The Ordinary in Plain Text

Holding Forth

A Transcript of Father Keith Newton’s press conference; most of the non-attributed questions came, I think, from Ruth Gledhill. It is difficult to convey the tone of voice: Father Keith became most animated when asked if he was concerned about those left behind… but if  you want his tone, listen to the piece rather than reading it. This transcription is offered simply to help those who would rather see something in print.  This is only Part I of the conference.  It’s as accurate as I can make it without taking a week over it.  The rest may follow, if anyone shows any interest.

17 January 2011 Press Conference held at the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England & Wales. There was a welcome by Bishop Alan Hopes.

Thank you for coming this morning.  We thought that today would be the most appropriate day to meet the new Ordinary of the new Personal Ordinariate.  That was announced in Rome at the same time, and Keith Newton as the new Ordinary.  So I want to introduce you to Fr Keith and leave the rest in his hands.

Father Keith said:

Thank you for coming this morning.  You can imagine it’s been something of a rollercoaster of a few days.  I jokingly thought we were slightly slower than Cardinal Manning, but the Archbishop tells me that Cardinal Manning took a couple of months; we three former bishops have taken just a couple of weeks.  There’s been a lot happening since our reception into the Catholic Church on January 1st until last Saturday.  I am very grateful to Archbishop Vincent and the Cathedral and all other members of the Catholic Church for the help and encouragement they have given us.  And I am humbled to have been asked by the Pope to be the first Ordinary of the new Ordinariate.  You’ve seen the statement I made.  It's probably best if I answer your questions.

I notice you are wearing a Pectoral Cross?  What is the significance of that?

It’s quite clear I am not a bishop.  I was ordained into the Catholic priesthood on Saturday.  But an Ordinary is a person who has jurisdiction — in this case over a given group of people.  At present my jurisdiction is rather limited — to three clergy, two wives and three religious.  Nevertheless, I do have jurisdiction of this first Ordinariate.

The nearest equivalent is an abbot in a monastery; he can carry a crosier and wear a mitre.  Those privileges have been given to me; that’s why I can wear a pectoral cross and a ring.  So I am not a bishop, but those privileges have been given to me, and I have oversight of those who will join the Ordinariate.

Will the others be able to wear the pectoral cross and ring?

No, I don’t think they will.  They will be able to wear a mitre and carry a crosier when they’re acting on my behalf, for instance when they are presiding at a confirmation, which they will be able to do.

Will you have a vote in the Bishop’s Conference?

Yes, I will.

'Yes he will', says Bishop Hopes, 'and he will have a vote on finance as well, which auxiliary bishops don’t get'.

Fr Keith, jokingly: Don’t be jealous!

And on other matters?

Bishop Hopes: 'No, it is just on finance.'

The state of the religious?  Are they technically laity at present?

Well, I don’t know what their position is in Canon Law, but it’s quite obvious from reading the Apostolic Constitution that Religious can be part of the Ordinariate.  Those who have made religious vows in the Church of England — what they have done in the Church of England — has been respected when they have come over.  The Catholic Church wants to respect what they have been.  We are in a process of deciding how we can erect a particular religious community within the Ordinariate.  This is going to take a little time.  Just as what we have been has been recognised.

Did you have to say the sacraments you had done in the past were invalid?  That’s been asserted by some on Twitter.

Nobody has asked me to deny anything.  What I have been as an Anglican priest and bishop has been respected.  There are fruits from those ministries; God has worked through me, I know.  And that is respected.

Bishop Hopes: 'Can I just add that the Archbishop in his homily on Saturday acknowledged the fruitfulness of the former ministries of these three men'.

Press Association question: Have you any offices, or a church to worship in yet?

As for offices, we’ve been very generously given an office here in Eccleston Square for the time being.  As for the future, we don’t know: we are in very early days.  I hope there will be somewhere to live, and that there will be somewhere for me to work from.  At the moment, I don’t know where it is going to be.  As I say, we are in very early days.

Where are you living?

I’m still living in the house where I lived as Bishop of Richborough.  The Church of England has allowed me to stay there until the end of March, and I hope that between now and then someone will find me somewhere to live.

Bishop Hopes: 'We are actively engaged on this.'

I don’t think they’ll expect me to sell the Big Issue outside the station.

Catholic Herald: How do you see the next couple of months unfolding for yourself?

I think it is going to be pretty busy.  The most important thing is going to be working with Bishop Alan.  Bishop Alan is the Episcopal Delegate.  I hope he will be at my side helping me with this.  We have to work out practical questions for those Anglicans becoming Catholics from Ash Wednesday until Pentecost.  One of the great burdens of this upon me  — I must say I was rather hesitant in accepting it — but I feel as a Catholic, the Holy Father asked me to do it, I must respond positively.  But I am concerned we look after our clergy.  It’s my responsibility for housing, for finance — not only for them but for their wives.  We’ve got some resources at the moment but we’ll need more.  That is going to mean a lot of hard work.


We are going to start looking into that, yes.  There are one or two donors who have suggested they will help us.  I’ll be meeting with them in the next few months and hoping they will be generous.  The Catholic Church has already been generous with an amount of money from the Bishops’ Conference.  There’s going to be help from them over housing.  There are one or two organisations which are suggesting ways priests may have to earn money.  I am very keen that if they have to earn money, it's doing something that is part of their vocation.  Living out ways of being Catholic priests, not stacking shelves in Sainsbury’s.  I hope they will do something to further their ministry.

Will you have a pension?  When will you draw your pension?

I have.  I could draw my pension now, but it would be reduced; I hope to draw in on 10th April 2017 when I’m 65 (now you know).

Do you have any income?

Absolutely none at present, but we’ll discuss that.  I think this is a step of faith.  People have said that you’ve to step forward and jump and you’ll be caught and I believe that.  I’m putting my hands into the Church — not just my hands, my feet and everything.

What is your relationship with Walsingham? And the liturgy?

Walsingham is a very special place for Anglo-Catholics.  But of course it does not belong to Anglicans.  It is a place of pilgrimage and there are two shrines.  I know the authorities at the Shrine want to examine ways in which members of the Ordinariate can continue to worship at the Anglican shrine.  There will have to be conversations with the Guardians. Certainly one Guardian I’ve spoken to wants to see the Ordinariate as a bridge; we should be building bridges, not burning them down.  I don’t look back at the Church of England with anger or bitterness. This move is part of my ongoing pilgrimage.  I want to keep doors open between those who are still in the C of E and ourselves.  Any way the Ordinariate can foster unity must be God’s work.


I’m very honest: I am not a liturgist.  My colleague Andrew Burnham is a liturgist and he is looking with others around the world at what an Anglican liturgy might be for the Ordinariate.  The CDF are fairly keen that there should be one liturgy for the Ordinariates wherever they are, not lots of different ones.  There’s obviously the Book of Divine Worship which was produced in the USA for those who became Catholics under the Pastoral Provision in the '70s and '80s.  I don’t know whether you’ve seen that book, it is an enormous tome; have you seen it?  It wouldn’t fit on the shelf of the pew.  That’s got quite a lot of material, and we’ll be looking at that.  But we need something that will be acceptable throughout the world.  In England it will be used by some but not certainly by everyone in England — not, at least, for the Eucharistic rite.  Some of the priests in the Anglo-Catholic world and who will join the Ordinariate already use the Roman Rite and will continue to do so.  Some will want to use an Anglican rite which has been ratified by the Congregation for Divine Worship, but that’s a process that’s going on but that’s not my department and I am glad to leave it to Bishop Andrew — sorry, Father Andrew.  Old habits die hard.

Are you a Monsignor?

No.  Not at the moment.  I’m not quite sure what I am.  As far as I am concerned, I am very happy with Father.  I’m getting everything: Your Excellency, the Very Reverend, the Right Reverend.

Bishop Hopes. 'It’s Father at the moment'.

Yes, Father.  As a Bishop in the Church of England, I’ve always preferred Father.

Was Women’s Ordination the factor which decided you?

That’s a factor; but Women’s ordination [was] only a factor in an ongoing process.  I had conversations in '93 about being a Catholic, but I did not do so then.  I have always wanted and longed for unity.  In fact, this has gone on since my wife and I were teenagers.  We can remember going to Liverpool Cathedral for the first sermon by a Cardinal in the Anglican Cathedral — for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity; it was Cardinal Willebrands.  There were lots of demonstrations outside, protestors.  You can imagine Liverpool in those days: very tense feelings between Catholics and Protestants.  This was the days before Archbishop Warlock and David Sheppard.  I can remember that vividly, and ever since that day, we have longed for unity.  My objection to the Ordination of Women has been the damage it has done to the goal of the ARCIC process: that was full ecclesial communion.  That has disappeared.  The Church of England has put obstacles up.  Inasmuch as that’s an obstacle, I’ve opposed it.

It’s not the only reason.  You don’t become a Catholic because you don’t like what’s going on in the C of E.  You have to become a Catholic because you want to become a Catholic, and that’s very deep down in me.  I can remember (I think it was 2006) going to Rome and sitting in St Peter’s Square for the General Audience and being incredibly moved by the sense of communion of all the people there with the Successor of Peter.  I knew that was the direction we were going to go.  I longed for a provision for people like us to continue that ecumenical journey — which I think has been stalled a little bit by some of the things the Church of England has done.  That did not mean at that stage that I wanted to be a Catholic priest.

Why were you an Anglican?

Well, because I was born and raised within an Anglican family.  I didn’t say "I’m sorry mum, I don’t want to be baptised."  That’s what’s nurtured me in the Faith.  When I first became a priest, I never thought I’d become a Catholic.  Initially, you become part of the denomination in which your parents bring you up.  My faith has been nurtured in it, and my vocation’s been nurtured in it.  I want to take what I’ve been made into the Catholic Church.

What formed you and set you in the direction of Catholicism?  Was there a particular incident?

You mean Anglo-Catholicism?  You have to go back to a long process, where I went in  Liverpool where I was brought up; if the church wore vestments you were thought to be almost beyond the pale.  I was brought up in what was thought to be a Prayer Book Catholic Church.  Our curates were much more advanced, as it were, than the parish priest was, and one guy who was a curate was a great influence on me in my teenage years.  In fact, he was at the Ordination and the reception on Saturday.  He had quite an influence on me as a young man.  He helped me have a wider view of the Church.

When I came to King's as an ordinand to read theology, I was taught by Eric Mascall who was one of the professors there, and other members of staff that led me in that direction.  It is a progression.  It is very difficult to think of one or two particular incidents.

I don’t know about your family background.  What would your parents and other relations say about your conversion?

My father is dead.  My mother, she’s found it… "not difficult" would be wrong; she doesn’t quite understand I don’t think. She’s not objected in any way.  I don’t think she quite realises what’s happened to me.  She wasn’t able to come to the Ordination although she knew it was happening and she was very sad that she could not get there.  She was even sadder that I baptised my first grandchild during my first Catholic Mass.  That’s an unusual thing, I think, in the Catholic Church.  She was sorry she was not able to come to that.  My daughter is a Catholic as well; she was received in the middle of last year.  Her husband’s a practising Catholic.

And the reactions in the Church of England?

Mostly we have had good wishes.  It was very difficult when I resigned.  There are some who felt I was leaving them, but who are delighted.  There are some still in the C of E, who may not be part of the first wave, who were still delighted.  There were some who wanted me to stay and find a provision within the C of E.  I personally don’t think that’s possible.

How long is it going to take you to put together a Governing Council?

We will have an interim Council.  You can guess who’s going to be on that!  That will be my clergy; the three of us and Bishop Alan.  An interim Governing Council, and we’ll be meeting together until Pentecost.  It has to be at least six people; it can be more.  Once the priests are ordained, we’ll talk about how that might be and what it's statutes might be.  Half the Governing Council are elected by the clergy; half are appointed — by the Ordinary in the months after Pentecost.

Any clearer idea of the number of people and parish groups?

It’s very difficult to be specific about this because until individual members of the laity make that decision, we can’t be sure.  I’d guess it will be about two dozen groups.  Mostly around the South of England in the province of Canterbury; some in the North but not many.  And about probably between fifty and sixty priests.  But they’ll not all be stipendiary.  Some of them will be retired.  Some will be non-stipendiary, who earn their own money and they’re not a financial problem.  About probably half of them will be stipendiary.

Can I ask if you have any sadness for the people you’re leaving behind?

Of course I do.  How could I not for those that I cared for?  The most emotional bit was the people who came for blessings that I used to give communion to.  Some of them will be joining the Ordinariate, and some will not.  I have real warmth about them.  I enjoyed that bit of being a bishop.  The best bit of being a bishop was meeting the people and being in the parishes.  I’m really just a big parish priest at heart.  I enjoyed those links with people.  So of course I’ve been sad.  But I hope that a number of people will follow me.  As I was a bishop in the Church of England, the bishop has a role of leadership, and I thought that was important, that I should give a lead.  I could have become a Catholic on my own.  I have known Bishop Alan for a long while and I could have gone to him.  As a bishop, I wanted at least the possibility of taking some people with me who wanted to follow that similar pilgrimage.

What of the future religious landscape?

I haven’t got a crystal ball, but I hope this is not in any way to be undermining the ecumenical life of England.  I hope in fact it might be something positive for it, as the Pope mentioned in his speech at Oscott College: that by exchanging gifts, the things that we bring from Anglicanism and the things we receive from the Catholic Church, will be mutually helpful.  And that will be a small thing for the move towards ongoing corporate unity, which must be an imperative for every Christian.

Originally the Church of England spoke of church sharing.  Now it seems impossible?

I am not sure what you say is definitive yet.  I don’t know what the answer is.  Obviously there will be places where it will be easiest to worship in Catholic premises.  There may be possibilities where there are some Catholic premises which are underused.  There may be places where there will be a sharing agreement.  There was never any idea that the Ordinariate would take buildings.  That was just the Press.  One or two bishops have said to me warm things about sharing.  It obviously depends on the numbers going from that congregation.  We don’t want any rancour or bad feeling.  I would hope there is a possibility of some Ordinariate group sharing a church which they’ve used before.  We’ll have to look at this on an individual basis.

[End of Part I]

Author: Fr. Edwin Barnes

Bishop Barnes read theology for three years at Oxford before finishing his studies at Cuddesdon College (at the time a theological college with a rather monastic character). He subsequently served two urban curacies in Portsmouth and Woking. During his first curacy, and after the statutory three years of celibacy, he married his wife Jane (with whom he has two children, Nicola and Matthew). In 1967, Bishop Barnes received his first incumbency as Rector of Farncombe in the Diocese of Guildford. After eleven years, the family moved to Hessle, in the Diocese of York, for another nine years as vicar. In 1987, he became Principal of St Stephen’s House, Oxford. In 1995, he was asked by then Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, to become the second PEV for the Province. He was based in St. Alban’s and charged with ministering to faithful Anglo-Catholics spread over the length of Southern England, from the Humber Estuary to the Channel Islands. After six years of service as a PEV, Bishop Barnes retired to Lymington on the south coast where he holds the Bishop of Winchester’s license as an honorary assistant bishop. On the retirement of the late and much lamented Bishop Eric Kemp, he was honored to be asked to succeed him as President of the Church Union. Both these appointments he resigned on becoming a Catholic in 2010. Fr. Barnes is now a priest of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, caring for an Ordinariate Group in Southbourne, Bournemouth.

19 thoughts on “The Ordinary in Plain Text”

  1. Bishop Barnes:
    I know it is asking a great deal but would you be so kind as to complete the second half of Fr. Newton’s interview. We down here in the trenches are literally starving for the good word that is coming out of England.

    Let us pray that the Holy Father acts quickly for his children here in the United States and Canada.

  2. Thank you very much, Dr. Barnes. As a foreigner, and not a native speaker of the English language, I am very grateful for the time you have passed on this transcription project, and would be very pleased to read the second half.

    Many thanks,

    Pax et Bonum

  3. Completely off topic: Forum Moderators ought to visit their forum and delete the recent spam. It is quite a load. Would also suggest Christian ban the perpetrator…

    We now return to our regularly scheduled programming…

  4. Thank you so much for undertaking this transcription. It makes the words of Fr Newton much easier to share. Meanwhile there's much to ponder.

  5. As a recent Catholic coming from the Episcopal Church, this transcript really touched my heart. It is hard to explain to people why I became a Catholic at age 65 but at last I have found someone who would understand.

  6. Thank you very much for this, Father. As the others have said, we'd be very grateful indeed were you to have chance and inclination to transcribe the rest!

  7. Can I also echo the thanks of others. I very much appreciate the efforts you made in transcribing the text and hope that it will be possible for you to do the same with part 2.

    As someone who falls into the category often decribed as 'cradle Catholic', I very much welcome the genius of the Holy Father in setting up the Ordinariate and the generosity of those willing to make that great step of joining it. May God reward them richly.

  8. Can I echo the thanks of the other writers. I have read the account in the Times by Ruth Gledhill and it is interesting to see how her article was constructed from the bones of the press conference reported here. Keep up the good work!

  9. I'm a foreigner, too, and not a native speaker of the English language, for me is a lot easier to read the transcript; as other brothers said, I am also very gratefull for this transcription project, and eagerly wait to read the second half. I'm also thinking about translating by myself some moving bits to Spanish in blogs and Catholic webs.

  10. Thank you for posting this. I hope to have some video up shortly. You are right, I did seem to ask most of the questions. I find this a fascinating story and could have asked dozens more, had there been time. Best wishes for your journey.

  11. We have this:

    "Are you a Monsignor?

    No. Not at the moment. I’m not quite sure what I am. As far as I am concerned, I am very happy with Father. I’m getting everything: Your Excellency, the Very Reverend, the Right Reverend.

    Bishop Hopes. 'It’s Father at the moment'."

    Notice the closing phrase "at the moment". I am guessing that the Holy Father plans to appoint all three of these new priests as chaplains of His Holiness, giving them the personal style of 'Monsignor' for life. This may be what Bishop Hopes means.

    It is possible that it simply has not occurred to Bishop Hopes or to Keith Newton that he (unlike the other two) is already a monsignor in virtue of his office as an ordinary. After all, this is the very first personal ordinariate in history, so there is no precedent to draw on. As I understand it, all ordinaries, including even vicars-general of dioceses, are entitled to use the personal title 'Monsignor' for the time they are in office. Could anyone here comment on this? I would welcome a correction but I believe that Bishop Hopes may have simply not realised this.

    As far as I can see, a personal ordinary is an ordinary, and is therefore entitled to the designation ' Msgr.'.


    1. Peter,

      You wrote: After all, this is the very first personal ordinariate in history…

      Actually, it apparently is not the first "personal ordinariate." I recently noticed item under the heading "Other Pointifical Acts" in the daily bulletin from the Vatican Information Service stating that the pope had appointed a new "ordinary" for a personal ordinariate for Catholics of the Roman Rite in the Russian Federation. But such ordinariates are relatively few and sufficiently obscure that very few people — and probably very few bishops — are aware of them.

      It is, however, the first ordinariate erected under the apostolic constitution Anglicanorum coetibus.


      1. No, Norm, Bishop Werth of Novosibirsk was appoined in 2004 to be the Ordinary for Byzantine Catholics living in Russia but this was, as far as I am aware, a pastoral office (in effect, a visitariate). He is only Ordinary in the proper sense of Novosibirsk. In fact, he was appointed to this pastoral office for the very reason that, politically, the Pope could not restore the old Byzantine Apostolic Exarchate for Russia (1917-1951), which was founded only months before the Russian Revolution.

        There are no other *personal* ordinariates in the world and never have been. There are territorial ordinariates in the Latin Church for faithful of mixed Eastern Rites who lack their own jurisdictions (a situation made necessary by the terms of concordats in some countries, such as France, Poland, Austri and Argentina). There are also territorial ordinariates in the Armenian Catholic Church.

        De facto, at least in terms of qualities and goverance, the territorial Ordinariates of the Armenian Catholic Church are by far the closest thing to the new p.o. for Anglicans in England & Wales. The Armenian ordinariates, which exist in Greece, Romania and the Ukraine, are de facto much closer to the new Anglican personal ordainariates than are the military ordinariates.

        At law, the Armenian structure is territorial because Eastern churches are separate sui juris entities co-extensive with the Latin Church, whereas the Anglican ordinariates are part of the Latin Church and not only part of the Church Universal. De facto, however, in terms of operation, the Armenian Ordinariate in Greece or Romania is the closest animal to the new p.o. in England and Wales.


        1. Peter,

          You wrote: No, Norm, Bishop Werth of Novosibirsk was appoined in 2004 to be the Ordinary for Byzantine Catholics living in Russia but this was, as far as I am aware, a pastoral office (in effect, a visitariate). He is only Ordinary in the proper sense of Novosibirsk.

          I'm sure that one of the factors that weighed heavily in the Vatican's decision to call the new structures "ordinariates" is the fact that an "ordinariate" can morph to be whatever it needs to be. One can see this by comparing the military ordinariate for a large nation, like Canada, with the military ordinariate of a small nation like Belgium or Luxemborg. (There's no longer a military "ordinariate" in the United States because Pope John Paul II reorganized the former Military Ordinariate of the United States into the present Military Archdiocese of the United States in 1984, making it the third largest archdiocese in our nation with over four million members.) At one extreme, some of the personal ordinariates erected under Anglicanorum coetibus could be as small as half a dozen parishes and ten to twelve presbyters, with a "chancery" consisting of a presbyter ordinary with a small staff that handles distinctly Anglican issues and that relies heavily on the resources and services of the dioceses in which it has parishes to provide the support that those parishes need. At the other extreme, the larger ordinariates likely will develop the means to provide those resources and services to their parishes organically rather than relying on territorial dioceses.

          Note, BTW, that the ordinariates established under Anglicanorum Coetibus DO have territorial limits. The apostolic constitution says that they must be within the territory of a bishop's conference. Where there are two or more ordinariates within the territory of the same bishop's conference, the boundaries most likely also will be territorial.


          1. Norm:

            I agree with you that the p.o.s are territorial in the sense in which you say but, no, if there be two in an episcopal conference, they would both comprise the entire territory. Abp. Hepworth has clarified this in the case of two for Australia (if two are, in fact, created), one being for the Torres Strait Melanesians: both would cover all of Australia. Personal structures cover the entire area of an episcopal conference. They are not primarily territorial, however, because they are attached to persons who may or may not live in the territory of that Conference.

            Actually the Military Archdiocese for the U.S.A. remains a military ordinariate; it is a military ordinariate having the title of an archdiocese. Cofusing, I know.

            The Russian office is not really an ordinariate, personal or otherwise. Bishop Werth of Novosibirsk merely has 'ordinary' jurisdiction like that of a vicar-general but throughout Russia. It is as if he were an episcopal vicar in every Russian diocese but specifically for Byzantine Catholics.

            The new p.o. for Anglicans in England and Wales is so far unique: it is the only personal ordinariate.

            The Campos structure is also so far unique; it is the only 'ritual' Apostolic Administration under Section 2 of Canon 372.


            1. Peter,

              You wrote: I agree with you that the p.o.s are territorial in the sense in which you say but, no, if there be two in an episcopal conference, they would both comprise the entire territory.

              Not necessarily, though Anglicanorum coetibus does not exclude that possibility. There is absolutely nothing that prevents the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith from dividing the territory of an episcopal conference between two or more ordinariates.

              In fact, I think that such divisions are the natural path of evolution as the ordinariates grow. Note that Anglicanorum coetibus requires deaneries to be territorial. When an ordinariate gets sufficiently large, the natural way to divide it into two or more smaller ordinariates will be along the boundaries of its deaneries.

              You wrote: Abp. Hepworth has clarified this in the case of two for Australia (if two are, in fact, created), one being for the Torres Strait Melanesians: both would cover all of Australia.

              I'm aware of what Archbishop Hepworth wrote, but I'm also aware that he has misstepped on a few occasions.

              Of course, the other factor in this discussion is that the Melanesian peoples of the Torres Strait pose a cultural situation that's unlikely to exist elsewhere that may well require a unique solution. We should not assume that such a siutation-specific solution will be a universal precedent.

              You wrote: Personal structures cover the entire area of an episcopal conference. They are not primarily territorial, however, because they are attached to persons who may or may not live in the territory of that Conference.

              That's also not accurate. Here in the United States, some of the sui juris ritual churches have more than one personal eparchy, determined by territorial limits within the United States, and there are also a couple personal eparchies that span the United States and Canada. The personal apostolic administration that Pope John Paul II erected for Archbishop de Costa Mayer's followers also has territorial limits that are the same as the territirial limits of the Diocese of Campos, Brazil, which certainly do not match the limits of the bishop's conference.

              AFAIK, Opus Dei is the only personal structure that does not have territorial limits.

              The bottom line is that most personal particular churches have territorial limits that may or may not be the same as the limits of an episcopal conference.

              You wrote: Actually the Military Archdiocese for the U.S.A. remains a military ordinariate; it is a military ordinariate having the title of an archdiocese.

              That's not accurate. Canoincally, it is no longer an ordinariate. In 1984, Pope John Paul II canonically reconstituted the former military ordinariate for the United States as a personal archdiocese for the members of the armed forces of the United States and their dependents. I realize that a well-intentioned individual at the Vatican Information Service errantly called it an ordinariate in the recent notice of the pope's appointment of a new auxilliary, but the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops did not copy the mistake.

              You wrote: The Russian office is not really an ordinariate, personal or otherwise. Bishop Werth of Novosibirsk merely has 'ordinary' jurisdiction like that of a vicar-general but throughout Russia. It is as if he were an episcopal vicar in every Russian diocese but specifically for Byzantine Catholics.

              I'm not personally familiar with that situation, but I think that the VIS item specifically mentioned an ordinariate.

              You wrote: The Campos structure is also so far unique; it is the only 'ritual' Apostolic Administration under Section 2 of Canon 372.

              It's actually not a ritual apostolic structure because the Tridentine Use officially remains an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite rather than a different rite, but you are quite correct as to its uniqueness.


  12. Dear List:

    I would like to use this opportunity for once to admit that I was TOTALLY WRONG to write that Fr. Newton is already Msgr. Newton. I like to be forthright and honest when I get something wrong. I looked this all up but will make it short. Vicars-general are only accorded the title 'monsignor' as a courtesy since a change in legislation going back to Pope St. Pius X. It is not the case that non-bishop prefects and vicars apostolic are accorded the title 'monsignor' owing to their positons as ordinaries; in fact, they are given the title The Rev. or Fr. (depending on degree of formality). So I was wrong about all that. It is true that the Ordinary for the Prefecture Apostolic of the Falkland Islands is one Msgr. McPartland but I suspect that he must be a prelate of honour of H.H. or a prothonotary apostolic, (&c.).

    So our new man is indeed Fr. Newton and not (yet!) Msgr. Newton. I suspect from Bishop Hopes's comment that the first three Ordinariate priests will be appointed prelates of honour or to some other position that will give them the title for life. That would be very appropriate, I think. But we shall have to pray for it.

    On the other hand!, I will continue to insist, as I have for countless years, that it is an abuse to use the title Fr. with a forename unless the bearer is a religious. But let's not dwell on that at this celebratory time. This is just too happy an occasion for all that.

    I appreciated the humorous little comment Fr. Newton made about having as his subjects only two old friends, two wives and three nuns. Well, I expect that the number of his subjects will grow beyond that very shortly. What a great time this is!


    1. Ever since about two years ago, when I first learned from Catholic World News that our beloved Pope Benedict XVI was establishing the Ordinariates for the Anglicans who wish to join the Catholic Church, I have been thanking God through the Holy Spirit for this great favor.

      What a great richness for the RC!

Leave a Reply