Thanks to Shane "the Cartographer" Schaetzel, the Emerging Ordinariate map is kept up to date. There is a link at the bottom of the map which will enable you to see it in a larger form.
I should point out here that the information should be sent to my email address shane.schaetzel@gmail.com and not posted here. I will call (or write) to the pastor of the parish, or leader of the group, to confirm. Thank you.
I just want to publicly thank you for all you do, and especially for quickly adding the ALCC parishes to the map (some have yet to respond, I know). You are doing us all a great service by keeping the map updated like this.
By my count that's now 23 states that will have an Ordinariate presence:
Maine
Massachusetts
New York
New Jersey
Maryland
Virginia
North Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Michigan
Indiana
Tennessee
Minnesota
Iowa
Nebraska
Missouri
Kansas
Arkansas
Texas
Arizona
Nevada
California
Hawaii
In Canada as it stands all provinces bar Manitoba and the three territories will be represented.
You asked: Is it too early to begin talking about a church planting strategy to reach the remaining states? (Or large cities, etc?)
Yes. There are many other issues that are much more urgent. In the United States, the first step is to get the ordinariate(s) up and running, to transfer the existing "Anglican Use" communities, to receive those who are coming into the church and to to complete the formation of their clergy, to assemble the necessary administrative team(s), and to stabilize the whole organization and its finances. This process probably will take about a year from the date of erection of the first ordinariate(s), and perhaps longer.
Rev is correct, we must get the Ordinariate up and running first. But missions should follow soon after. Two comments on the missions:
(1) The new Ordinary is going to have to be practical, using initially very limited resources to serve mission territory that ranges over 50 States and hundreds of millions of people. He can respond to inquiries by sending speakers out to strategically selected places (or perhaps, more economically, sending speakers to address them by teleconference). And he can continue our well-established tradition of internet evangelism. And some of the mainstream Latin Rite bishops will cooperate. But there will come a point fairly early in the conversation with a new/prospective mission group where two key questions will have to be asked: (a) do you have four or five reliable people who can organize and sustain this mission while it grows and is established?, and (b) are some of them prepared to write checks to pay the operating costs of the mission? (which may initially be as little as a small weekly sum to have temporary meetings in a friendly Novus Ordo parish).
(2) The good news: we will not have a shortage of clergy! Many faithful clergy have indicated their intention to come in through the Ordinariate. When it is time to send a priest to serve a successful mission, our Ordinary will be the envy of almost every Catholic bishop, whose aging and shrinking presbyterates are barely sufficient to staff the existing Novus Ordo parishes.
There's no such thing as a "Novus Ordo parish" anywhere in the Catholic Church. Perhaps you mean a friendly diocesan parish?
BTW, the term "Novus Ordo" (literally, "New Order") does not appear anywhere in recent documents to differentiate the current form of the Roman Rite from any other. In the most recent documents pertaining to expanding permission for the use of the Tridentine form, the pope referred to the current form of the Roman Rite as the ordinary form and said that the Tridentine form is an extraordinary form.
I really think that we all would do well to strike the term "Novus Ordo" from our vocabulary. To those among us who have encountered members of the so-called "Society of St. Pius X" using this term in a derogatory and devisive manner, such use is offensive.
You wrote: (2) The good news: we will not have a shortage of clergy! Many faithful clergy have indicated their intention to come in through the Ordinariate. When it is time to send a priest to serve a successful mission, our Ordinary will be the envy of almost every Catholic bishop, whose aging and shrinking presbyterates are barely sufficient to staff the existing Novus Ordo parishes.
Here, you raise a very good point. Many clergy of the ordinariates will spend a significant amount of there time assisting in chaplaincies and other ministries of the dioceses in which they are located. Also, many bishops probably will find it expedient to appoint the presbyters assigned to parishes of an ordinariate as parochial vicars of the diocesan geographical parish within which the respective parish of the ordinariate may be, thus allowing clergy of the ordinariate to serve everybody with greater ease. Also, the arrangement whereby many former Anglican clergy ordained in the Catholic Church under the "pastoral provision" transition to the ordinariates probably will include an agreement for them to continue in their present ministries for some period of time.
This dynamic will greatly facilitate the formation of new communities of an ordinariate, as clergy of the ordinariate will be readily available to serve the members thereof in many areas where the ordinariates do not have parishes.
Norm, you have correctly identified the weakness of the shorthand use of the term "Novus Ordo." Old habits die hard! But I appreciate the clarification, particularly in a forum where people come from many different traditions. You are correct also that Summorum Pontificum has really made the term obsolete.
Ralph
Ralph,
Norm, you have correctly identified the weakness of the shorthand use of the term "Novus Ordo." Old habits die hard! But I appreciate the clarification, particularly in a forum where people come from many different traditions. You are correct also that Summorum Pontificum has really made the term obsolete.
I'm reminded of the dormitories at my alma mater. Shortly before I arrived on campus, the Insitute built a new domitory but did not have any major benefactors for whom to name it, so it became known as "New House." Another dormitory, then in the planning phases, then became known as "Next House." Both were subsequently named for benefactors, and there are a couple dormitories on campus that are even newer, yet the buildings are still known as "New House" and "Next House" even among current undergraduates.
The term "Novus Ordo" came from the Latin for "new Order of Mass" — novus ordo missae — when Pope Paul VI promulgated it in 1969. The Catholic Church has never used it as an official name for the current form of the Roman Rite.
Norm.
Norm, you are correct. Using the term "Novus Ordo" in RC circles is usually used as a derogatory term – and it was a bit jarring when I read it. You rarely see that used to mean something nice!
I was also thinking about the number of clergy coming in, though I was thinking in terms of whether the new Ordinariate parishes were going to have the funds to support a priest (or two) and his family and whether local dioceses are going to be asked to help find "appropriate" employment (in schools, as chaplains, or other diocesan employment) to help the new priests support their families. I think that is going to be a challenge, at least in the initial stages – if for no other reason but until the Ordinariate can do such things as provide health insurance and such!
Maggie,
You wrote: I was also thinking about the number of clergy coming in, though I was thinking in terms of whether the new Ordinariate parishes were going to have the funds to support a priest (or two) and his family and whether local dioceses are going to be asked to help find "appropriate" employment (in schools, as chaplains, or other diocesan employment) to help the new priests support their families. I think that is going to be a challenge, at least in the initial stages – if for no other reason but until the Ordinariate can do such things as provide health insurance and such!
The clergy of most dioceses are spread so thinly that the dioceses will welcome whatever support the ordinariates can provide. The question is whether or not the dioceses have enough funds to pay for their services, including expenses that they incur working for the diocese and the apportioned amounts of their salaries and benefits, bearing in mind that the salaries must be sufficient to support the wives and children of those who have them and that benefits such as health care will be a "family" plan rather than an "individual" plan.
The bishops have stated that they don't want to appoint married presbyters as pastors of diocesan parishes, at least initially, but it should be fairly easy to work around such restrictions by shuffling diocesan clergy out of other positions and into pastorships.
Norm.
Norm, I think at least under the current pastoral provision rules, married clergy couldn't be pastors (though in practice there have been some ways of getting around this by naming them 'administrators' and the like). With the Ordinariate, obviously parishes will have married pastors, but the RC church is not used to dealing with all the practical issues surrounding maintaining a married clergy with families to support (as many of us/you know!).
At least in the inital stages, even if Ordinariate clergy are acting as supply for the diocesan clergy, while that would be very helpful for most dioceses and might be sufficient for a single cleric, supporting a family on "supply" salary would be very difficult. For any number of reasons RC dioceses are particularly strapped for funds these days, and it is going to be interesting to see as a practical matter how this will work itself out.
I wonder if if there would be a somewhat similar arrangement that dioceses would have with the Ordinariate as they do with religious communities who staff diocesan parishes. It all remains to be seen, but I think dioceses are going to have to get used to paying a living wage that can support families, either that or be a little less restrictive (or more like what religious communities allow) on what Ordinariate clergy can do in addition to their parish duties.
Maggie,
You wrote: Norm, I think at least under the current pastoral provision rules, married clergy couldn't be pastors (though in practice there have been some ways of getting around this by naming them 'administrators' and the like). With the Ordinariate, obviously parishes will have married pastors, but the RC church is not used to dealing with all the practical issues surrounding maintaining a married clergy with families to support (as many of us/you know!).
Yes, I concur.
One of the advantages of assigning ordinariate clergy to chaplaincies, teaching positions, and such is that many such positions are set up to pay salaries that can support families. This is particularly true of chaplaincies funded by the institutions that they serve, which typically also have non-Catholic chaplains on staff, and positions such as teaching that frequently go to married lay folks rather than to clergy.
You wrote: I wonder if if there would be a somewhat similar arrangement that dioceses would have with the Ordinariate as they do with religious communities who staff diocesan parishes.
Yes, it will work the same way. When clergy of the ordinariate engage in ministry for a diocese, there is to be a written agreement between the bishop f the diocese and the ordinary that will govern such ministry. This agreement will stipulate the scope of the ministry and the financial arrangements. This is substantially the same process as when clergy of a religious order assist a diocese in its ministry.
You wrote: It all remains to be seen, but I think dioceses are going to have to get used to paying a living wage that can support families, either that or be a little less restrictive (or more like what religious communities allow) on what Ordinariate clergy can do in addition to their parish duties.
Realistically, I think that most dioceses can scrape up the extra cash to pay an appropriate wage to a few married clergy. The numbers of married clergy won't be large enough to cause much of a problem, especially when scattered among the number of dioceses within the territory of most episcopal conferences.
Norm.
Actually no Ralph, I meant the RC church as a whole, at least as it applies to the western Diaspora. The Eastern Churches and their eparchs here in the US have very little experience with the issues surrounding a married clergy because there are very, very few of them. The Melkites are very quietly ordaining married men, and I think maybe the Ukrainians are as well, but throughout all of JPIIs papacy (and despite publishing documents and a code specifically admonishing the Easterns to get back to their traditions) the Eastern Churches in the diaspora were strongly discouraged to "buck the system" and ordain married clergy. It is still very, very rare. So…nope, they don't have that experience either – at least in places where there is going to be an Ordinariate!
…some of the mainstream Latin Rite bishops will cooperate. …which may initially be as little as a small weekly sum to have temporary meetings in a friendly Novus Ordo parish …which may initially be as little as a small weekly sum to have temporary meetings in a friendly Novus Ordo parish …our Ordinary will be the envy of almost every Catholic bishop
I do not believe it is accurate to refer to existing Catholic parishes or bishops using the above terminology. (It could also seem a bit divisive to some.) After erection of an ordinariate and the reception of clergy and laity into the Catholic Church, we'll all be Catholics of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic (and Latin Rite) variety. (Thanks be to God.)
Without revisiting any of the prior discussion on the use of the term "Roman " Catholic, I would like suggest that we all begin referring to existing Latin Rite Catholic parishes and clergy as "diocesan" and future ordinariate churches and clergy as "ordinariate," i.e. "mainstream diocesan bishops", "friendly diocesan parish", and "the envy of almost every diocesan bishop".
I'd be happy to be corrected on this or entertain other suggestions.
I agree with both Rev and CiP on the careful use of terminology, because we will all be part of the same Church in full communion with one another. The ordinariate will not be formed in some type of vacume. The Complementary Norms are very clear about continuing cooperation between diocesan and ordinariate personnel.
Regarding the possible roles for ordinariate clergy, there is also the provision for a "secular profession compatible with the exercise of priestly ministry." (CN 7.3) This could possibly help with some of the costs involved in assigning clergy within the ordinariate. For example, I hope to be accepted for ordination and still maintain my job as a unversity administrator at Saint Leo University (the oldest Catholic university in Florida BTW). This way I could help with campus ministry or serve a church – but I would not be dependent upon the ordinariate for a salary.
+Ed
Thank you, Catholic in Pittsburgh. It was not my intent to give offense. My intent was to stimulate consideration and discussion of some intersting practical issues, and I used practical, functional terms. Of course there is a duty also to be sensitive and courteous. I agree that "diocesan bishop" is good term and that it need not be modified by the word "mainstream."
Let me clarify also that in using the term "friendly diocesan parish" I did not intend to imply that there would be "unfriendly" parishes. The practical reality that I mean to highlight is that some diocesan parishes, by virtue of their locations or sanctuary arrangements or seating capacity or Mass schedules will be more suitable than others. The practical point is that, in a place where establishment of a mission is being considered, if existing diocesan parish facilities are suitable and available, then initial costs of establishing missions might be moderate.
Your Excellency,
You wrote: Regarding the possible roles for ordinariate clergy, there is also the provision for a "secular profession compatible with the exercise of priestly ministry." (CN 7.3) This could possibly help with some of the costs involved in assigning clergy within the ordinariate. For example, I hope to be accepted for ordination and still maintain my job as a unversity administrator at Saint Leo University (the oldest Catholic university in Florida BTW). This way I could help with campus ministry or serve a church – but I would not be dependent upon the ordinariate for a salary.
The provisions for clergy to work at lay occupations actually exist for diocesan clergy and for members of religious orders, but are normally used only in cases of hardship.
With regard to your hopes, though, I find your situation to be very interesting indeed. As I noted in another thread, it appears that your denomination has derived at least some of its orders from denominations with valid lineages of apostolic succession, such as the Polish National Catholic Church of America (PNCCA). If the Vatican recognizes your episcopal ordination (and I agree completely that this is a very big IF), acceptance for Catholic ordination won't be an issue because ordination, once validly conferred, cannot be repeated. Rather, Pope Benedict XVI most assuredly will appoint any bishops of the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church (ALCC) who have received valid episcopal ordination to positions appropriate for those who hold episcopal character upon reception of those individuals into full communion. Likewise, anybody who received the order of presbyter or deacon from a bishop of the ALCC whose episcopal ordination is valid won't receive Catholic ordination for the same order, but will be able to exercise ministry as soon as the ordinary grants the necessary faculties.
Of course, all of this hinges upon the Vatican's resolution of the question of validity of the orders of the ALCC. Until we know the answer to that question, we won't know what to expect. The answer, unfortunately, may well be that some bishops of the ALCC posess valid orders and that others do not.
Norm.
Maggie, Norm,
The "RC church?"
You mean the "Latin Rite Church?"
The "RC church" has plenty of experience with married clergy in the East.
Sorry, I could not resist giving it back (in good humor, of course). It seems that I am not the only one using perfectly clear (while technically inaccurate) terms!
Ralph,
You wrote: You mean the "Latin Rite Church?"
Actually, "Roman Rite" is more correct than "Latin Rite" since one normally does not name a rite after a language.
Also, the Roman Rite was never used throughout the entire Latin-speaking church. The Ambrosian Rite is still used in the Archdiocese of Milan and there's one chapel in Toledo (Spain) that still preserves the Mozarabic Rite. Unfortunately, the Gaulican Rite, formerly used exclusively throughout most of the present nation of France, has fallen into complete disuse and might or might not be recoverable — and I sure would like our best scholars and liturgical experts to try to recover it!
Norm.
Further good news. There will be Anglican Use parishes popping up in such numbers Latin rite Catholics will start abandoning their ho hum and boring Novus Ordo liturgies and start joining Ordinariate parishes. I can't wait someday for a former Episcopal church nearby, complete with rood screen and Sarum altar to open up shop and which Latin Catholics can join in great numbers.
The desire to dish the guitar and piano novus ordo masses and butcher block altars is there to be sure. Make no mistake about it. Even some of the oldsters from before Vatican II , like me, are ready to jump ship and swim the Tiber in a sense.
You wrote: There will be Anglican Use parishes popping up in such numbers Latin rite Catholics will start abandoning their ho hum and boring Novus Ordo liturgies and start joining Ordinariate parishes. I can't wait someday for a former Episcopal church nearby, complete with rood screen and Sarum altar to open up shop and which Latin Catholics can join in great numbers.
Don't get your hopes up. Canonically, you cannot belong to a parish of an ordinariate unless you belong to the ordinariate. Thus, those of us who were baptized in diocesan parishes cannot become members of any parish of an ordinariate unless we first become part of a family that belongs to the ordinariate.
You wrote: The desire to dish the guitar and piano novus ordo masses and butcher block altars is there to be sure. Make no mistake about it. Even some of the oldsters from before Vatican II , like me, are ready to jump ship and swim the Tiber in a sense.
If you are looking for a mass with a different style of music, there's probably a parish somewhere near you that uses whatever style of music you are seeking. You certainly have the canonical right to check out all of the nearby parishes and to assist in the celebration of mass in whichever parish best suits your needs. You really do not need to wait for the erection of a parish of the ordinariate to do this.
That said, I'm old enough to remember the Tridentine mass, and it was not always celebrated in the worshipful manner that many advocates of returning to the Tridentine liturgy like to believe. In those days, the Sunday "low" masses in my parish took less than half an hour, and I fondly remember one priest who was always very kind to children but who typically clocked through mass in sixteen minutes, including distribution of communion, and sometimes less. That's not exactly the reverence that divine worship deserves!
Norm.
Thank you, Aging Papist, I got a good chuckle from that, and a lighter touch is exactly what I needed to return from my crisis of thin skin and precise parsing.
My sincere confession: I think that everything posted here is well understood by all. I agree that precise use of language is better than imprecise. I pledge my good will toward all who post in good will. I apologize to any who have been offended by my insensitivity or poor choice of words. I seek reconciliation and friendship with all. I submit in all humility. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
But enough is enough. Let me restrain myself before going further, lest I succumb to this sudden and powerful urge to put on my Birkenstocks and rush out to attend a Saturday afternoon celebration of the liturgy according to the Missal of Paul VI (Ordinary Form), in the vernacular, versus populum.
Kumbaya, my dear brothers and sisters, Kumbaya!
Thank you and it's an honor to serve. I also want to publicly thank those who are helping me in Canada and the UK.
This map is most useful. However, it is incomplete in some respects. I note that for inclusion on the map, someone has to supply a name and address etc.
In the case of England, I know of two active groups that are not on the map. These are at Darlington and Folkstone. There may be others. Can anyone supply details for these?
Yes, Mr. Paul Waddington is right. Moreover, there are some parishes that have kept secret their acceptation of Anglicanorum Coetibus in order not to be expulsed from their (continuing) denomination, or worse, be deprived of their church building.
+PAX et BONUM
In the cases of both Folkestone and Darlington, there in no secrecy involved. Both have had very extensive press coverage, and I think that neither is trying to keep anything quiet. Don Henri may be correct in that there are groupsthat have not yet come out of the woodwork.
May I point out that in this particular posting of comments I have noticed, in the sharing of ideas and opinions, a profound sense of respect for each other. It seems we are 'maturing' into the Ordinariate as the process continues. Perhaps the period of waiting has been fruitful after all, thanks be to God.
If you have a parish or group entering the ordinariate, and you don't see it on the map, I'll need the following information to put you on the map…
1. Name of your group
2. Address where your group primarily meets
3. phone number for your group
4. email and webpage for your group if applicable.
Thank you.
Sincerely in Christ,
Shane Schaetzel
shane.schaetzel (at) gmail.com
I should point out here that the information should be sent to my email address shane.schaetzel@gmail.com and not posted here. I will call (or write) to the pastor of the parish, or leader of the group, to confirm. Thank you.
Shane,
I just want to publicly thank you for all you do, and especially for quickly adding the ALCC parishes to the map (some have yet to respond, I know). You are doing us all a great service by keeping the map updated like this.
Thanks,
+Ed
By my count that's now 23 states that will have an Ordinariate presence:
Maine
Massachusetts
New York
New Jersey
Maryland
Virginia
North Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Michigan
Indiana
Tennessee
Minnesota
Iowa
Nebraska
Missouri
Kansas
Arkansas
Texas
Arizona
Nevada
California
Hawaii
In Canada as it stands all provinces bar Manitoba and the three territories will be represented.
Is it too early to begin talking about a church planting strategy to reach the remaining states? (Or large cities, etc?)
Michael,
You asked: Is it too early to begin talking about a church planting strategy to reach the remaining states? (Or large cities, etc?)
Yes. There are many other issues that are much more urgent. In the United States, the first step is to get the ordinariate(s) up and running, to transfer the existing "Anglican Use" communities, to receive those who are coming into the church and to to complete the formation of their clergy, to assemble the necessary administrative team(s), and to stabilize the whole organization and its finances. This process probably will take about a year from the date of erection of the first ordinariate(s), and perhaps longer.
Norm.
Rev is correct, we must get the Ordinariate up and running first. But missions should follow soon after. Two comments on the missions:
(1) The new Ordinary is going to have to be practical, using initially very limited resources to serve mission territory that ranges over 50 States and hundreds of millions of people. He can respond to inquiries by sending speakers out to strategically selected places (or perhaps, more economically, sending speakers to address them by teleconference). And he can continue our well-established tradition of internet evangelism. And some of the mainstream Latin Rite bishops will cooperate. But there will come a point fairly early in the conversation with a new/prospective mission group where two key questions will have to be asked: (a) do you have four or five reliable people who can organize and sustain this mission while it grows and is established?, and (b) are some of them prepared to write checks to pay the operating costs of the mission? (which may initially be as little as a small weekly sum to have temporary meetings in a friendly Novus Ordo parish).
(2) The good news: we will not have a shortage of clergy! Many faithful clergy have indicated their intention to come in through the Ordinariate. When it is time to send a priest to serve a successful mission, our Ordinary will be the envy of almost every Catholic bishop, whose aging and shrinking presbyterates are barely sufficient to staff the existing Novus Ordo parishes.
Ralph,
You wrote: … a friendly Novus Ordo parish…
There's no such thing as a "Novus Ordo parish" anywhere in the Catholic Church. Perhaps you mean a friendly diocesan parish?
BTW, the term "Novus Ordo" (literally, "New Order") does not appear anywhere in recent documents to differentiate the current form of the Roman Rite from any other. In the most recent documents pertaining to expanding permission for the use of the Tridentine form, the pope referred to the current form of the Roman Rite as the ordinary form and said that the Tridentine form is an extraordinary form.
I really think that we all would do well to strike the term "Novus Ordo" from our vocabulary. To those among us who have encountered members of the so-called "Society of St. Pius X" using this term in a derogatory and devisive manner, such use is offensive.
You wrote: (2) The good news: we will not have a shortage of clergy! Many faithful clergy have indicated their intention to come in through the Ordinariate. When it is time to send a priest to serve a successful mission, our Ordinary will be the envy of almost every Catholic bishop, whose aging and shrinking presbyterates are barely sufficient to staff the existing Novus Ordo parishes.
Here, you raise a very good point. Many clergy of the ordinariates will spend a significant amount of there time assisting in chaplaincies and other ministries of the dioceses in which they are located. Also, many bishops probably will find it expedient to appoint the presbyters assigned to parishes of an ordinariate as parochial vicars of the diocesan geographical parish within which the respective parish of the ordinariate may be, thus allowing clergy of the ordinariate to serve everybody with greater ease. Also, the arrangement whereby many former Anglican clergy ordained in the Catholic Church under the "pastoral provision" transition to the ordinariates probably will include an agreement for them to continue in their present ministries for some period of time.
This dynamic will greatly facilitate the formation of new communities of an ordinariate, as clergy of the ordinariate will be readily available to serve the members thereof in many areas where the ordinariates do not have parishes.
Norm.
Norm, you have correctly identified the weakness of the shorthand use of the term "Novus Ordo." Old habits die hard! But I appreciate the clarification, particularly in a forum where people come from many different traditions. You are correct also that Summorum Pontificum has really made the term obsolete.
Ralph
Ralph,
Norm, you have correctly identified the weakness of the shorthand use of the term "Novus Ordo." Old habits die hard! But I appreciate the clarification, particularly in a forum where people come from many different traditions. You are correct also that Summorum Pontificum has really made the term obsolete.
I'm reminded of the dormitories at my alma mater. Shortly before I arrived on campus, the Insitute built a new domitory but did not have any major benefactors for whom to name it, so it became known as "New House." Another dormitory, then in the planning phases, then became known as "Next House." Both were subsequently named for benefactors, and there are a couple dormitories on campus that are even newer, yet the buildings are still known as "New House" and "Next House" even among current undergraduates.
The term "Novus Ordo" came from the Latin for "new Order of Mass" — novus ordo missae — when Pope Paul VI promulgated it in 1969. The Catholic Church has never used it as an official name for the current form of the Roman Rite.
Norm.
Norm, you are correct. Using the term "Novus Ordo" in RC circles is usually used as a derogatory term – and it was a bit jarring when I read it. You rarely see that used to mean something nice!
I was also thinking about the number of clergy coming in, though I was thinking in terms of whether the new Ordinariate parishes were going to have the funds to support a priest (or two) and his family and whether local dioceses are going to be asked to help find "appropriate" employment (in schools, as chaplains, or other diocesan employment) to help the new priests support their families. I think that is going to be a challenge, at least in the initial stages – if for no other reason but until the Ordinariate can do such things as provide health insurance and such!
Maggie,
You wrote: I was also thinking about the number of clergy coming in, though I was thinking in terms of whether the new Ordinariate parishes were going to have the funds to support a priest (or two) and his family and whether local dioceses are going to be asked to help find "appropriate" employment (in schools, as chaplains, or other diocesan employment) to help the new priests support their families. I think that is going to be a challenge, at least in the initial stages – if for no other reason but until the Ordinariate can do such things as provide health insurance and such!
The clergy of most dioceses are spread so thinly that the dioceses will welcome whatever support the ordinariates can provide. The question is whether or not the dioceses have enough funds to pay for their services, including expenses that they incur working for the diocese and the apportioned amounts of their salaries and benefits, bearing in mind that the salaries must be sufficient to support the wives and children of those who have them and that benefits such as health care will be a "family" plan rather than an "individual" plan.
The bishops have stated that they don't want to appoint married presbyters as pastors of diocesan parishes, at least initially, but it should be fairly easy to work around such restrictions by shuffling diocesan clergy out of other positions and into pastorships.
Norm.
Norm, I think at least under the current pastoral provision rules, married clergy couldn't be pastors (though in practice there have been some ways of getting around this by naming them 'administrators' and the like). With the Ordinariate, obviously parishes will have married pastors, but the RC church is not used to dealing with all the practical issues surrounding maintaining a married clergy with families to support (as many of us/you know!).
At least in the inital stages, even if Ordinariate clergy are acting as supply for the diocesan clergy, while that would be very helpful for most dioceses and might be sufficient for a single cleric, supporting a family on "supply" salary would be very difficult. For any number of reasons RC dioceses are particularly strapped for funds these days, and it is going to be interesting to see as a practical matter how this will work itself out.
I wonder if if there would be a somewhat similar arrangement that dioceses would have with the Ordinariate as they do with religious communities who staff diocesan parishes. It all remains to be seen, but I think dioceses are going to have to get used to paying a living wage that can support families, either that or be a little less restrictive (or more like what religious communities allow) on what Ordinariate clergy can do in addition to their parish duties.
Maggie,
You wrote: Norm, I think at least under the current pastoral provision rules, married clergy couldn't be pastors (though in practice there have been some ways of getting around this by naming them 'administrators' and the like). With the Ordinariate, obviously parishes will have married pastors, but the RC church is not used to dealing with all the practical issues surrounding maintaining a married clergy with families to support (as many of us/you know!).
Yes, I concur.
One of the advantages of assigning ordinariate clergy to chaplaincies, teaching positions, and such is that many such positions are set up to pay salaries that can support families. This is particularly true of chaplaincies funded by the institutions that they serve, which typically also have non-Catholic chaplains on staff, and positions such as teaching that frequently go to married lay folks rather than to clergy.
You wrote: I wonder if if there would be a somewhat similar arrangement that dioceses would have with the Ordinariate as they do with religious communities who staff diocesan parishes.
Yes, it will work the same way. When clergy of the ordinariate engage in ministry for a diocese, there is to be a written agreement between the bishop f the diocese and the ordinary that will govern such ministry. This agreement will stipulate the scope of the ministry and the financial arrangements. This is substantially the same process as when clergy of a religious order assist a diocese in its ministry.
You wrote: It all remains to be seen, but I think dioceses are going to have to get used to paying a living wage that can support families, either that or be a little less restrictive (or more like what religious communities allow) on what Ordinariate clergy can do in addition to their parish duties.
Realistically, I think that most dioceses can scrape up the extra cash to pay an appropriate wage to a few married clergy. The numbers of married clergy won't be large enough to cause much of a problem, especially when scattered among the number of dioceses within the territory of most episcopal conferences.
Norm.
Actually no Ralph, I meant the RC church as a whole, at least as it applies to the western Diaspora. The Eastern Churches and their eparchs here in the US have very little experience with the issues surrounding a married clergy because there are very, very few of them. The Melkites are very quietly ordaining married men, and I think maybe the Ukrainians are as well, but throughout all of JPIIs papacy (and despite publishing documents and a code specifically admonishing the Easterns to get back to their traditions) the Eastern Churches in the diaspora were strongly discouraged to "buck the system" and ordain married clergy. It is still very, very rare. So…nope, they don't have that experience either – at least in places where there is going to be an Ordinariate!
…some of the mainstream Latin Rite bishops will cooperate.
…which may initially be as little as a small weekly sum to have temporary meetings in a friendly Novus Ordo parish
…which may initially be as little as a small weekly sum to have temporary meetings in a friendly Novus Ordo parish
…our Ordinary will be the envy of almost every Catholic bishop
I do not believe it is accurate to refer to existing Catholic parishes or bishops using the above terminology. (It could also seem a bit divisive to some.) After erection of an ordinariate and the reception of clergy and laity into the Catholic Church, we'll all be Catholics of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic (and Latin Rite) variety. (Thanks be to God.)
Without revisiting any of the prior discussion on the use of the term "Roman " Catholic, I would like suggest that we all begin referring to existing Latin Rite Catholic parishes and clergy as "diocesan" and future ordinariate churches and clergy as "ordinariate," i.e. "mainstream diocesan bishops", "friendly diocesan parish", and "the envy of almost every diocesan bishop".
I'd be happy to be corrected on this or entertain other suggestions.
I agree with both Rev and CiP on the careful use of terminology, because we will all be part of the same Church in full communion with one another. The ordinariate will not be formed in some type of vacume. The Complementary Norms are very clear about continuing cooperation between diocesan and ordinariate personnel.
Regarding the possible roles for ordinariate clergy, there is also the provision for a "secular profession compatible with the exercise of priestly ministry." (CN 7.3) This could possibly help with some of the costs involved in assigning clergy within the ordinariate. For example, I hope to be accepted for ordination and still maintain my job as a unversity administrator at Saint Leo University (the oldest Catholic university in Florida BTW). This way I could help with campus ministry or serve a church – but I would not be dependent upon the ordinariate for a salary.
+Ed
Thank you, Catholic in Pittsburgh. It was not my intent to give offense. My intent was to stimulate consideration and discussion of some intersting practical issues, and I used practical, functional terms. Of course there is a duty also to be sensitive and courteous. I agree that "diocesan bishop" is good term and that it need not be modified by the word "mainstream."
Let me clarify also that in using the term "friendly diocesan parish" I did not intend to imply that there would be "unfriendly" parishes. The practical reality that I mean to highlight is that some diocesan parishes, by virtue of their locations or sanctuary arrangements or seating capacity or Mass schedules will be more suitable than others. The practical point is that, in a place where establishment of a mission is being considered, if existing diocesan parish facilities are suitable and available, then initial costs of establishing missions might be moderate.
Your Excellency,
You wrote: Regarding the possible roles for ordinariate clergy, there is also the provision for a "secular profession compatible with the exercise of priestly ministry." (CN 7.3) This could possibly help with some of the costs involved in assigning clergy within the ordinariate. For example, I hope to be accepted for ordination and still maintain my job as a unversity administrator at Saint Leo University (the oldest Catholic university in Florida BTW). This way I could help with campus ministry or serve a church – but I would not be dependent upon the ordinariate for a salary.
The provisions for clergy to work at lay occupations actually exist for diocesan clergy and for members of religious orders, but are normally used only in cases of hardship.
With regard to your hopes, though, I find your situation to be very interesting indeed. As I noted in another thread, it appears that your denomination has derived at least some of its orders from denominations with valid lineages of apostolic succession, such as the Polish National Catholic Church of America (PNCCA). If the Vatican recognizes your episcopal ordination (and I agree completely that this is a very big IF), acceptance for Catholic ordination won't be an issue because ordination, once validly conferred, cannot be repeated. Rather, Pope Benedict XVI most assuredly will appoint any bishops of the Anglo-Lutheran Catholic Church (ALCC) who have received valid episcopal ordination to positions appropriate for those who hold episcopal character upon reception of those individuals into full communion. Likewise, anybody who received the order of presbyter or deacon from a bishop of the ALCC whose episcopal ordination is valid won't receive Catholic ordination for the same order, but will be able to exercise ministry as soon as the ordinary grants the necessary faculties.
Of course, all of this hinges upon the Vatican's resolution of the question of validity of the orders of the ALCC. Until we know the answer to that question, we won't know what to expect. The answer, unfortunately, may well be that some bishops of the ALCC posess valid orders and that others do not.
Norm.
Maggie, Norm,
The "RC church?"
You mean the "Latin Rite Church?"
The "RC church" has plenty of experience with married clergy in the East.
Sorry, I could not resist giving it back (in good humor, of course). It seems that I am not the only one using perfectly clear (while technically inaccurate) terms!
Ralph,
You wrote: You mean the "Latin Rite Church?"
Actually, "Roman Rite" is more correct than "Latin Rite" since one normally does not name a rite after a language.
Also, the Roman Rite was never used throughout the entire Latin-speaking church. The Ambrosian Rite is still used in the Archdiocese of Milan and there's one chapel in Toledo (Spain) that still preserves the Mozarabic Rite. Unfortunately, the Gaulican Rite, formerly used exclusively throughout most of the present nation of France, has fallen into complete disuse and might or might not be recoverable — and I sure would like our best scholars and liturgical experts to try to recover it!
Norm.
Further good news. There will be Anglican Use parishes popping up in such numbers Latin rite Catholics will start abandoning their ho hum and boring Novus Ordo liturgies and start joining Ordinariate parishes. I can't wait someday for a former Episcopal church nearby, complete with rood screen and Sarum altar to open up shop and which Latin Catholics can join in great numbers.
The desire to dish the guitar and piano novus ordo masses and butcher block altars is there to be sure. Make no mistake about it. Even some of the oldsters from before Vatican II , like me, are ready to jump ship and swim the Tiber in a sense.
AgingPapist,
You wrote: There will be Anglican Use parishes popping up in such numbers Latin rite Catholics will start abandoning their ho hum and boring Novus Ordo liturgies and start joining Ordinariate parishes. I can't wait someday for a former Episcopal church nearby, complete with rood screen and Sarum altar to open up shop and which Latin Catholics can join in great numbers.
Don't get your hopes up. Canonically, you cannot belong to a parish of an ordinariate unless you belong to the ordinariate. Thus, those of us who were baptized in diocesan parishes cannot become members of any parish of an ordinariate unless we first become part of a family that belongs to the ordinariate.
You wrote: The desire to dish the guitar and piano novus ordo masses and butcher block altars is there to be sure. Make no mistake about it. Even some of the oldsters from before Vatican II , like me, are ready to jump ship and swim the Tiber in a sense.
If you are looking for a mass with a different style of music, there's probably a parish somewhere near you that uses whatever style of music you are seeking. You certainly have the canonical right to check out all of the nearby parishes and to assist in the celebration of mass in whichever parish best suits your needs. You really do not need to wait for the erection of a parish of the ordinariate to do this.
That said, I'm old enough to remember the Tridentine mass, and it was not always celebrated in the worshipful manner that many advocates of returning to the Tridentine liturgy like to believe. In those days, the Sunday "low" masses in my parish took less than half an hour, and I fondly remember one priest who was always very kind to children but who typically clocked through mass in sixteen minutes, including distribution of communion, and sometimes less. That's not exactly the reverence that divine worship deserves!
Norm.
Thank you, Aging Papist, I got a good chuckle from that, and a lighter touch is exactly what I needed to return from my crisis of thin skin and precise parsing.
My sincere confession: I think that everything posted here is well understood by all. I agree that precise use of language is better than imprecise. I pledge my good will toward all who post in good will. I apologize to any who have been offended by my insensitivity or poor choice of words. I seek reconciliation and friendship with all. I submit in all humility. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
But enough is enough. Let me restrain myself before going further, lest I succumb to this sudden and powerful urge to put on my Birkenstocks and rush out to attend a Saturday afternoon celebration of the liturgy according to the Missal of Paul VI (Ordinary Form), in the vernacular, versus populum.
Kumbaya, my dear brothers and sisters, Kumbaya!
Thank you and it's an honor to serve. I also want to publicly thank those who are helping me in Canada and the UK.
This map is most useful. However, it is incomplete in some respects. I note that for inclusion on the map, someone has to supply a name and address etc.
In the case of England, I know of two active groups that are not on the map. These are at Darlington and Folkstone. There may be others. Can anyone supply details for these?
Yes, Mr. Paul Waddington is right. Moreover, there are some parishes that have kept secret their acceptation of Anglicanorum Coetibus in order not to be expulsed from their (continuing) denomination, or worse, be deprived of their church building.
+PAX et BONUM
Correction.
I should have written Folkestone, not Folkstone.
In the cases of both Folkestone and Darlington, there in no secrecy involved. Both have had very extensive press coverage, and I think that neither is trying to keep anything quiet. Don Henri may be correct in that there are groupsthat have not yet come out of the woodwork.
May I point out that in this particular posting of comments I have noticed, in the sharing of ideas and opinions, a profound sense of respect for each other. It seems we are 'maturing' into the Ordinariate as the process continues. Perhaps the period of waiting has been fruitful after all, thanks be to God.