (soon to be reunited?) brethren in TAC should necessarily take offence here.
Thank you, Father. That seems like good common sense. I'm sorry if I reacted sharply, as I know many Anglican priests in the CofE and other British parts of the Anglican Communion are doing a wonderful job in their parishes in a most difficult situation.
We all need a dose of humility, starting with myself….
Thanks, Hugo. That makes sense.
And thank you, Father Phillips. Always good advice!
Looking at the comments on Damian Thompson's article, there is another important group not mentioned. Those who crossed the Tiber some time ago, are now Catholic clergy or lay people, and would join an Ordinariate in a heartbeat once it is established.
I might have misunderstood something from earlier, but aren't current or former Catholics inelligible to join the Ordinariate, unless immediate family ties are overhwelmingly Anglican?
I don't think we will have separate ordinariates for TAC, FIF, AU, etc, nor do I think it a good idea. The AC says we can use any of the Roman Rite books so the FIF parishes probably will and any parishes that want to use the "Anglican Liturgy in Development" will be able to do so.
Obviously this "Friends of the Ordinariate" in the UK was designed as a way of counting noses for folks currently in the CO,E,W,S,I. IMHO it would be of benefit to both the FIF and to the bishops committee if they add a category for the TAC and another for those who have already swum the Tiber.
Would it be worthwhile to have something like this established here in the USA and also in Canada?
Deacon Noble,
We have something similar in the works (especially for the North American context) right now. More info to follow soon…
I quite agree. The AC makes no mention of preserving current structures, TAC, FiF etc, and I don't think there'd be much benefit in doing that.
This development personally causes me some degree of concern, however it is not unexpected. As our efforts continue in this momentous effort we will most certainly continue to see various factions attempting to move to the forefront in an effort to secure their own vested interests. It is quite apparent, at this point, that they do not wish to credit the TAC for their efforts and will strive to exclude them from any position in the formation of the English Ordinariates.
Let us pray that all peevishness and disharmony will be set aside as we move in concert to unite Christ’s Church on Earth.
I hope though that if the ordinariates are combined, that there will be a strict discipline concerning how each liturgy is to be done. For instance, those who want to use the same liturgy as will be found in the new Roman Missal, might want to innovate with more contemporary music, altar girls or other practices that are allowed in Roman Catholic Churches.
I hope upon hope that an Anglican liturgy is approved that keeps the poetry of the BCP, the "thees and the thous" and does not have altar girls, extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist and electric guitars etc.
OR will all of these be local decisions? It will be interesting to see how this works out.
You may have a very low opinion of the Catholic mass, which is very evident in your posts, but in a lot of the world, particularly in Asia, Latin, thees and thous are alien to them and have no relevance. The NO is only used throughout Asia, and the Catholic church is experiencing phenomenal growth there. Which is more than can be said for Europe, North America and other High-church places of worship. If keeping the poetry, thees and thous, costly vestments etc. result in just a small group of worshippers who think they're a class above the rest, than you can keep it.
What I have found is that a lot of the younger people do start to look for the beauty in the older, traditional forms of worship to enjoy, in addition to what they can get from the NO. I've met many people who only attend the NO who are ten times better Christians that those who only attend the full bells and smells form of mass, turn up their noses at everything else yet cannot find any charity in their hearts.
I am a Catholic though my father was Anglican. I grew up with the NO and have no problems with it. Sure, some of the music I personally don't like but others do, and as long as everyone is doing their best to worship and praise the Lord, I'm not going to complain continuously. I personally prefer a more traditional style of worship but that doesn't mean I have a right to snub another's preference.
If you're going to keep thumbing your nose down at everything that doesn't fit in with your idea of worship, you won't be happy even when you are fully accepted in the Catholic church.
Try cultivating some charity and tolerance in your heart. It will go a long way.
Terry, I think that this comment is way, way over-the-top. In no way do Deborah's posts demonstrate "a very low opinion of the Catholic mass" itself — but rather abuses or corruptions of it. And she is concerned that these "features" not be introduced into the liturgy which will be used in the Anglican personal ordinariates. This is not a matter of looking down one's nose at others, but of seeking to preserve those "precious gifts" that the Holy Father has recognized.
Why would it upset you that Deborah is concerned that we maintain:
How does her wish to maintain these aspects (common both to our tradition and yours) denigrate the Novus Ordo as it is usually celebrated? Is it that you are defensive about the abuses and deviations from tradition that most Catholics are forced to endure?
It is not a matter of being in "a class above the rest"; it's about maintaining the "liturgical, spiritual, and pastoral traditions" of which Anglicanorum Coetibus speaks. As I wrote on Valle Adurni, I believe that we Anglo-Catholics do need a dose of humility and to be respectful of the feelings of "ordinary" Roman Catholics, but this does not mean that we ought to be ready to accept every innovation of the last forty years either. There is much that is beautiful in ordinary Roman Catholic praxis — but there are many abuses too. Regardless, we bring to the Church our own tradition (one which Rome has recognized as valid) and — with all due respect — we have a right to be concerned about the maintenance of that tradition in it integrity. To look to the needs of our own community is not to cast aspersions on any other.
In reply to #16
I was very interested to read you comments on Anglican liturgical characteristics (thees and thous, bells and smells, etc.), showing your "welcoming" attitude in regard to the Apostolic Constitution of Benedict XVI. I would like you to note the name of the current Pope, and that fact we are no longer in the 1970's.
You might as well say it, Anglicans never make proper Catholics until we "convert properly". I am very happy to inform you that this notion of the Church as a monolithic standard of conformity is obsolete. I therefore exhort you not only to charity and tolerance in regard to incoming Anglicans but also to the Catholic Church, not of 1950 or 1976, but of 2010, and you criticise as much Pope Benedict XVI as those "contemptible Anglicans with a secret agenda to corrupt the pure Church".
I would personally celebrate the Novus Ordo in situations of pastoral need (not within an Ordinariate's ministry – but when helping out in "ordinary" Catholic parishes), much as I find fault in those rites – the same criticisms as those coming from the Pope himself and serious liturgical scholars. I am aware of the pastoral problems in the Latin Church and where Ordinariate priests may be asked to give assistance – but the Novus Ordo still needs to be radically revised in the direction of Tradition. I think it will happen in time, as it becomes influenced by the older form of the Roman rite and the many other traditional western and eastern rites used in the Church.
I also note that the "ordinary" form of the Roman rite is probably more compliant to the Church's official rites in those countries where the Church is growing. I think you should come and spend time in France, not enjoying our cuisine and drinking fine wines, but observing the terminal condition of a national Church in communion with Rome going the same way as Ms Schori's flying circus in the US.
We are not coming in starry-eyed, or grumpy, but with realism and prudence.
I don't recall posting anything about those “contemptible Anglicans with a secret agenda to corrupt the pure Church“?
As long as the Pope is happy that you're Catholic, that's fine with me. Conversion comes from the heart. If the intent in your heart is pure, you've done it properly. And from what I been reading, it can't happen soon enough.
You have misread me. I am not a fan of the way the Novus Ordo has developed. There is much to be undone, me thinks, to get it back to what is should be, and the Holy Father is working on it. However, that is my opinion. There are many who would disagree, as they are happy with what they have.
What worries me is a polarisation, a sort of ghetto mentality developing between the Ordinariates and ordinary Catholic parishes. It might not happen, and I believe people will work hard to ensure that it doesn't happen as it would be a sad thing to see. We are all brothers and sisters in Christ's church with many gifts to share. However, we all all also humans and humans have a way of letting their egos get in the way of the Lord's work.
p.s. I'm surprised you posted my earlier post after informing me that it was uncharitably written.
#34 and private correspondence
Mr Humphries, who lives in Japan, has written to me very kindly by e-mail. He understands the difficulties we have with cantankerous or prejudiced people.
He supports the Ordinariates, though as an "ordinary Catholic" he is concerned to avoid the formation of opposing cliques of Anglican "immigrants" (I coin the term). I think we should certainly take care to accept criticism sufficiently to prevent that happening.
I'm sure we in the TAC would appreciate that much more public support and encouragement from Forward in Faith, so that we should no longer get the wrong impression that we are being "snubbed". On our side, we need to be patient with the FiF clergy and layfolk, who are taking time in getting used to the idea that it is possible to be canonically, spiritually and doctrinally and Roman Catholic and remain Anglican culturally. It hasn't been possible until now – at least outside Texas and one or two other places in America.
Shall we work on these good relations? They are already at an all-time high between our Bishops, between Archbishop Hepworth and the "flying" Bishops in England and with the Anglican Use in the USA (Fr Phillips is right here on The Anglo Catholic).
We also need encouragement from our commenters, even though we have to understand their anxiety and make allowances. The more positive encouragement we all get, the less anxious any of us will be.
Deborah, to answer the second of your two questions:
2. If there is only one ordinariate per country, is there any way to preserve disciplines such as no altar girls, or no “Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion”?
Under current practice in the Catholic Church, the use of altar girls is up to the pastor of a parish, even if the bishop has given permission for this. And even then, a priest may decline their service. So in a church in the ordinariate, even should it use the Novus Ordo, there would be no need to employ women or girls as altar servers.
The same is true of EMHCs…their employment is up to the pastor/priest, and is not required.
In fact, many of the less desirable "features" that one often finds in English-speaking Catholic parishes is not due to any intrinsic connection to the Missal of Pope Paul VI, but due to various abuses, ignorance, etc.
It's clear why there is no mention of the TAC: FiF is to do with constituent Churches of the Anglican Communion, of which TAC is not.
They’re off! FiF has made a strong start, with TAC close behind. Kasper’s Boy is at the back, AU and Tiber-Swimmer94 are just ahead. Ecumenicus and Polyester Chasuble are in the middle of the course and Polyester Chasuble has just passed Ecumenicus. Both are ahead of AU and Tiber-Swimmer94 and FiF is coming from behind TAC, passing AU and Tiber-Swimmer94, and look at FiF go, flying up the racetrack! AU has passed TAC and is now passing FiF, and into the lead. They’re coming to the finishing line, what an incredible finish! It’s FiF first, AU second, TAC third, Kasper's Boy finishes fourth, with Tiber-Swimmer94 coming in last.
I am confused and hopefully someone can clarify my concern. If Anglicans wishing to become part of an Ordinariate are doing so because they want to retain the Anglican traditions, why would some want to use the Roman Rite? I thought that the offer from Pope Benedict was specifically for Anglicans wishing to become Catholic and to bring their Anglican treasures with them. If one just wants to be part of the Latin Rite using their liturgy etc. why would they not just become Catholic as an individual? I had no choice but to become Catholic as we had no Anglican Use parish in my state and although I am content in my parish I would love to belong to an Anglican Use parish with all my old Anglican traditions and liturgy.
I am just asking as this is confusing to me as I stated above.
I agree with you and find it strange that Anglicans can be using the modern Roman rite and at the same time be admitted into a future Ordinariate and bring Anglican treasures. At the same time, I understand where they are coming from. A few decades ago, these “extreme Anglo-Papalists” were using the English Missal and doing everything like the upmarket city Roman Catholic parishes of the same era. Then, along came Vatican II and the changes of the 1960’s and 70’s, and the Anglican “spikes” followed.
A little anecdote. I visited St Mary’s Cable Street in London’s East End in about 1978, a nice mid-Victorian church with a fine carved wooden altar and reredos, sober but admirable. I was with a friend, and in came the Vicar. “Nice altar, you have here”, I said. “Oh! That? We’re ripping that out”. “Why”, I asked. “Because there’s been Vatican II and we have to turn the altars around”. “But”, I said, “Why is Vatican II an issue? That’s for the Roman Catholic Church. We’re Anglicans”. “We’re still doing it”, he replied. I just walked out of the church and have never been back ever since.
“Extreme” Anglo-Papalism became widespread in England. Most of it has gone exactly like the run-of-the-mill “polyester” Catholic Church in England. The “affirming Catholic” tendency comes from there, especially the “gays”. Some of those men stayed conservative and more serious in their doctrine and spirituality – and there is Forward in Faith. A very few FiF parishes still use the English Missal or the “interim” Prayer Book (reassembled 1662 or English 1928).
It is ironic that some of our fiercest critics are “classical” Anglicans belonging to this or that Continuing Church. I do believe we can be “English” without exaggerating either way, to “extreme” Anglo-Papalism or a kind of fundamentalism that rejects any theological or spiritual development in the Church since the mid seventeenth century!
I would like to see something based on the pre-Reformation English Church, but without the clerical abuses and corruption to which some historians bear testimony. [Eamon Duffy is much more positive about the pre-Reformation Church in The Stripping of the Altars.] I believe a revived “pre-Reformation” English Church could be brought into the mainstream of Catholicism alongside all other localities and communities that use liturgies other than the Roman rite. I am sure that, alongside the Use of Sarum, certain post-Reformation aspects of Anglicanism need to be kept like our love of the Scriptures and the Fathers, our tradition of preaching and pastoral ministry as an essential part of priestly spirituality as well as our stability and family life (for the married majority).
If we find ourselves in a common Ordinariate with all other “categories” of those who want to join up as priests or lay people, then we must have a certain diversity of liturgy. Less than presently in the English Anglican quagmire of liturgical DIY variations, but within the traditions of the Use of Sarum, those favourite prayers from the Prayer Book found to be theologically orthodox and edifying and the two forms of the Roman rite.
I hope this begins to make things easier to understand in our horribly “Byzantine” Anglican world.
Fr. Chadwick,
Thank you for your response. When I see all the diversity among the Continuing Anglican groups and them breaking away to form another it does concern me that as a group of Anglicans going into the Catholic Church that we don't follow this route in the liturgy and traditions we hold so dear.
We should be united as one. I compared the Canon used in Anglican Use parishes and it is almost the same as in the Sarum Use. I love the wording, I think that it is similar to the Canon in the Traditional Liturgy Masses.
We have such beauty within the Anglican church and pray that the Holy Spirit will be guiding whoever makes the changes in the new liturgy.
Although I attend a Latin Rite parish that has both the TLM and the NO it is very traditional and the altar has never been moved, the priest faces ad orientem. We have an altar rail and receive kneeling. The hymns seem to come from the old 1940 Episcopal hymnal.
I feel very fortunate to have this parish to attend; as a former Anglo Catholic I appreciate the reverence and traditions of my former parish.
Thank you again for your response.
Hi,
As the Anglican priest who serves the congregation in Edinburgh and Dumfries, I have to say: please be patient and tolerant. The site for friends was set up today and we have heard all sorts of why not us. In Scotland my organist is an RC and a supporter. We don't really have any Trad Anglicans in Scotland who are not members of FiF so sorry if we have upset you. Why not set up your own supporters site rather than negative comment. Let us build the kingdom.
Ad Jesum per Mariam,
Andrew
PS We use the English Missal
Fr. Crosbie-
My sentiments exactly.
Unfortunately, it is human nature to see a boogie-man behind every bush and to speculate on the negative. We must forgive and continue to pray. We are all sinners and fall short of the Glory of God. I’m sure there will be large doses of grace and charity to go around once the various Ordinariates are established. In the meantime, let us focus on the known, which is solid food for the spiritually mature, and leave the milk to the babes who cast stones.
Blessings,
Clark
Thus runs the introduction to a new website. And right in that concept lies the problem which has disappointed, saddened and frustrated me for some time, as a member of Forward in Faith UK myself, having now decided to let my membership lapse. The position of Forward in Faith unfortunately very much looks like double-talk.
In most cases, I am sure, it is not intentional double-talk, only a genuine confusion about the nature of Anglicanism and of the Catholic Faith and Church. Unfortunately, more than one FiF bishop and leader has made various statements to the effect that “we would very much prefer to remain faithful members of the Church of England, but if the CofE fails to make accommodation for those of us who cannot accept the ministry of female bishops, we shall be forced (as ‘Plan B’) to take refuge in the Roman Catholic Church.”
Well, the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith are not ‘Plan B’, and they are not a refuge from female bishops, for those who would rather be Anglicans. The Catholic Church is ‘Plan A’, and genuine conversion is recognising that it has always been ‘Plan A’. Those wishing by preference to remain Anglicans out of communion with the See of Peter have not really accepted the fullness of the Catholic Faith and therefore are not bona fide applicants for membership in the Catholic Church. They are therefore not “Friends of the Ordinariate”, any more than we can and should all be friends without necessarily sharing the same faith.
As for the various Catholic liturgies, whether Roman ‘Extraordinary Form’ or ‘Novus Ordo’, Byzantine, Slavonic or Arabic, ‘Anglican Use’ or Book of Common Prayer as authorised by the Catholic Church, they all have equal validity, legitimacy and dignity within the Catholic Church, and, as I understand it, the new ordinariates are meant to establish a liturgically coherent and consistent ‘Anglican’ Catholic jurisdiction, just as there is a Ukrainian Catholic jurisdiction or a Melkite one, even if the canonical technicalities of an ordinariate are slightly different.
Whether or not within these ordinariates there will be room for some ritual pluralism will be decided by our bishops/ordinaries in consultation with the respective Catholic Bishops’ Conferences and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Those Anglican Catholics who have already adopted the modern Roman Liturgy presumably do not need a new ordinariate, although, for reasons of continued Anglican Catholic solidarity and ethos they may wish to avail themselves of it. In fact, ‘Anglican Use’ parishes already in the Catholic Church may also choose to join the new ordinariate of their region, and I can imagine one new ‘Anglican Use’ being consolidated.
One thing seems certain to me, and that is that restoring Eucharistic communion with and within the Catholic Church under the Bishop of Rome has nothing to do with women bishops, homosexual marriages, or whatever we approve or disapprove of as individuals, though these crises may have been historic graces to wake us up to the need to restore Catholic unity.
Asking to have communion restored is solely a question of having recognised the unique truth and fullest realisation of the Catholic Faith in the Catholic Church, and seeing that as the normative way of salvation in Christ. Hankering after some other separate Church, whether past, present or future, is surely incompatible with the Catholic Faith and the desire for the fullness of Truth.
Fr E Skublics
Response to #24. Very well said. This post brings about another concern, if some of FIF approached Rome wanting Plan A, but if Plan A didn't work they would accept Plan B and are now retreating and staying within the Anglican Communion it reflects on all Anglicans in a very negative light.
It makes the naysayers correct in some of their statements and might further influence Rome to reject future Anglicans from entering into the Catholic Church as a group under an Ordinariate. I feel that Pope Benedict probably has a grasp on how some Anglicans actually feel about becoming Catholics and will still continue to bring about unity for Anglicans. He is a very courageous person, as I believe he has taken much criticism from within the Catholic Church and also the Anglican Communion.
I pray that this will not be the case for there are many wonderful Anglicans who want to be in complete union with Peter.
I also agree that this is not about women Bishops or homosexuals for many Anglicans. As a former part of the Anglican Communion who is now Catholic, it was hearing such things as my niece's father-in-law a former Bishop of the Los Angeles diocese in the US say he didn't believe in the Resurrection of Christ. I know the media blames it all on the women priest issues etc., but in reality at least in the US, TEC has changed its beliefs and anything goes.
Also from what I understand the Anglican Use parishes, already established, have wanted this from the beginning of the establishment of the Pastoral Provsion.
When I read Anglicanorum Coetibus I got the impression that there could be a number of different ordinariates coming from different groups in one region. But I might have got it wrong. I presumed that TAC would basically stay the same except now in the Catholic Church with those changes necessary to enter union with the Pope. However I do think that it is important that an Anglican liturgy is preserved and that Anglican Catholic parishes should not use the Roman Missal. You might as well just enter the Catholic Roman Rite church as individuals and then be part of the normal Roman Rite parishes and dioceses if you do that. The Anglican Catholic ordinariates need to preserve the unique Anglican liturgy , traditions and spirituality. Many Eastern Rite churches romanised aspects of their liturgy and spirituality and this was seen later as a negative approach and the Eastern Rites were encouraged to get rid of their romanisations and return to their own unique ways appropriate to their rite.
I think a lot of us had that experience at our first reading of the Constitution. With respect I think we might have been reading into it what we wanted to read.
I believe I understand it now, there will be Ordinariates according to numerical need – I'd be surprised if here in the UK we merit more than one Ordinariate, if an Ordinariate is comparable to a diocese – we have some very big dioceses as I'm sure you do.
I think it's bye-bye old TAC in June, hello Ordinariate and the future!
"I think it’s bye-bye old TAC in June, hello Ordinariate and the future!"
Does this mean there will be no need for the TAC because its clergy and people will be in an Ordinariate?
or
Does it mean that the Ordinariate will have given the TAC the heave-ho, and no one will think about it anymore when TAC passes into "vagante" land?
Archbishop Hepworth suggests there will be some kind of structure for those who want to take longer to decide. I don't quite know how that could work after the movement of most people to the Ordinariate, but the idea is there.
Wow, a crucial point I think! Good question. I would hope there'll be no need for a TAC, yes.
A structure, yes, as the Archbishop wants – but it won't be the same old TAC with the same old impetus, it strikes me. I may be wrong, it will definately be depleted. A hard one.
I can't see the coming Ordinariate as having need or facility to accommodate the TAC as a structure, it would make for a two-tier structure (ditto old-FiF, CofE, whoever else, etc.).
The move implies leaving behind the Anglican structures – such as TAC or ones C of E diocese – but not the historic, artistic, and pastoral inheritance.
What I can see happening in England would be the following scenario. The clergy and Vicar General of the TTAC get together with FiF clergy having made a firm commitment to establishing an Ordinariate. Application is made to Rome and an Ordinary is appointed. For the sake of argument, Bishop Mercer is (re)consecrated a Bishop or Bishop John Broadhurst (married) becomes a mitred prelate and Ordinary.
Under a common Episcopal authority, the parishes and deaneries are organised. I would imagine the present TAC parishes would not change unless they were geographically near a presently Fif parish (which would have lost its church building it had with the C of E). If a presently TAC parish and a presently Fif parish have to merge, then I can imagine provision will be made for a diversity of rites (Novus Ordo, TLM or an approved Anglican liturgy) within the same parish like the extraordinary and ordinary uses in Catholic parishes presently.
What is clear to me is that an Ordinariate can only be made out of the “material” that will form it. Everything will depend on how the people and communities will accept each other and agree to collaborate in the respect of certain diversities.
If absolute (liturgical) uniformity is imposed in this Ordinariate, then everything will break up. There must be a “safety valve”.
Yes, you are pregnant and will be bearing an Ordinariate. Abortion is not an option here so, you will have to go through the pregnancy trials and birth pains. Expect morning sickness, upset stomach, weight gain, etc. But I assure you, soon you will hold this wonderful child in your arms. You will nurse it with your breast and your love. The family will gather, welcome, and support the child. And God's blessing shall be upon you both.
Hi,
In answer to number 32. I suggest that a read of the Declaration of Arbroath might help the understanding. There is no question that any English ecclesiatical jurisdiction can operate in Scotland, Roman or Anglican. There may well be one Ordinariate for England and the Principality of Wales but its jurisdiction will stop at the border.
Adrian I don't think I was reading into it anything as I have no agenda as I do not belong to TAC or FiF etc. I am a former Anglican and became a Catholic in 1987 at the age of 24. My family were of Anglo-Jewish ancestry and I was baptised with my brothers and father when i was about 7. i left the Anglican Church to become Orthodox Jewish when I was 21 after being a delegate to the National Anglican Youth Synod, i decided that people who thought they could decide doctrines by a vote were on the wrong track. My Anglican Archbishop while a lovely man was not a christian as he didn't believe in the physical resurrection of christ- just that he rose in the spirit of the christian community. He also was the first one in australia to ordain women. It has been very sad to watch the decline of the Anglican church. I come from an evangelical Anglican background and I saw the great sadness that my mother and her fellow Anglican parishioners suffered at what was happening in their church. So I am hoping these ordinariates will be a consolation and blessing for the Anglicans who have tried to be true to the Scriptures and Tradition against an ever growing wave of modernist destruction. We are and have been fighting a similiar battle in the Roman rite but we have the advantage of the Pope and the magisterium. Without that we may have also sunk. I am a very active member of the Association of Hebrew Catholics who are very interested in these ordinariates as we see they could be a possible way for the jews to retain thier heritage in the church in Jewish ordinariates. This Anglican ordinariates are hopefully only the start of a wave of different ordinariates so the church can attain to full universality. unity but not uniformity.
Just for my information, how much difference is there in the manner of worship between a TAC mass and a traditional Anglican mass? I expect high-church Anglican masses would be close to TAC masses, and the low-church and evangelical wings of Anglicanism would have no interest in AC.
Is there any chance that the two forms could merge under a new Ordinariate that would be to the satisfaction of both sides?
Hmm, I don't know why but my original post ended up somewhere in the middle! Here it is again.
Just for my information, how much difference is there in the manner of worship between a TAC mass and a traditional Anglican mass? I expect high-church Anglican masses would be close to TAC masses, and the low-church and evangelical wings of Anglicanism would have no interest in AC.
Is there any chance that the two forms could merge under a new Ordinariate that would be to the satisfaction of both sides?
Dear all,
If you visit the FOTO site now you will see that it has been expanded to include a section for TAC and Catholics who support the Ordinariate.
Prayers,
Andrew
The Friends have my support and prayers, but I can't register there because I live in France and am under the direct jurisdiction of Archbishop Hepworth (Patrimony of the Primate), not the TTAC. I am very heartened to see their decision to gauge also the support of Roman Catholics and the TTAC.
Pingback: In Which I Respond to Terry « The Anglo-Catholic