Via the Ordinariate Section of the website of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales:
I am humbled to have been appointed by the Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, as the first Ordinary for the Personal Ordinariate to be erected in Great Britain under the provisions set out in the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus. This is not an honour I have sought or expected but I pray that God will give me the wisdom and grace to live up to the trust the Holy Father has placed in me.
My wife and family have been a great support to me throughout my ministry and I know they will continue to do so. I am delighted that Gill was received with me into the full communion of the Catholic Church at Westminster Cathedral on 1 January 2011.
I can look back at over 35 years of ordained ministry with tremendous gratitude. The Church of England nourished me in the Christian Faith and it was within her that I discovered, as a teenager, my vocation to the ordained ministry which has involved service both in England and Africa. I do not see my reception into the Catholic Church as a radical break but part of the on‐going pilgrimage of faith which began at my baptism. Since my teenage years I have longed and prayed for corporate unity with the Catholic Church and the publication of the Apostolic Constitution has offered the possibility of realising that dream.
I am particularly grateful to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Reverend Rowan Williams, for his patience and graciousness with those of us who have been exploring our way forward over the last few months.
The Catholic Church, both here and in Rome, have given me warm encouragement in making this step and I am grateful for the countless words and signs of welcome I have received from many members of the Catholic Church over recent days. I hope the Ordinariate will be a gift to the Catholic Church and that I, together with those priests and people who join the Ordinariate, will be of service to the whole Church.
Keith Newton
Related posts:
- Vatican Information Service on the Establishment of the Ordinariate and the First Ordinary
- Archbishop Hepworth’s Pastoral Statement: Another Perspective
- Statement of the Bishops of England and Wales on the Implementation of Anglicanorum Coetibus
- Statement of the General Secretary of the CBCEW on the Ordinariate
- Statement from Bishop Peter Wilkinson
This appointment is wonderful news. There have been so many "Vaticanistas" who have wanted to bet me that the Holy Father would never entrust the initial running of the Ordinariate to one of the three founding clerics, but would put in "an experienced Catholic bishop" at first. When I pointed out the clear words of Anglicanorum coetibus, there would be a "yes, but…" response. This appointment emphasises the fact that Pope Benedict means what he says.
Congratulations to the new priests! We pray for them, and especially for Fr. Newton as he leads this first Personal Ordinariate into a glorious future!
You win, I'll need to revise the odds on the others.
Does Fr Newton have the ecclesiastical rank of Monsignor? I know Apostolic Prefects who exercise ordinary jurisdiction vicariously carry that rank.
Someone will need to remind me… but I think I remember that Richard Rutt and Graham Leonard were appointed Chaplains of His Holiness fairly quickly after their ordinations, which would have entitled them to use the title Monsignor. Leonard was quickly further elevated to the rank of Honorary Prelate, and Rutt caught up a couple of years ago.
If they did receive the title of Monsignor with haste, then that might be precedent to bestow it not only on the Ordinary but on the other former Anglican bishops as well.
As an Ordinary he is entitled to full pontificals, even though he is not a bishop. Therefore he will use the exact choir, street and liturgucal dress of a bishop, and he will be addressed as His Excellency the Most Reverend XX.
In England, bishops are the Right Rev. and archbishops the Most Rev.
I am assuming like other priest-ordinaries such as Prefect Apostolics, Fr (?Msgr) Newton is entitled to the use of pontificals, including the ring and the mitre, but not the crosier. Additionally, he is not allowed to bless in procession, and does not have the privilege of a seventh candle.
Ah! Don't assume anything. Article 11 of the complementary norms says that "§4. A former Anglican Bishop … who has not been ordained as a bishop in the Catholic Church, may request permission from the Holy See to use the insignia of the episcopal office." Notice it says "episcopal" and not just "prelatial." Based on that, I interpret it to mean 'all' insignia including the use of the crosier since a crosier is definitely part of a bishop's insignia.
A crozier. That would be interesting. The crozier symbolises jurisdiction and is therefore only carried by a bishop within his own diocese (or a metropolitan within the ambit of his metropolitan see, or the Holy Father everywhere). Since the Ordinariate is coterminus with the Bishops' Conference, that would in theory allow Fr Keith to carry his crozier anywhere in England and Wales. Or perhaps it would be restricted to those churches which are under the pastoral care of the Ordinariate.
Of course, he might well forgo the episcopalia; especially if he is of a similar mind to Fr Andrew, who has expressed some concerns over that particular privilege.
Stephen,
You wrote: A crozier. That would be interesting. The crozier symbolises jurisdiction and is therefore only carried by a bishop within his own diocese (or a metropolitan within the ambit of his metropolitan see, or the Holy Father everywhere).
No, that's not accurate. In the Catholic Church, a bishop may use the crosier anywhere. The bishop who confirmed my godson, who was the bishop emeritus of another diocese, carried the crosier during the service. Also, auxilliary bishops do carry the crosier even though they have no jurisdiction.
Historically, it was customary for a bishop to carry the crosier turned outward when he was within his own territory and turn inward when he was not, but this norm seems to have gone the way of presbyters having to wear the stole crossed over the chest and bishops not crossing it.
Norm.
Norm,
In the Caeremoniale Episcoporum (appendix 1, I think, don't have a copy here), it is stated that a bishop *may* use a crozier in the diocese of another bishop but permission must be sought from the diocesan (which is not normally withheld). In essence, the diocesan is saying "you have my authority to exercise your authority in my diocese".
Wikipedia has this citation from a dubium submitted to the Sacred Congregation of Rites in 1919:
"In case an outside Bishop uses a Bishops' staff, this being either required by the function or permitted by the Ordinary, in what direction should he hold the upper part, or crook?
Reply. Always with the crook turned away from himself, that is toward the persons or objects which he is facing." (AAS 12-177)
Justin,
You wrote: I am assuming like other priest-ordinaries such as Prefect Apostolics, Fr (?Msgr) Newton is entitled to the use of pontificals, including the ring and the mitre, but not the crosier. Additionally, he is not allowed to bless in procession, and does not have the privilege of a seventh candle.
From the Ceremonial of Bishops: "Prelates who are equal in law to a diocesan bishop but have not been raised to the episcopate may wear the same vesture as bishops."
Also, the use of the crosier does not require episcopal ordination. Abbots of Benedictine and Cistercian abbeys, for example, have use of full pontifical insignia, including the crosier, even though they are not bishops. The norm of Sacrosanctum concillium (No. 130) restricts use of pontifical insignia, including the crosier, to those who have "to those ecclesiastical persons who have episcopal rank or some particular jurisdiction" (emphasis added). The ordinary obviously is in the latter group.
Norm.
We have no idea whether he will dress in pontificals or not. In the constitution, or the norms, it says that the Ordinary (and any other former Anglican bishops) can ask permission to use pontificals, but nowhere does it say that he has to do so. He might well decide that he prefers not to. We shall have to wait and see.
Also, Catholic bishops in England are never called "Excellency". They use the same modes of address as the Anglican Bishops, so in formal situations they are referred to as "His Lordship" and addressed as "My Lord". Archbishops are His Grace/Your Grace. Informally, of course, they are just Bishop/Archbishop so-and-so.
Robert,
You wrote: In the constitution, or the norms, it says that the Ordinary (and any other former Anglican bishops) can ask permission to use pontificals, but nowhere does it say that he has to do so.
Actually, he does not have to ask. The Ceremonial of Bishops states: "Prelates who are equal in law to a diocesan bishop but have not been raised to the episcopate may wear the same vesture as bishops." The ordinary is "equal in law to a diocean bishop" so this provision applies, ex officio, to him.
Of course, the word "may" is permissive rather than compelling, so Fr. Keith Newton may well choose not to dress in that manner.
Norm.
Jonny,
You wrote: As an Ordinary he is entitled to full pontificals, even though he is not a bishop. Therefore he will use the exact choir, street and liturgucal dress of a bishop…
That is absolutely correct.
You continued: … and he will be addressed as His Excellency the Most Reverend XX.
I'm not so sure about that. My understanding is that abbots of territorial abbacies, for example, are still addressed as abbots (Right Reverend) rather than as bishops (Most Reverend).
Norm.
Fr Chadwick suggests "Monsignor' as the appropriate title. Perhaps he has special expertise, as he so styles himself here: tboyle.net/Catholicism/Msgr_Chadwick_on_Bp_Roux.html
Fr. Chadwick no more styles himself as Mgr. The internet page you cite is very old.
Pax et Bonum
I am quite aware that a very large and opaque veil has been drawn over this chapter of the story. Just experiencing a frivolous moment.
I'm anxious to know the makeup of the Anglican liturgies to be authorized and how long it takes before they're implemented.
Neville,
You wrote: I'm anxious to know the makeup of the Anglican liturgies to be authorized and how long it takes before they're implemented.
Pope John Paul II authorized an adaptation of the various orders of worship of the Book of Common Prayer for the "Anglican Use" parishes composed of former Anglicans that, until now, have been under the pastoral care of the local diocesan bishop. The Book of Divine Worship (BDW) containing the adapted orders of worship is available on line, albeit with a few typos. I think that the most significant changes are (1) the use of the Catholic translation of the words of institution and (2) mention of the pope in addition to the diocesan bishop in the anaphora. There's also an option to use the anaphoras of the current Roman missal.
Perhaps you will find the following paragraph from a review by Canon Richard Harris of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada after the "Becoming One" gathering hosted Our Lady of the Atonement Parish in San Antonio to be reassuring.
Realistically, the existing BDW will require a couple minor adaptations for use in other countries. First, the liturgical calendar in the existing volume includes the celebrations proper to the dioceses of the United States, which would not be the same for other countries. And second, I'm sure that the members of the Ordinariate for England and Wales would prefer an edition with British spellings of words like "hono[u]r" and "colo[u]r" rather than the American spellings in the current edition. Nonetheless, such an edition could gain very quick approval because it is already basically approved.
If you want something other than the current BDW, you probably are looking at a process that will take at least two or three years and perhaps longer. You can be sure that both the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will have their say, and they don't always see eye to eye. Thus, my recommendation would be to adopt the modified BDW as an interim measure.
Norm.
It would be painful for us in the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada as well. I experienced it as a bit of a mish mash. We use the old liturgical calendar and lectionary and the King James Bible. Of course, we will do what we are told, but I am sure I am not alone in hoping we will not have to bear the jarring back and forth between the lyrical Shakespearean English and modern inclusive translations of the Holy Scripture and the Psalms.
Deborah,
You wrote: It would be painful for us in the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada as well. I experienced it as a bit of a mish mash.
Hmmm… Were you and the canon from your church who wrote the block quote above in the same place???
You wrote: We use the old liturgical calendar and lectionary and the King James Bible.
FBOW, the Catholic Church has never approved the Authorized ("King James") Version of the bible due to inaccuracies in the translation, and I doubt that the Vatican will approve it now. You probably would have a better shot of getting approval for the Douay-Rheims translation, completed in 1610 by the (Catholic) English College exiled in France. The bigger concern, though, is that English of that era is no longer current, and thus is easily misunderstood. By way of example, Shakespeare was not exactly referring to a convent wrote, "Get thee to a nunnery!" At least when the Roman liturgy was in Latin, the majority of the people in the pews knew that they did not understand what was being said!
You wrote: … but I am sure I am not alone in hoping we will not have to bear the jarring back and forth between the lyrical Shakespearean English and modern inclusive translations of the Holy Scripture and the Psalms.
The present Book of Divine Worship seems to provide options for both traditional and contemporary wording. I would think that one would make consistent choices in that regard, at least within a service.
And of course, parishes of the ordinariates have the opti0n to use the present Roman form of the liturgy if there's something in the approved Anglican form that grates.
Norm.
The BDW has a "Traditional" as well as a "Contemporary" Psalter. Presumably it would be used by anyone who was doing the Rite 1 Eucharist or Daily Office. The Calendar, however, conforms to current Latin Rite norms: no Sexagesima, St Matthias in May, etc. I wouldn't look for any leeway here.
Thank you -thank you for reminding us what "us" can mean.
Thank you for providing light on meaning & history of words: "orthodoxy & catholicity".
Thank you for your example of values.
Thank you for picking us.
Welcome! -I'm sure all in pews look forward to exchange of homilies; inspired gifts & ministries and new brother & sisters [with whom we are no longer separated] to meet.
Please know you are welcomed – we look forward to learning of your "catholic" perspective.
Rev. Newton's selection also dashes the statements from enigmatic sources that certain Catholic bishops would not countenance married Ordinaries. Chalk up another one in the "WRONG!" column for those who think they speak with an insider's voice.
Pray for him, O Holy Mother of God, that he may be made worthy of the promises of Christ!
Fr. William,
You wrote: Rev. Newton's selection also dashes the statements from enigmatic sources that certain Catholic bishops would not countenance married Ordinaries. Chalk up another one in the "WRONG!" column for those who think they speak with an insider's voice.
I don't see why your "enigmatic sources" would assert such a position unless they had not bothered to read the "Complementary Norms" to Anglicanorum coetibus. Article 11 of this document clearly foresees and provides for married ordinaries.
Norm.
Norm,
That is exactly my point. Yet, they're out there.
"Doc"+
The more I read about these three men, the former bishops, and the many other converts who have come home, the more I am humbled by their trust in God.
May God grant these men and their families, and all called home to the fullness of the Faith in Christ's Catholic Church, every spiritual and material means of support.
And, praise God for giving us such a great pope – long live Pope Benedict XVI!
I believe that the new man gets the title Monsignor in virtue of his office as an ordinary, as would any prefect or vicar apostolic who was not a bishop; even vicars-general have the office ex officio. But it would lapse on the day of his retirement.
Of course, long before then, all three of these worthies could be appointed chaplains of honour to H.H., in which case, they retain the title for life.
So I presume that it is Msgr. Keith Newton and Frs. John Broadhurst and Andrew Burnham for the present. It would even be The Right Reverend Monsignor Keith Newton, I believe. I'm not sure if he also attains 'His Lordship' in England and 'His Excellency' in many other countries.
I invite a correction or amplification if I'm mistaken about this.
P.K.T.P.
It needs to be said that regardless of how he is styled, what he wears or does not wear and how his is addressed formally or informally it is a great tribute to the Holy Father that he has placed the Anglican patrimony in the hands of a faithful pastor and sensitive soul. Fr. Keith Newton will have the authority to speak for those who come into full communion with Rome with their Anglican heritage intact. That is everything.
This is a momentous and historic moment and we can be perfectly happy to see the Ordinary continuing in his black cassock carrying the vicarious authority of the Holy Father. It might even be patrimonial in its simplicity, evoking the Catholic teaching of the Parochial and Plain sermons delivered by John Henry Newman in St. Mary's, Oxford in his unaffected style dressed in a black cassock.
A proud congratulations to a long lost cousin.
Keith… I still remember being facinated by your chemistry set!!
Wanted to tell you how proud I am of what you have achieved and wish you luck and happiness in your ministry.
I often remember the joyous christmas times with uncle Jim and auntie Eve
Love Phil
What I find encouraging is that the Holy Father picked the Ordinary from an Anglican coming into the Ordinariate, he could have chosen a Bishop or priest who were formerly Anglican, but have been Latin Rite since their conversion. Hopefully this will follow when choosing the other Ordinaries and not choose one who although former an Anglican, has been Latin Rite since coming into the Church.
Gay,
You wrote: Hopefully this will follow when choosing the other Ordinaries and not choose one who although former an Anglican, has been Latin Rite since coming into the Church.
It's a pretty good bet that the Vatican anticipates this to be the general pattern.
Having said that, however, we have a unique situation here in the United States — that of "Anglican Use" parishes that will join the ordinariate from within the Catholic Church. It's possible that a cleric connected with one or another of those parishes, like our own Fr. Christopher Phillips, could get the nod.
Of course, I should not jinx his chances by hyping the possibility. Making liars of those who speculate seems to be a favorite hobby within the Vatican….
Norm.
Exactly what many are thinking, but not saying. The Ordinariates need an Ordinary who has a long standing knowledge of both Anglicans and Catholics in a personal experience, especially in the US, we are spread over 50 states and Fr. Phillips travels well. Whoever it will be, it will be in my humble opinion, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
And what about Anglican Patrimony and Rochets and Chimeres? I used to quite like appearing as a scarlet and white galleon under full sail… oh, and forget the "Bishop" bit above this post..I am currently Mr.
Canterbury caps all round!
Nowt wrong with the Canterbury cap (Archbishop Michael Ramsey looked particularly distinguished in one). But we should really push for a revival of the coif.
Those that enter the Ordinariate are entering the Latin Rite, so actually Fr. Newton has been Latin Rite since coming into the Church. He has also mentioned in his press conference that many "Anglo-Catholics" already celebrate the "Roman Rite" Mass. That being the case, I don't see why a "convert" having made his decision some time ago should be at a disadvantage to one that has yet to announce his decision. Since there have been at least a couple of former Episcopal bishops who have swam laps on the Tiber, it would seem like there is some advantage to demonstrated stability. I can also see some different advantages to someone that is just now entering, and expect the Vatican would have high expectations of someone's stability prior to naming them the ordinary.
Daniel,
You wrote: Those that enter the Ordinariate are entering the Latin Rite, so actually Fr. Newton has been Latin Rite since coming into the Church. He has also mentioned in his press conference that many "Anglo-Catholics" already celebrate the "Roman Rite" Mass. That being the case, I don't see why a "convert" having made his decision some time ago should be at a disadvantage to one that has yet to announce his decision. Since there have been at least a couple of former Episcopal bishops who have swam laps on the Tiber, it would seem like there is some advantage to demonstrated stability. I can also see some different advantages to someone that is just now entering, and expect the Vatican would have high expectations of someone's stability prior to naming them the ordinary.
That's all true, but we also cannot discount the value of established pastoral relationships in which the pastors already have the trust of the people in the pews. Many who are following their pastors into full communion undoubtedly are not doing so without misgivings, and the assurance that they will retain their current pastoral leadership is a major swinger in their decisions.
That said, many of the Anglican bishops who are bringing their flocks into full communion of the Catholic Church have been working with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for over a decade, and in some cases nearly two decades and perhaps even more, in order to make this happen. At this point, many of them are better known inside the Vatican than many Catholic bishops.
Norm.