In Search of the Facts Regarding the Ordinariate

As most readers know, I am a journalist by trade and I write primarily for Catholic newspapers.  I wish I had time to do the in depth, fair, balanced story the fledgling ordinariates deserve — you know, the kind of magazine piece that allows me to travel to do my interviews and attend events to capture the color, the smells, and the taste of things. I would love the time to pore over documents and weigh the credibility of every account.

But I don't have that luxury and I don't have the time right now to even write much of a blog post.  In the interest of getting at some of the facts of what is going on in the United States concerning the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter here is what I would like to know and maybe some readers can help with factual accounts.

How many Anglican Use parishes are joining the Ordinariate?  How many are staying out?  Why have their priests/leaders decided to move in one direction or another?  Be great to hear directly from them if possible.

Has there been a consistent policy in transferring membership from an Anglican Use parish (i.e. those on the parish rolls for baptisms, confirmations etc.) into the Ordinariate?  If so, what is that policy?  Have some parishes had concerns they would be forced to split, leaving many behind if they entered the Ordinariate?

At Our Lady of Walsingham, was the priest forced into retirement?  Or did he voluntarily retire?  Are the members of this parish members of the Ordinariate?  Or does some official paperwork or something need to be done?

How concerned are priests of Anglican Use parishes that are remaining outside that they might be forced into retirement or moved elsewhere in the vast Ordinariate territory once they are incardinated into the Ordinariate?

How concerned are Anglican Use communities that someone who is a recent convert with no understanding of the history or sacrifices made by that community will be parachuted in as their priest?

Here in Canada, back in 2010 there was concern, at least on my part, that this might happen here because Cardinal Collins mused about putting some Anglican Church of Canada priests who wished to become Catholic — but had no communities coming with them — in charge of our parishes because he wasn't sure most of our priests would qualify as Catholic priests.  The thought rankled me — that someone would get a soft landing in one of our parishes simply because he had the right credentials from a possibly heretical Anglican seminary but had not made any of the sacrifices our shepherds had made to serve us.

Fast forward to 2012 and the Canadian situation seems very hopeful lately and even more so after several visits by Msgr. Steenson to Victoria, Calgary, Toronto and Ottawa over the past several months.  From what I gather, our former clergy were greatly encouraged and none of the fears that plagued us over the past couple of years have come to pass.  In fact, we have been meeting with extraordinary generosity from our local Roman Catholic bishops and from Msgr. Steenson.

Several things that might have helped us.  We went through an awful time in the lead up to our entering the Catholic Church.  Parishes split, some twice.  Those of us who remained steadfast had nowhere else to turn but to the Cross for consolation.  It changed us, made us more patient, more faithful and less quick to get riled up when the trials start up again.   It unified those who remained so we are much more closely bonded and able to pray and act in one accord.

I think there is a tremendous amount of spiritual warfare involved in this Ordinariate project.  The turbulence on every level we experience from time to time as they develop is likely a result of malicious spiritual forces playing on our all-too-human frailties.  If this were not such a powerful and good move on the Holy Father's part to further the Kingdom of Heaven, the enemy of our souls would not be so active on every front!

I am not privy to the information that our Moderator has about what has been going on in the United States and I would prefer specifics with the "who, what, why, when, where".  My questions above come from parsing the various blog posts and comments.  But what I hope to do is see whether a calm investigation of the facts can produce some supportive and helpful suggestions because whatever our differences here on The Anglo-Catholic –and we do not all agree by any means — nor do we have "board meetings" or conference calls and most contributors I have never even had an email conversation with — we all hope Pope Benedict's vision in Anglicanorum coetibus will become a flourishing reality.

So, if you have some facts or can shed some light on what specific problems have arisen and how they may be overcome, please have at it in the comments section.

Author: Deborah Gyapong

Deborah Gyapong is a member of the Sodality of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary ( in Ottawa, a former parish of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (Traditional Anglican Communion) whose members were received individually and corporately into the Roman Catholic Church on April 15, 2012 by Ottawa Archbishop Terrence Prendergast at St. Patrick’s Basilica. Under the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus, the community will celebrate an approved Anglican Use liturgy and hopes to soon join with other sodalities across Canada to form the Canadian Deanery of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter under Msgr. Jeffrey Steenson, Ordinary. As we wait for our priest(s) to be ordained as Catholic priests, God willing, Archbishop Prendergast will provide priests to celebrate our Sunday Eucharist according to the Anglican Use. Deborah is a journalist who covers religion and politics in Canada’s national capital, writing primarily for Roman Catholic newspapers since 2004. Her novel The Defilers, published in 2006, was not a best seller, alas. She spent 17 years at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in news and current affairs, including 12 years as a television producer.

68 thoughts on “In Search of the Facts Regarding the Ordinariate”

  1. I think you're missing a key question:

    Why have so few TAC priests been ordained, and so few TAC groups regularized?

    1. Well, on the current ordinations calendar, the ACA/TAC is the biggest purveyor of Anglican clergy (7). The ACNA and TEC come after with 6 each.

      Anglican Church in America:
      June 9: Anthony Vidal (Mount Calvary Baltimore MD & St Augustine Reistertown MD)
      June 16: Nicholas Marziani (St James Green Cove Spring FL)
      June 16: David Ousley (St Michael the Archangel Philadelphia PA)
      June 23: Ed Meeks (Christ the King Towson MD)
      July 3: Andrew Bartus (Blessed JH Newman Orange CA)
      July 8: Jonathin Chori Seraiah (St Aidan Des Moines IA)
      Lowell Andrews (Holy Nativity Payson AZ)

      Anglican Church in North-America:
      June 30: Charles Hough III (St John Vianney Cleburne TX)
      June 30: Charles Hough IV (Our Lady of Walsingham Houston TX)
      June 30: Timothy Perkins (St Peter the Rock Arlington TX)
      June 30: Joshua Whitfield
      June 30: Mark Cannaday
      June 30: Christopher Stainbrook (St Timothy Fort Worth TX)

      The Episcopal Church:
      June 2: Matthew Venuti (St Gregory the Great Mobile AL)
      June 3: Jon Chalmers (St Anselm Greenville SC)
      June 9: Jason Catania (Mount Calvary Baltimore MD)
      June 9: David Reamsnyder (Mount Calvary Baltimore MD)
      June 23: Mark Lewis (St Luke Bladensburg MD)
      June 23: Richard Kramer (St Thomas of Canterbury Washington DC)

      Charismatic Episcopal Church:
      June 23: Randolph Sly (St Gregory the Great Annandale VA)

  2. You write: 'Those of us who remained steadfast had nowhere else to turn but to the Cross for consolation. ' This is so very true: for all those of us who have remained steadfast in their Anglican faith and patrimony, despite the slings and arrows of misfortune directed against them. The disruption has indeed been caused by the spirits of darkness: assigned reading might be the Screwtape letters if you need to understand the means of attack by either side on the other.

    We pray for those of our brethren who have left, that they may find their just reward in their new spiritual home, and in turn, ask for prayers that those who have remained in the Continuing Anglican churches might grow in harmony & unity with each other as we have seen developing in recent months.

  3. Personally I don't see how what is going on can be looked at as if it were a new movement that began in only the past several months. There is only one thing new about Anglicanorum Coetibus that was not already available in the United States for the past 30 years under the Pastoral Provision, having a separate jurisdiction which meant no longer having to go by the whim of the local diocesan bishop. Coming into the Catholic Church as a group while preserving common identity while allowing married clergy to be ordained as a Catholic priest have been available for years. Though when can you recall a Bishops Conference Meeting that included regular reports about how they might make the Pastoral Provision a success?

    From all accounts, there were a greater number of communities that came in 30 years ago then there wound up under the Pastoral Provision. No interest? Not by bishops. There were at least two communities that began under the Pastoral Provision (in Austin and Las Vegas) that were later suppressed. For years there were no new communities until Fr. Bergman broke through in Scranton. The big question out there was whether or not the Anglican Use parishes were expected to pass away within one generation. A few of the initial communities seem to have had little or no growth since their founding years ago and still do not have their own parish and building. The only two communities that seem to have been able to become parishes and erect their own building are Our Lady of the Atonement and Our Lady of Walsingham. Though the question remained as to whether they would just eventually be folded into being regular parishes or not was always out there, and without that question answered and little support from local bishops who would want to bring their community in. There might be various reasons why bishops were resistant to allowing a Pastoral Provision parish with the Anglican Use in their own diocese; but among them were an unwillingness to have married priests, not wanting to spoil what they saw as their own ecumenical efforts with the local Episcopal Diocese, and that they were concerned that their own Cradle Catholics might like such a parish and become immersed in it rather than the parish becoming a regular parish.

    It seems to me that the pope recognized the problem, and tried to solve it by creating the ordinariates with their own Ordinary. To this point, there has been little evidence of real change. The Ordinary has yet to demonstrate that he is willing to challenge bishops and go where no AU parish had ever gone before, he instead looks as if he is just an extension of the Pastoral Provision Office that had accomplished little for 30 years. He would appear to have a very close relationship with Msgr. Stetson (formerly the main person responsible for the Pastoral Provision Office), to whom the assignment was apparently given to use his expertise to work with Our Lady of the Angels parish in Los Angeles to assist with their efforts to get into the ordinariate. That didn't work out, just like somehow on the eve of their coming into the Church 30 years ago under the Pastoral Provision the Cardinal decided it might be harmful to his relations with the Episcopal Church. At this point the Personal Ordinariate is looking quite similar to the Pastoral Provision; very small signs given to show something is going on, but is their intent to keep it small so that it can all be assimilated within a generation?

    1. Personally I don't see how what is going on can be looked at as if it were a new movement that began in only the past several months. There is only one thing new about Anglicanorum Coetibus that was not already available in the United States for the past 30 years under the Pastoral Provision, having a separate jurisdiction which meant no longer having to go by the whim of the local diocesan bishop.

      Respectfully, I think you don't see the difference because the implications of canon law and the church's teaching on communion haven't become clear. There are great differences between the Pastoral Provision and the Personal Ordinariate.

      First, the fact of jurisdiction is huge! The security this gives to the parishes, missions and sodalities of the Personal Ordinariate are large. The Pastoral Provision primarily involved clergy. Up until the past year, there were nearly 100 priests, but only the handful of AU parishes. And once a priest left, if there were no Pastoral Provision priest available, the parish folded. This happened, as you noted, in Las Vegas, Austin and also in Georgia. But under the Personal Ordinariate the laity are members, not just parishioners. They have a personal relationship with the Ordinary that they did not have with their pastor in a Pastoral Provision community. Which means that the Ordinary has responsiblities to them, as Anglican Catholics, that the archbishop of Boston or San Antonio or Houston didn't have. The Latin ordinaries can simply assign another priest if they wish (although it should be noted that none did). But the Ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate cannot; he is obligated to provide for the communities as best as he is able.

      That's part of what I mean about communion, as the Church teaches it. This has been a concept that has been fruitfully developed in the Church since the Second Vatican Council, but which has received too little attention. The 1992 document Communionis Notio from the CDF is a valuable document to read in this area. Our speaker at the AUS conference in Newark, Bishop Arrieta, pointed us to this as important for understanding the Apostolic Constitution.

      The Pastoral Provision was a fairly "low-level" document, although it did have profound impact on those affected by it. But Anglicanorum Coetibus, as an Apostolic Constitution, is as high-level as Church documents get. It is fundamental law for the Church. And this fundamental law of the Church gives to the clergy and laity of the Personal Ordinariate a real and legal relationship with each other that was not part of the Pastoral Provision. Yes, there were informal contacts between the AU parishes, but they had no legal relationship with each other. The Anglican Use Society served as one conduit for these informal relationships.

      In 30 years, perhaps 100 priests and 10 communities entered the Church via the Pastoral Provision. In the six months since the Ordinariate was erected, nearly 60 priests and a dozen communities have entered. Yes, that's a quantitative difference, but I think it is because the nature of the game has changed.

      1. Have you actually read the letter to establish a Pastoral Provision? If it was after all what allowed there to be Anglican Use Parishes. There would not have been an OLtA or OLW if it did not involve communities but was meant mainly for individual priests. If they were looking simply for a way to allow individual priests to enter the Church, no other country seems to have needed one to accomplish the same.

        Of course I recognize that the question of jurisdiction has become huge. I'm saying it would not have required a separate jurisdiction if local bishops were more friendly to it. The reason that there were only a handful of parishes has a lot to do with the local bishop not wanting one. Then the question becomes under the Personal Ordinariate, if a local bishop still remains opposed is he able to prevent an ordinariate parish from being established or will the Ordinary do what is best for the Ordinariate, or does he do what he considers best for him to remain cordial with the bishop?

        1. You questioned:-

          "Then the question becomes under the Personal Ordinariate, if a local bishop still remains opposed is he able to prevent an ordinariate parish from being established or will the Ordinary do what is best for the Ordinariate, or does he do what he considers best for him to remain cordial with the bishop?"

          The Ordinary has precisely the same powers to establish missions solidalities and parishes as the dicocesan has. If you read the Complementary Norms, you will see how provision is made for co-operation between Ordinary and Diocesan.

          And I suggest to you that no diocsean will fail do do so, irrespective of his personal views (i) because that is what the Holy Father wishes and (ii) the Ordinariates are under the direct jurisdiction of the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith (formerly the "Holy Office").

          His Holiness was Prefect of that Congregation until his election as Supreme Pontiff. His successor is Cardinal Levada. There are parts of the Roman Curia which are not that effectual but the CDF is not one of them.

          1. From the letter of Cardinal Seper to Archbishop Quinn:
            "A Catholic ecclisiastical Delegate, preferably a Bishop, should be designated, with the approval of the Episcopal Conference, as the responsible person to oversee the practical application of the decisions here reported and to deal with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in what pertains to this question."
            " These decisions should be implemented with all deliberate speed in view of the waiting period already undergone by the Episcopalians who have presented this request."
            "These decisions were approved by His Holiness Pope John Paul II in the audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation on June 20, 1980."
            " Since the group in question involves a certain number of English clergy and faithful, the Congregation will undertake to give the necessary information to the hierarchy of England and Wales."

            So why was there no similar Pastoral Provision in England and Wales to allow in groups retaining a common identity? Plenty has been said of that there was none, and how priests were able to come in anyways. So the lack of it or Anglicanorum Coetibus did not prevent Msgr. Newton from coming into the Catholic Church either. Was it felt that there was no need to bring in groups will retaining a "common identity"? If there was simply no need throughout the past 30 years, then why is there a need for such a provision now? I'd think the answer might be that there may have been such a need, but the bishops were resistant to it.

            Is there a suggestion being made that the Pastoral Provision was not what Pope John Paul II wanted? The Pastoral Provision was also under the CDF, so why was it not more effective in seeing that the Pastoral Provision actually worked?

            1. Just out of interest, Mgr. Newton did not enter the Catholic Church until January 1st 2011, under the provisions of AC. Indeed he was one of those who presented the requests to the Holy See for a provision to bring groups into the Church, which finally led to AC.

            2. Msgr. Newton being one among others presenting a request in recent years. Though the letter from 30 years ago shows that there were groups and clergy back then that had taken part in petitions that the Holy See looked favorably upon and with the CDF having the primary jurisdiction they asked the UK hierarchy to do something about it. If they had actually done something in the manner outlined, would there have even been a need for Msgr. Newton to petition again years later? And if obstacles from dicoesan bishops prevented thing from occurring despite the intent of JPII, does an Ordinariate have any greater chance of success if actions aren't taken against those obstacles if the Ordinary prefers not to make waves?

          2. The "movement" to bring groups of Anglicans into the Catholic Church has a history that goes back much further than 30 years. It was already underway at the time of Blessed John Henry Newman and Fr. Paul Wattson of Graymoor. While you can say that Anglicanorum Coetibus has a brief history, all that led to it being written has a much longer history.

            1. On the basis of these negotiations the CDF was led to believe that hundreds and thousands wanted to enter the Church. Since the establishment of the British Ordinariate, eyebrows have been raise in Rome about the relatively small numbers that compose it and the extravagent claims currently being made by some for it.

      2. Steve, I totally agree. Indeed I find all your comments informative, balanced, a joy to read. Congrats on your blog, by the way. It's an important source for our Ordinariate Expats blog too.

        I think there is one more very important difference, which we should not overlook. The Apostolic Constitution has initiated an ecclesiological revolution, which the Pastoral Provision was never intended to do and never did.

        The name "Pastoral Provision" explains all. This document, important though it was, was intended as a personal response of a pastoral, not ecclesiological, nature to individual groups of Anglicans who were looking for a way to enter the standard structure of the Church – the territorial diocese – but remain together as a parish group (or even smaller) and retain some of the Anglican habits which they were attached to. It was never intended to alter the identity of the Catholic Church.

        AC, on the other hand, is not about pastoral care of individuals but refers to "corporate" unity. A "corpus" or body of Anglicans is to be integrated into the family of the Catholic Church, attaining its own ecclesiastic stucture, with its own liturgy, spirituality, literary heritage, forms of governance, way of doing theology and so much more. This represents a theological and institutional broadening of the Roman Catholic Church, integrating into its very identity elements deriving from the Reformation. And it is this which is the will of the Holy Father. And it is this which makes AC not merely an exercise in poaching but a prophetic ecumenical gesture, humble and welcoming.

    2. Sir-
      You left out Saint Mary the Virgin in Arlington, Texas (Dallas/Ft.Worth) and it's done fairly well over the years.
      Also, the L.A./Hollywood parish is Saint Mary of the Angels not Our Lady of the Angels, nitpicking but a big difference.
      I agree with Steve, you do not know whereof you speak concerning the differences between the Pastoral Provision and the Personal ordinariate. Talk to the current head of the PP Bishop Vann of Ft. Worth. You even stated yourself, the local bishop almost always denied a group coming in and that is what has been going on in most places including L.A. until AC and the Ordinariate. Get your facts straight.

      1. I'm not sure what you think I am leaving St. Mary the Virgin in Arlington out of, the parishes that built a building after coming in? Didn't St. Mary the Virgin bring a building in with them years ago?

        Here is a list of the first AU parishes: " They were as follows: 15 August 1983, Fr. Christopher Phillips and Our Lady of the Atonement in San Antonio, Texas; 10 September 1983, Fr. Clark A. Tea and St. Mary the Virgin, Las Vegas, Nevada; 25 February 1984. Fr. Joseph Frazer and St. Margaret of Scotland, Austin, Texas; 7 April 1984, Fr. James Moore and Our Lady of Walsingham, Houston, Texas: 13 April 1984, Fr. David Ladkau and Good Shepherd, Columbia, South Carolina."

        So those were almost 30 years ago, and SAINT Mary of the Angels was told they weren't going to be allowed in shortly before Our Lady of the Atonement became the first parish. So from the five in the list, only two survived as AU parishes after all these years. In 1994, some 18 years ago, St. Mary the Virgin in Arlington came into the Church bringing their building with them. There are two other communities with a long history but after years never reached the level of being erected as parishes and lack a church building: St. Athanasius in Boston which came in 16 years ago and St. Anselm of Canterbury in Corpus Christi. It is only in recent years that thanks to Fr. Bergman a new community was established in Scranton and then one in Kansas City. So after getting started with 5 communities, nearly 30 years have passed and there are seven in existence, and it seems only two have been successful at raising funds and erecting a new church building.

        Have you missed the fact that I recognized the fact that it was due to the near utter lack of success of the Pastoral Provision office (not necessarily the parishes themselves) that required the Pope to set up a Personal Ordinariate to take things out of the hands of the local bishops? If there had been no obstacles set up by local bishops, who knows how many other sister parishes there could have been? What would have prevented the communities that are now looking to enter come in to the Church years ago if it weren't for such obstacles? How many Bishops Conference Meetings had a session on how to implement the Pastoral Provision. They never seem to have even gotten around to writing up the provisions that the letter from Cardinal Seper to NCCB president Archbishop John Quinn asked them to write up.

        The fact that after the long history of the Pastoral Provision Office that only ten communities may have come in while 100 priests did does not demonstrate that the purpose of it was to focus on bringing in priests, not communities. That may have been the focus of the Office, but not the intent of the letter. The letter spells out the elements of common identity including the liturgy and led to the Book of Divine Worship. What would that have to do with what the office now claims as its purpose of bringing in priests that are not interested in the patrimony but only desire to be diocesan priests (and it seems even priests with an interest in patrimony may be recommended to the office if they lack a community). One of the things the letter stated was " Structures: The preference expressed by the majority of the Episcopal Conference for the insertion of these reconciled Episcopalians into the diocesan structures under the jurisdiction of local Ordinaries is recognized. Neverthless, the possibility of some other type of structure as provided for by canonical dispositions, and as suited to the needs of the group, is not excluded." So the bishops said that they should be trusted to handle things while the Vatican acknowledged back then that something else might be necessary. As it turned out, the bishops did not handle things so well and so the Pope set up the Ordinariate to have its own jurisdiction.

        It seems rather unlikely that it should be expected that bishops that were opposed to having a Pastoral Parish in their diocese will suddenly be enthused about having an Ordinariate parish. The question then becomes whether or not the Ordinary is willing make some waves, or if a bishop were to say he does not want an Ordinariate parish in his diocese the Ordinary go along with that despite having a sizable community wanting to join?

        Whereas it had long been suggested after Anglicanorum Coetibus was announced that the U.S. would have a clear advantage by being able to incorporate in the existing Pastoral Provision parishes, that did not happen despite the fact that the communities themselves seemed unanimous in planning to apply to join. Did not the implementation team with its USCCB delegates see this as a priority to discuss the very few number of relevant bishops? No, instead they made a clear point in their Q&A session that there was nothing automatic about it. Automatic or not, did the implementation team or newly named Ordinary do any lobbying to make it happen. Other than OLW being named the principal church building, it seems the parish members may not even be certain if they're in the Ordinariate or not. Will anything be happening with St. Mary the Virgin or are they waiting for Fr. Hawkins to first announce his retirement? The question with Our Lady of the Atonement seems to have less to do with the local bishop as it has to do with possible lack of interest on the part of the Ordinariate to have them in. Thankfully the parish in Scranton was allowed in since they were willing to put up some $500,000 in order to purchase a church building that was no longer of any use to the diocese; which no doubt was happy to have a buyer. So why is there a hold up for the couple of AU communities that have no property issues? I imagine it should be a very interesting AU Conference this summer.

  4. Deborah said "because he had the right credentials from a possibly heretical Anglican seminary". A curious statement, since if the credentials were, in fact, "right", it would seem that the seminary could not have been heretical. What seminaries did former TAC clergy attend? Are you saying that some Anglican Church of Canada priests are heteretical and some are not? Does this depend on what seminary they attended? Is there an Anglican seminary that is considered heresy-free?

    1. I think "right credentials" was meant ironically. Fortunately the Ordinary avoided possible heretical contamination by obtaining his M.Div from Harvard Divinity School.

          1. I believe FGatH was an attempt to rebut, in the context of the wider university community, the experience of Harvard Divinity School described in the book The Search for God at Harvard. Clearly He was found more easily elsewhere on campus.

    2. The credentials might be "right" in the sense that they come from a very respectable institution. But that does not mean that the teaching is in conformity with the teaching of the Catholc Church.

      Ask Father Edwin Barnes who contributes to this blog. This is his profile: "A parish priest in the CofE for 27 years. Rector of Farncombe, Surrey, for 11, Vicar of Hessle, Hull for 9. Principal of S Stephen's House, Oxford 87-95, then Bishop of Richborough (a 'flying bishop') in Canterbury Province until retirement to Lymington in 2001. Now after 50 years of Anglican ministry, a Priest of the Ordinariate in the Catholic Church, currently looking after the Group which worships in Southbourne (Bournemouth)."

      I think he could testify very eloquently to the heterodox nature of much of the theology now taught to candidates for ordinantion in the CofE in Universities and Theological Colleges in the UK and indeed adopted by many bishops and other higher clergy in the CofE – in particular those who have adopted the misleading title of "Affirming Catholics" for their tendency.

      He could probably also speak to the intensive study demanded of the OLW clergy before and after their ordination as Catholic priests since he's being doing it. In fact, you might try reading some of the posts on his "Ancient Richborough" blog.

  5. "Here in Canada, back in 2010 there was concern, at least on my part, that this might happen here because Cardinal Collins mused about putting some Anglican Church of Canada priests who wished to become Catholic — but had no communities coming with them — in charge of our parishes because he wasn't sure most of our priests would qualify as Catholic priests. The thought rankled me — that someone would get a soft landing in one of our parishes simply because he had the right credentials from a possibly heretical Anglican seminary but had not made any of the sacrifices our shepherds had made to serve us."

    Please allow me to give some encouragement.

    Here in the UK we have priests of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham who have been appointed as priests in charge of diocesan parishes. We have one in my parish. That gives him a roof over his head, and a small income. We have found him to be conversant with liturgy and Catholic doctrine, and he gives sick or worried parishioners all the support they need. He has done for for us spiritually and materially than any other priest we had in recent years. In addition to running our diocesan parish he has an Ordinariate group of laity consisting of about half the people who were his parishioners when he was a priest of the Church of England. Our parish invited the Ordinariate group to come to us when we had Mass for the centenary of the parish, and we had a social evening afterwards.

    Not only have we had no problems with our Ordinariate priest, we are very very happy with him. He has re-introduced devotions that had been dropped over the years, like Angelus after an evening Mass, Compline and Benediction.

    Some Ordinariate priests are chaplains in hospitals and prisons.

    1. I'm so happy to hear of this. I've heard of other experiences similar to the one you describe, both in the UK and in the USA. In fact, it is accurate to say it often takes a convert from the CofE to restore genuinely Catholic devotions to a Catholic parish. To rely upon cradle-born Catholic clergy to do so is to wait for Gadot.

      1. I am tired of reading this type of nonsense – I have always had Exposition and Benediction in the Parishes in which I have been a priest. All the priests of my year (1991) have as do most of my generation. Quarant Ore is one of the great events of the year. I am a cradle Catholic, as are my colleagues. Stop the generalised knocking if you don't mind.

        1. Amen Father Gerard.
          Those of us who have lived on this side of the Tiber are eager to greet our new brethren and we believe you have much to bring. However, we are not waiting for you to save us. Despite all of the nonsense that does go on, there are still many faithful and well-formed priests and layman from whom we all can learn. In other words, when you come over take some time to meet the family. You may learn something from some of them who have been holding down the fort for you. It never serves a new member well to come in criticizing without having lived with the family for a long period of time. Oh, and please do hurry – we could use more friends – but don't be too, too busy. Maybe settle in and pray a bit too.
          The key to renewal is really quite simple and very, very challenging – it is called personal sancity. That's why the Church reformers usually hold a title called "saint".

          God bless,

          P.S. I am eager to join in and enjoy the entry of this lovely Anglican Patrimony because as a lifelong Catholic I love the English saints and ways. In fact, a good friend will be ordained soon and I am eager to attend his mass but I will also continue to enjoy the riches in the Church that are Italian, Spanish, and yes even Irish. Please do not forget, there are many other rich sources of tradition that are part of the Church's universal patrimony; I think that may be one reason why Bl. JH Newman had such devotion to an Italian – Philip Neri who was from Rome, of all places.

    2. Mrs Gyapong was not expressing concern that an Ordinariate priest would be taking over her Catholic parish, but that someone converted from mainstream Anglicanism would be put in charge of her Ordinariate congregation rather than a former ACCC clergyman.

      1. Not that converts from mainstream Anglicanism might not make wonderful Catholic priests, mind you, but it was out of concern for our familial parish bonds. We asked to come in family class and that did not mean leaving our spiritual fathers behind.

  6. Ms Gyapong, may I commend your call for information. I regret very much the post from another which, in effect, said, "I know of some dark deeds and abuses, but I cannot set out the particulars".

    Steve Cavanaugh's post above rightly points out the enormous difference between the pastoral provision concept and the ordinariate. It is also worth remembering that the pastoral provision existed only in the USA, there was no equivalent in the UK. But in the UK over the same period very many Anglican clergy became Catholic priests, in fact many more than in the USA.

    Another difference is that in the UK, the TAC and the other breakaway Anglican churches did not catch on. At the moment, there is no TAC bishop in the UK. Thus, in addition to being (i) Bishop Suffragan of the TAC Diocese of Canada, (ii) Acting Metropolitan of the Diocese of Canada, and (iii) Acting Provincial Chancellor of the Diocese of Canada, the Rt Reverend Craig Botterill, Queen’s Counsel, is now,also (iv) Episcopal Visitor to England. On another blog I suggested that he might also like Poo-Bah assume the title of Archbishop of Titipu (and Lord High Everything Else). But in fact, since the reception of Father Mercer and others in Portsmouth, I know of no continuing TAC presence in the UK which requires episcopal visitation – which may be just as well because it is not all that easy to get a round trip ticket for less than £300.

    The problem is always going to be that the establishment of a secure mission, solidality, or parish is always going to be limited by the supply of suitable and sufficently trained priests who can be ordained to serve as pastors. By Catholic standards, that is happening at breakneck speed. I have been impressed by the effforts made by the Catholic hierachy in parts of the USA and in Canada to make the transition and reception as welcoming as possible.

    It seems that a lot of the negative posters are from TAC and similar breakaway churches. I am sure that issues such as litigation over parish property, the time it takes to have a member of the clergy trained to a level sufficient to enable him to be ordained a Catholic priest, and many other similar issues are intensely friustrating – but I do wonder whether there is not just a touch of a "we rebelled against authority once – and we can do it again" also in play. Or perhaps it is just the US national preference for instant solutions to everything.

    1. I regret it and am not part of it, but there is a continuing TAC body in England which has rejected the Catholic Church and therefore requires supervision.
      There are also some of us who may yet enter the Ordinariate. Our dossiers have been submitted.

      1. Is there really a continuing TAC body in the UK ? Where and how many clergy and laity? The web site has been non functional for months.

        Obvious I am delighted to learn that you and maybe others are awaiting your "ticket" from the CDF, DV it will arrive soon. I suspect the applications may be backing up a little what with both the COP and OLSC Ordinariates also having "first wave" candidates' dossiers in for examination.

  7. The Sodality of the Annunciation of the BVM is Ottawa currently has a Sunday celebration by a priest of the RC Archdiocese, I believe. Is it the full intention of Archbishop Prendergast that a priest formerly of TAC be ordained in the Roman Church and then assigned to the Sodality? If not, then where will the future clergy of Annunciation come from?

    1. I expect the candidate will do the "fast track" preparation course by distance learning, be ordained a deacon asap after receipt of approval of his dossier and ordained a priest a few weeks thereafter. Tne usual practice is for the Ordinary to send dimissorial letters to request a bishop to confer holy orders, but the deacon or priest is incardinated into the Ordinariate rather than the diocese. I understand that the plan for Canada is that a Deanery will be erected quite soon and that will afford an organic structure which can easily be formed into a separate ordinariate for Canada in the fullness of time.

    2. Allow me to confess to a certain unease in the stomach region when reading how previous affiliations (TAC, TEC, ACNA, etc.) seem still to be important after entry into the Ordinariate.

      We are all Ordinariate Catholics, there is no hierarchy depending on origin. And there is certainly no discrimination against former TAC members. That one of their number is now Ordinary in Australia (please note that he was never an Anglican Communion bishop!) clearly demonstrates the equality of all members for the Holy Father too.

      I can understand someone in a parish or sodality with a long and difficult history being skeptical at receiving a new pastor fresh from a relatively unproblematic Episcopalian parish. But that is the way of the Church. Priests will always retire or move on for whatever reason and be replaced by relatively inexperienced priests "parachuted" in from elsewhere. Bishops likewise! Catholic parishes tend not to grow their own priests, and dioceses not always their own bishop.

      At first the relationship between the new priest and his faithful can be difficult. Some laity may even leave the community as a result and go elsewhere. But in general we grow to love and understand each other, and that is good!

      1. The Ordinariate concept is that wherever possible both group and pastor should be received together. Given the need for some training before ordination, there will be a period while the pastor will be unable to exercise sacramental ministry but it is as short as possible. One sees this with a number of the groups and churches already received in the USA – during the transition the pastor was named as administrator, and another priest named as "chaplain" as a temporary measure.

        There have been one or two sad exceptions where for some reason personal to a specific individual the ecclesiastical authority has decided that a particular individual cannot proceed to ordination (either temporarily or permanently).

        Historically, in the CofE, there was the concept of the "parson's freehold" – one presented to a parish or a "living", and installed, the vicar had a legal right to his living until retirement if he so wished. While Catholic Canon Law does give a parish priest some recourse against an episcopal decision to move him from one appointment to another, by and large the bishops are much more free to plan how their available manpower is used for the good of the diocese. Ordinaries and their Governing Councils have equivalent jurisdiction to their disocesan equivalents.

        Likewise with bishops, the Papacy has a much freer hand than in the CofE process to chose who shall be consecrated to the episcopate and where they shall serve.

        Indeed the Ordinariates are granted special treatment in that when the time comes to appoint a new Ordinary, the Governing Council has a deliberative vote to select a terna of names to submit to the Holy See from which terna, the Holy Father will nominate one. That is a privilege not afforded to dioceses.

        1. Just a small correction: the system provided for the Ordinariate, the naming of a terna to Rome by the Governing Council, is one which exists in German dioceses for the appointment of Ordinaries and auxiliary bishops, since the Concordats of the 1930's. That is why the Pope knows this system well and suggested it for the Ordinariates.

          German dioceses don't just get bishops dropped in from elsewhere without the approval of the local administrators (the Cathedral Chapter in this case)..

  8. "But in the UK over the same period very many Anglican clergy became Catholic priests, in fact many more than in the USA."

    I think this will continue to be the case for many years to come. Part of the reason may be a larger segment of CofE clergy are Anglo Catholic, and much of the EPUSA might as well be Unitarian or Congregationalists dressed up in Episcopal/Roman vestments.

    I had a priest friend from Australia who said another title which is seeking widening popularity there is "Primate of Alice Springs". You don't think they had Cardinal Pell in mind did you?

    1. Though my question would be why there were so many more priests coming in the UK vs the US without communities? There was no interest in establishing communities after anything like the U.S.'s Pastoral Provision was rejected by the UK Bishops? The possibility of bringing in whole communities was rejected since the Bishops' Conference did not want them? All of these priests were not at all interested in preserving Anglican heritage but just wanted to become diocesan priests? If there has been great success in bringing in priests without communities and with little interest in an "Anglican Patrimony", why even bother with an Ordinariate? If the answer to that is simply that there was resistance from bishops and now the ordinary is independent, what is happening as he continues to encounter opposition from bishops?

      1. I think that it would be fair to say that most bishops in England and Wales were luke warm about the Ordinariate when it was first announced, but have warmed to the idea since. One reason is that it has produced a supply of priests that the bishops can use in diocesan parishes.

        Many of the Ordinariate groups are very small and cannot support a priest on their own.

        1. It seems though that it's been constantly said how many priests were already coming over prior to an Ordinariate and without a Pastoral Provision so that they've helped supply the need in diocesan parishes for years. I don't see exactly as to how the Ordinariate would increase the rate by much for bringing in priests to help in diocesan parishes. I've never been particularly clear on how the liturgical practices of those that had remained outside have been particularly different from what would already have been permitted if not practiced. I imagine the bishops may be happy to say that they are seeing to the Pope's plans while there is not much change from the status quo.

  9. Golly. Just how long as this Ordinariate thing been going? Twelve months and what has it achieved? On England there are going to be men who were not previously ordained putting themselves forward – this shows surely that it is going ahead. It has few funds so it does need your money as well as your prayers.

    Our lady of Walsingham and Blessed John Henry Newman pray for the Ordinariate

    1. As for that, it is not surprising that many British Catholic priests regard membership of the Ordinariate as a back door into the priesthood.

      1. I don't think that this is true. Generally they have integrated very well, and often are very popular. Many of the former Anglican clergy are highly educated in th first place.

  10. Since a good part of the RC priests in England and Wales are former CofE / CinW priests, many of them married, I wonder how much truth is in your comment. How is an ordinariate priest using a back door and a diocesan priest (formerly CofE vicar) is not?

    1. I think Mr Bowles was responding to Mr Golightly's point that formerly Anglican laymen, not just those currently in orders, are coming forward as candidates for ordination. I am not sure, however, whether he was implying that standards for them would be lowered in some way.

      1. It normally takes seven years of study for a seminarian to achieve ordination. Following the exodus of 400 or so Anglican clerics into the Church after the General Synod's vote to ordain women in 1992 many were rushed through to ordination is two years. This caused comment at the time from British Catholic priests who had taken the usual period of study. What depth of study lies in that? they asked.

        Prior to 1992 the Bishops of England and Wales and the religious Orders would not consider a convert candidate for ordination or admission until two years had elapsed after his reception. This enabled him to settle down. Leap to 2011, nearly all the Ordinariate clergy were ordained within weeks with no experience of the Church, Canon Law, philosophy and theology. Such Catholic education as they have remains in progress.

        That is why both cradle and convert clergy sometimes see these rapid ordinations as a back door into the priesthood. Some of the fiercest critics are themselves convert clergymen who, by now, have had a long experience of the Church. As for laymen wanting to be ordained into the Ordinariate, I simply don't understand this because it will intensify a factious identity. I would hope that their training will take seven years, in which time they will want to be ordained as priests within the main body. I cannot help suspecting that the Ordinariate will be absorbed into the mainstream and then cease to exist, its work completed.

        1. Ex Anglicans putting themselves forward for mainline Roman Catholic ordination is something very different from the Ordinariate.

          If it turns out that the Ordinariate is only a back door into the priesthood (by the way, ex-Anglican priests usually only do two years of additional seminary training, as will Ordinariate priests, except that the date of ordination is brought forward for pastoral reasons), then Pope Benedict's initiative will have achieved nothing. As so many have stated, C of E priests have been entering the Church, remaining married and being ordained "through the back door" for yonks.

          Pope Benedict speaks of a prophetic ecumenical gesture. He wants not only to bring these people into the Church but to open the Church to Anglicanness,. as I too have stated before.

      2. New candidates for the priesthood who are ex Anglicans have to do the full 6 year programme in the normal way.

  11. I think that when the Pastoral Provision was originally established for the USA, it was directed primarily to clergy and not to entire communities. Indeed, the general principle was that clergy were received and would spend a much longer period in formation before ordination than is the case in the Ordinariate approach. Moreover the tasks to which the priest were usually put after ordination were not directly parochial, such as chaplains to hospitals or in a diocesan education service and only gradually were they given responsibilities as assistant priests in parishes. The approach in England and Wales was much the same.

    In both cases, laity were generally received through the RICA process and joined a normal parish. So the idea of a whole church community being received and it being allowed to use its own liturgical books was something of a "bolt on" to the pastoral provision concept and it was only used in the USA.

    The Ordinariate concept is a further development in that it does embrace much more fully the concept of a whole group – pastor and parishoners – being received at the same time. In England and Wales, the establishment of the CofE as a state church made it unlikely that such a group would be able to bring their church buildings too, but in other countries that possibility was also recognised.

    The novelty of that approach (and a difficulty) consists of the proposition that that in the ordinary way the pastor of the group has got to be kept in contact with his parishoners – it would not work if the pastor had to spend, say, 5 years iin formation before being able to minister to "his" laity. So the absolutely radical innovation is the idea of the pastor doing a very intensive "short course" and then being able to function as a priest for "his" group within months of reception.

    So, yes, as John Bowles observes above, that does mean that a human reaction from priests who have undergone the "long form" formation could well be one akin to that of the labourers in the vineyard put to work in the early morning who saw those called later in the day getting the same reward as them. And the parable also provides the proper answer to that kind of reaction.

    And the answer to Victor is that the Anglican clergyman who has taken the diocesan route will be in formation pre-ordination for several years rather than several months.

    In fact it is not the case that the Ordinariate formation is quite as short as it may appear. Yes, ordination takes place much earlier in the process, because of the imperative to get the pastor back to ministering to his group, but then there is a continuing formation process. So in the UK, not only do the Ordinariate priests have continuing and intensive formation days at Allen Hall, the Westminster Diocesan Seminary, but many are also doing distance learining courses with other Catholic Instiutions – for example, the Catholic University of Louvain has developed a course in Canon Law and there are OLW Ordinariate priests taking that and other courses.

    In fact, the intention is that as the Ordinariates develop, their "home grown" candidates for priesthood will undergo a formation process which will be the same as that used throughout the world-wide church – and that process has already started in the OLW ordinariate.

    In effect, the innovation is that the Ordinary of each Ordinariate, in conjunction with the CDF, has the faculty to devise an individualised course for those of its incoming clergy who have been received accompanied by groups of laity designed to get them back into ministry with their groups of laity just as soon as is possible. That has required co-operation with the chosen seminaries to develop appropriate courses which include the "distance learning" techniques which, in the UK were pioneered by secular institutions such as the Open University.

    Another example of this new willingness of the Church to think out of the "one size fits all" box, relates to pastoral care of the Ordinariate laity while the priests are in formation.

    The OLW Ordinariate groups were mostly already worshipping using the English Missal. So attending Catholic diocesan masses while waiting for their pastor to be ordained was not too much of a problem. This was not so in Canada. So it was interesting to note that the Canadian diocesan hierarchy very quckly approved a Canadian version of the US Pastoral Provision Book of Divine Worship.

    Canadian diocesan bishops then used that rite at the reception of incoming groups of former Anglicans. I was very much struck by the fact that Archbishop Prendergast of Ottowa took the trouble to have a "practice run" of a rite unfamiliar to him so that he could worthily celebrate it when welcoming the Canadian Anglicans entering into communion with the Catholic Church.

    The Ordinariate builds on the Pastoral Provision. By providing separate ecclesiastical jurisdictions it enables the preservation of a distinctly English language Catholicity which remained in Anglicanism despite the schism 500 years ago and which is worthy of preservation and development.for the benefit of the whole Church. This unity within diversity is a change from the "one size fits all" previous approach and, in effect it recognises English as a world language to be put to the service of the Church just as Greek and then Latin have served that purpose.

    1. Your basic premise in the first line, Mourad, is unfortunately not true. Like AC, the Pastoral Provision was a response to requests from groups of Anglicans with their priests to enter the Church and remain together as a community. That the Pastoral Provision has subsequently been misused to funnel individual C of E priests into the diocesan priesthood is unfortunate, if not dishonest. (It is exactly the opposite of what you have written – the "bolt on" was the misuse I have just described.)

      It is important to point out, as you do, that Ordinariate priests do not have a shorter formation period than other ex Anglican priests – 2 years! The date of ordination is, however, brought forward for the pastoral reasons you have correctly outlined.

      I wholeheartedly underline the rest of what you say.

    2. Mourad
      The parable of the labourers in the vineyard is an unpleasant canard to use in this case. The parable is concerned with reward, not procedure. What critics of the method of educating convert clergymen in recent years are concerned about is superficiality. The difference between crash courses in Canon Law and the depth of theological education provided in the long course of priestly education should be obvious. Short courses will not equip these men for their task ahead.

      The two years demanded of convert clergymen before starting studies in the past enabled them to settle down in the Church and rid them of mentalities they had adopted as Anglicans. The Anglo-Catholic mentality is entirely different from the Catholic mentality. What is clear among many instantly-ordained Ordinariate priests is that they are behaving like Anglo-Catholics in the Catholic Church because they know no other way of proceeding. To describe this mentality as 'Anglican Patrimony' is preposterous because it has little to do with Anglicanism proper. Latter-day Anglo-Catholicism is noxious and over-defensive, neither of which are Catholic characteristics.

  12. All of these posts may indeed be interesting primarily from a historical viewpoint, but I am afraid they answer only one (No. 5 below) of the topical questiions which are at the heart of Deborah Gyapong's post.

    For the sake of clarity I shall repeat them:

    " 1. How many Anglican Use parishes are joining the Ordinariate? How many are staying out? Why have their priests/leaders decided to move in one direction or another? Be great to hear directly from them if possible.

    2. Has there been a consistent policy in transferring membership from an Anglican Use parish (i.e. those on the parish rolls for baptisms, confirmations etc.) into the Ordinariate? If so, what is that policy? Have some parishes had concerns they would be forced to split, leaving many behind if they entered the Ordinariate?

    3. At Our Lady of Walsingham, was the priest forced into retirement? Or did he voluntarily retire? Are the members of this parish members of the Ordinariate? Or does some official paperwork or something need to be done?

    4. How concerned are priests of Anglican Use parishes that are remaining outside that they might be forced into retirement or moved elsewhere in the vast Ordinariate territory once they are incardinated into the Ordinariate?

    5. How concerned are Anglican Use communities that someone who is a recent convert with no understanding of the history or sacrifices made by that community will be parachuted in as their priest?

    6. I am not privy to the information that our Moderator has about what has been going on in the United States and I would prefer specifics with the "who, what, why, when, where"."

    Perhaps we should try to provide some answers to these questions, as they are fundamental to an understanding of the decisions by parishes and individuals not to join the Ordinariate "at this time", whatever that means.

    1. My guess would be that those that could provide the answers to the question are all still very much interested in the Ordinariate, and might feel that to respond to such questions publicly may not be in the best interests of the Ordinariate or their own desire to join.

      From some of the past answers, it seems fairly clear that membership in a parish and membership in the Ordinariate itself may be two different issues entirely. It has also at times been suggested that becoming a member of the Ordinariate may not void your "membership" with the local diocese as far as laity are concerned. There are certainly persons that meet every qualification necessary to be part of the Ordinariate but live in a location where there is no other presence of the Ordinariate in which to provide pastoral care, which the diocese should remain responsible for doing rather than respond "you're not one of ours".

      By now there are no doubt several people that qualify as members of the Ordinariate by every standard set out in the Constitution and the Norms that have submitted a request in writing as the Ordinary suggested and have simply not received any sort of acknowledgement that the written request asked for was ever received. It is not a priority for the Ordinariate to let anyone know if they are actually a member or not. At this point it does not seem that even members of OLW parish are sure whether or not they are members of the Ordinariate.

      1. I'm afraid that is true in my case too (OLW Ordinariate). I just assume that I am a member but have received no confirmation.

    2. I'd think the more interesting question which I see no reason could not be answered by the Ordinaries themselves would be:
      – When you encounter a bishop who tells you that he does not believe there is any need for an Ordinariate parish in his diocese despite the fact you may have a group that has been waiting, how do you handle that?

      We've already had one candidate mention that when they contacted a bishop's office about the Ordinariate that he was told by a secretary that the bishop did not want any married priests in his diocese, so what does the Ordinary do when he knows there is a good deal of interest? Not step on any toes, or take some other measures?

      1. One of the chief features of the Ordinariate is that it obviates the problem of a diocesan bishop objecting (to a married priest, or a different rite, or a new parish) because none of these things are in his diocese at all. They belong to an independent jurisdiction. But, of course, if there is no community or job for the candidate, the question is moot — unless the man is prepared to move or be a non-stipendiary (which AC allows for).

        Since none of the Ordinaries can be bishops, alas, they have to go cap-in-hand to diocesans to have their people ordained. Until there is an Ordinariate bishop, there will be an inherent constraint on the enterprise. One might speculate that the choice of married ordinaries was a safety valve of a kind — regular bishops would oversee their ordinations until there was more confidence in the enterprise. Bishops Hopes and Elliott seem to have been extremely supportive and obliging, but there have still been some awkward moments (John Hunwicke. e.g.).

        Having a bishop in the Ordinariate is much to be desired. I was rather hoping that Fr George Rutler might be prevailed upon to take up the role, but he does not seem in any way connected to the Ordinariate, or much interested.

        1. You state a supposed chief feature, but in practicality is it a real feature? After all, the process after obtaining a nulla osta from the CDF indicates:
          "Undergo a criminal background check and psychological evaluation, and obtain a votum (endorsement) from the Ordinary, from the Catholic bishop where the individual resides, and from his former Anglican ecclesiastical authority, if possible."

          So if a bishop is opposed to having an ordinariate priest in his diocese and then refuses to provide a votum, what would the Ordinary then do?

          1. This was the situation in Philadelphia regarding David Moyer, although the Ordinary seemed happy to concur with + Chaput's decision.

            1. Whereas it seems that there may be other issues (legitimate or not), it seems questionable whether Msgr. Steenson is willing to oppose a bishop. Per the article back in January regarding "leave all that anger behind".

            2. "Steenson is thankful for the friendships from his years in the House of Bishops, and many of them continue. “Those relationships will become really important to me now. We know that there’s a certain awkwardness here,” he said.

              Just as during his years as a bishop in New Mexico, Steenson will rely on bishops for pastoral warnings about troubled priests or congregations heading his way, and he will offer the same guidance to them.

              “One of the things I learned early on in my years as a bishop is that you never play the game of Old Maid with other bishops.”

          1. That presents an interesting scenario: a bishop as a member of the Ordinariate but himself subject to an Ordinary who is not a bishop.

            That's one for the Canon Lawyers, but it sounds a good idea to me (and Fr. Mercer has vision!).

            1. "… a bishop … subject to an Ordinary who is not a bishop."
              Didn't the Celtic church work rather like that?

            2. Such occurs every time a diocesan bishop of the Latin rite is transferred, retires, etc.; the diocese has at least one auxiliary bishop; and the administrator appointed is a priest.

  13. I wonder if anyone here knows if there will be an Ordinariate Site for the new Australian Ordinariate. Also, has it been decided if the Torres Strait group will enter as a deanery? Will the Japanese mission be included?


Leave a Reply