Holy See Approves First Ordinariate Liturgical Texts

For Immediate Release: July 3, 2012
Holy See Promulgates First Liturgical Texts for Ordinariates

The first liturgical texts approved for worldwide use by the Personal Ordinariates for former Anglicans have been promulgated by the Holy See.

The Order for Funerals and the Order for the Celebration of Holy Matrimony are to be used by the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham in the United Kingdom; the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter in the United States and Canada; and the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross in Australia.

The new liturgies replace existing texts, including those from the Book of Divine Worship. Drawn from the classical Anglican prayer book tradition, the texts incorporate elements of the Anglican patrimony now in the full communion of the Catholic Church.

Monsignor Keith Newton, Ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, noted, "This is an important moment in the development of our distinctive liturgical and ecclesial life. We saw the world stop to watch the Royal Wedding last year, now a very similar and beautiful liturgy is available for use in the Ordinariates of the Catholic Church — it is a great privilege for us to be part of that obvious working-out of practical, receptive ecumenism".

The liturgies were promulgated by the Congregation for Divine Worship on June 22, 2012, the feast day of the English saints of the Reformation, John Fisher and Thomas More. They will be implemented in accordance with local civil law requirements in the various nations, with immediate use in the United States and Canada.

"We welcome with gratitude these texts, which bring into Catholic liturgical life some of the most beloved and memorable texts in the Book of Common Prayer. These texts have blessed and comforted generations of English-speaking Christians and will be deeply appreciated in the Ordinariate communities," said Monsignor Jeffrey N. Steenson, Ordinary for the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter.

The new texts were developed under the guidance of Archbishop J. Augustine DiNoia OP, who served until recently as the Secretary for the Congregation of Divine Worship. Archbishop DiNoia, now the Vice President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, has been re-appointed as chair of the Holy See's Anglicanae traditiones Commission tasked with developing the new liturgical texts for the Personal Ordinariates. The Reverend Uwe Michael Lang, CO, who also just stepped down from a post with the Congregation for Divine Worship, will also continue his role in the development of the texts.


Texts: www.usordinariate.org/ord_news_new_rites.html

Video interviews with Monsignor Andrew Burnham: www.vimeo.com/UKOrdinariate

Author: Deborah Gyapong

Deborah Gyapong is a member of the Sodality of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (www.annunciationofthebvm.org) 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.

38 thoughts on “Holy See Approves First Ordinariate Liturgical Texts”

  1. The liturgies both look very patrimonial indeed. And it is encouraging to hear that Abp. Di Noia and Fr. Lang will continue to be involved in the development and approval of future Ordinariate liturgical texts.

  2. Strange indeed! These rites will be unfamiliar to the majority of clergy of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham at least. The Prayer Book has long been superseded by the Alternative Services Book and Common Worship. Classic Anglican worship is confined to cathedral Evensong and forms hardly any part in the average worship of the Church of England.,For most of the clergy of the Ordinariate, the Divine Office will have long replaced the Prayer Book offices.

    As for the wedding of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, this was cobbled together by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Dean of Westminster in which only bits of the Prayer Book were retained. The same applies to the idiosyncratic version of 'Evensong' put on in Westminster Abbey for the Holy Father's visit to Britain two years ago. It was all music, little substance from the Prayer Book, and embarrassing for the incompetent censing of the high altar during the Magnificat by the Dean, done entirely for effect.

    Classic Anglican worship is over beyond cathedral and Oxbridge College circles. It is largely beyond the experience of members of the British Ordinariate, clerical and lay, and these rites will be new to most of them.

    1. Appreciative as always of your infallible expertise, Mr. Bowles, but I doubt these liturgies will be all that unfamiliar to the clergy of the English Ordinariate since they are almost identical to the Series 1 forms of the marriage and funeral rites found in the Alternative Service Book (which were themselves from the proposed 1928 revisions to the Book of Common Prayer). This is in fact the rite which was used for the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton, not something "cobbled together."

      1. Fascinating! The adoption of rites from the ASB and Common Worship will come as a surprise to Ordinariates in Australia, Canada and the United States or is each Ordinariate going to have separate rites, including groups from the TAC? But, in the end, will many people actually use them when there are perfectly good, usually better, versions that form part of the Western Rite?

        I have not been a member of the Church of England for many years but the wedding rite for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's wedding sounded cobbled together to me, but I have had no experience with either the ASB of Common Worship I am thankful to say. What I mainly remember was the way the Dean of Westminster tried to steal the show.

        1. You, sir, are a troll and a pompous ass. While there are certain differences between the American 1928 Prayer Book and the marriage services, it is hard for me to imagine that anyone from an Anglican background — other than liberals and/or people such as yourself who wish ill on the Ordinariate — would find anything patently objectionable in the rites. Indeed, they are superior in certain key respect to the 1928 and 1979 Prayer Books and what is found in the BDW, including a more robust exhortation at the beginning, similar to that of the 1662, (without language that would cause immature people in the congregation to snigger), the plighting and giving of troths, the return of "obey" for those women who wish to recite it, while at the same time accommodating double-ring ceremonies for those who desire it.

          Knowing American Anglicans, I predict that these rites will be warmly welcomed by most members of the Ordinariate or those who are discerning whether to join it.

          1. You, sir, are a troll and a pompous ass.
            Perhaps we could all remember to behave with Christian charity on this blog, even (especially?) when we disagree with other posters.

            1. The problem isn't so much disagreeing with other posters, but rather communicating with disagreeable posters. When someone persists in finding new and uninteresting ways to denigrate everything that this blog supports, I think it is understandable for others to snap. It's not a good idea, and it plays into the hands of the bully, but it is nonetheless understandable.

              Perhaps we should look to Mr Campbell and Mrs Gyapong for role models: here are two people with rather different views on the ordinariates and the implementation of AC, and yet they are able to be perfectly polite, reasonable and respectful both of each other, and of the opposing viewpoint.

    2. How wonderful these liturgies are. I can see a lot of Catholics outside the Ordinariate wanting to be married and buried with these rites. It would be a shame to confine such beautiful English to the Ordinariate. I'm hoping we will eventually see this hieratic language used for the 1962 Mass and as an alternative to that dreadful Roman Missal we've started.

      Other than Anglo Catholic parishes, how many Anglican churches today use holy water, incense, the paschal candle? I suspect more so than perhaps 35 years ago, but still these may still be treated as "popish" liturgical trappings.


    3. Rubbish. I am priest in charge of 6 Norfolk villages and 5 use the BCP. It may be that Common Worship is preferred in urban areas, but many village churches use the BCP. John would be welcome to join us if he is ever in Norfolk.

  3. @John Bowles –
    You must be related to Mr. Vincent Uher over on TONUS PERIGRINUS (whose blog I just deleted – AGAIN!) for he speaks with utter disdain about these new Rites. I think the both of you should commiserate and then go to Rome and rail at the CDW. After all your seem to believe you know better than the Pope or the CDW. In fact, just GO AWAY permanently!

  4. I am amused that 'Digusted in DC' of all people should regard me as a pompous troll. Perhaps he should look in a glass? His own comments scattered across the Internet might also be so described. Which brings me to the point. Why are people who make adverse comments on websites dismissed as 'trolls' when they make legitimate points? Christian Campbell, who runs this interesting blog, also has reservations about the Ordinariates. Does that make him one?

    The majority of people critical of the Ordinariates would not read sites like this because they would consider it a waste of time. Presumably the Anglo-Catholic site is a forum as well as a source of information? If not why does it invite comments?

    As a loyal Catholic I accept Anglicanorum Caetibus but I still think that the Holy Father and the CDF were misled about prospective numbers and future viability. The Ordinariates are fragile bodies and the claims made for their powers of regeneration and evangelisation demonstrate not only hubris but unreality.

    Every convert I have known has approached submission to the Church after a long period of consideration and prayer. All they want are to be Catholics. It worries me a little that future converts from Anglicanism will be nabbed for an Ordinariate instead of being received into the Church on the Church's own terms. However,the majority of Catholic priests who instruct converts are not likely to confuse the issue by recommending Ordinariates. Presumably those who are attracted will apply directly, especially if they seek a fast track to ordination?

    1. Mr. Bowles,

      I will pay you the compliment of assuming that your remarks here are in good faith, something I am not sure is deserved by your long pattern of comment on the Ordinariate on this and other blogs.

      I too am a Catholic, and an Anglican convert of almost 20 years. While I am not likely to formally join the Ordinariate, I wish it well. Why should a simple lay loyal Catholic support the Ordinariate? Several reasons:

      1) It has long been the goal of authentic Catholic ecumenism to allow separated brethren of different traditions, and especially Anglicans, to preserve whatever is genuinely valuable in their previous ecclesial home in the context of unity with the See of Peter. This ideal of "united but not absorbed" is what animated Dom Lambert Beauduin and Lord Halifax, Pope Paul VI and Abp. Michael Ramsey, and the entire ARCIC dialogue. Surely it cannot be wrong for Catholic-minded Anglicans or sympathetic Roman Catholics to hope that this goal of over a century should find some genuine ecclesial expression.

      2) Many of the traditions that constitute Anglican patrimony are genuinely good and valuable and are gifts that can enrich the entire Catholic Church. Some of them have origins in pre-Reformation English Catholicism, others in the reappropriation of Catholic tradition in the Oxford Movement and its successors. Still others were developed in a distinctly Reformation ethos, yet are salutary for all Christians (the Prayer for General Thanksgiving, or hymns by Wesley, Watts, and Newton, for instance). Why should we want to lose any of this when it can enrich us as much as it may also comfort and ease the integration of former Anglicans?

      3) The Ordinariates show a genuine missionary impulse. They are both extraordinary acts of building the Church's unity ad intra (as are Summorum Pontificum and other acts attempting to preserve traditional Roman Rite liturgical heritage) but also ad extra: I am convinced that in time Ordinariate personal parishes will attract converts not only from Anglicanism but from other Protestant traditions and indeed secular society at large. They may be small and even insignificant now, but they have great potential. They are not for everybody – there will undoubtedly be many more who come to the Church through their local parish, through one of the religious movements, or other means. There will be some Anglicans who want nothing more than to slough off the foibles and eccentricities of Anglicanism and become ordinary pew sitters in a standard issues suburban Catholic parish. But there will be some who will find the Ordinariate ethos congenial and we should encourage that. As Chesterton said, "The Church is a house with a hundred gates and no two men enter at exactly the same angle."

    2. Re: "instead of being received into the Church on the Church's own terms…"

      Like it or not, being received into an Ordinariate IS being received into the Church on the Church's own terms. The Pope simply created a new door.

      I accept most of your observations about the fragility of the Ordinariates and the possibility that they may be unproductive backwaters.

      But it's very early on in the experiment to be so resolutely gloomy and crush the seedling.

  5. These are mildly updated 1928, in general, and to be welcomed. My personal preference would have been for something more traditional still, including:
    1. The (Tridentine) nuptial blessing from the English Missal, which has a fuller set of scriptural references;
    2. Mass propers for both weddings and funerals;
    3. At least the option of having a complete wedding service followed by the mass. I find interleaving the two rites unsatisfactory in terms of symbolism and drama.

    1. I would think the Mass propers will come later when the Anglican liturgy is approved. It's hard to please everyone with this decision. Objections and disappointment were inevitable. My guess is, the vast majority of Anglicans will, no matter what Rome does,stay precisely where they are for now.

      Let's not forget,these changes are being made with an eye to laying the foundation for future reforms in the non-Ordinariate parishes. The elevated level of prayer we find in Cranmer's texts and the number of options together with the tradtional ars celebrandi employed makes these rites a magnet for cradle- born Catholics who have had it with sloppy liturgy. They're going to find the Ordinariate a welcome respite just and a model for changes in the Latin Tridentine Mass, and the 1969 Novus Ordo. You'll see the move to "Cranmerize" the Tridentine Mass will gain speed once the Ordinariate liturgy has been approved.

  6. Uh, those entering the Ordinariates are entering the Church on the Church's own terms. The Church agreed to those terms of entrance. The regular Latin parishes aren't the 'real' way to join the RC communion, with other ways being barely tolerated inferior means. I've seen other blogs, such as Anglicans Ablaze, so I have seen people who go from blog to blog saying how worthless or terrible the Pope's project is. And what exactly is wrong with clergy desiring excellence in their liturgies? And no the pre-Vatican II church was not a bastion of liturgical dignity, but that does justify the continued indiferrence to such matters in many parishes today. In many places where the 1962 missal is introduced, people are getting a liturgy they have not seen in well over 40 years. Is that any different? Worship is not more pleasing to the Lord because it grates our senses. Elevating the practice of meanness in liturgy and art to a science is not a Catholic habit, as a Scottish bishop pointed out 100 years ago.

  7. There will be some Anglicans who want nothing more than to slough off the foibles and eccentricities of Anglicanism and become ordinary pew sitters in a standard issues suburban Catholic parish.
    For most Anglicans those foibles and eccentricities (especially among converts to the EPUSA from the reformed churches) are what brought them to the Anglican Church in the first place. All I can say is lot's of luck in attracting those Anglicans to the Ordinariate.

    As for those becoming "ordinary pew sitters", I've found they often end up going back to the Anglican Church. They come to despise the novus ordo liturgy.

    One of the ideas behind the Ordinariate was to keep converts like this in Catholic pews, and not have them returning to Anglicanism. I'm still not convinced the Ordinariate will be entirely successful in accomplishing that objective.

    Don't forget there are plenty of Anglo Catholics who may love the Ordinariate liturgy, but will never embrace the papacy and other aspects of Catholicism. Furthermore, they aren't the only Anglicans who object to women's ordination or ordaining gay priests. The evangelical wing of the CoE and Episcopal Church also has a sizable faction of lay people and clergy who object to ordaining women and gays. They wouldn't dream of gracing the inside of any Catholic Church, in or outside the Ordinariate.

    1. 'As for those becoming "ordinary pew sitters", I've found they often end up going back to the Anglican Church. They come to despise the novus ordo liturgy. '

      You have NO IDEA how much I agree with you. And I'm a cradle Roman Catholic. Here's a sight in the Roman Catholic Church that makes me put my palm over my face on how ridiculous it is.


      Those who are joining the Catholic Church aren't joining just because of gay and women ordinations in CoE or elsewhere. They were catechized about what the Church was all about and they freely accepted to be confirmed into the Roman Catholic Church. I don't think that the establishment of the Ordinariates are mechanisms for poaching converts from the Anglican communion, just as Eastern Catholics aren't mechanisms for poaching converts from the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, just something that acknowledges things that former Anglicans can bring to the Church for the better.

  8. Writing as a Catholic convert 'pew sitter' I want to defend converts such as myself. When I was received into the Church long ago I decided to worship regularly in the local Catholic church where I happened to live. If I had lived in Knightsbridge I would have gone to the London Oratory, in Victoria to Westminster Cathedral, in Mayfair to Farm Street or in St Marylebone to St James's, Spanish Place, but I have never lived in any of these districts. My life has been spent in the suburbs and suburban Catholicism has been my meat and drink. Simple though it is, I have not once ever been tempted to return to the Anglo-Catholic wing of the Church of England nor to travel distances to attend grander Catholic churches in Central London. There are countless others like myself.

    The result is that I see Anglo-Catholicism as an artificial expression of Catholicism and I don't think it will marry well to the Church in England, especially when arrogant Ordinariate clerics see themselves as setting an example for the rest of the Church and making exaggerated claims for their influence on evangelisation and mission. As I have written several time before, with only fifteen lay members in the Archdiocese of Westminster, how can they have any influence at all beyond being an irritant?

    1. Good for you that you don't focus on the externals. I myself would not really give an arm and a leg to go to an Anglican Use parish if it's not nearby, but I would still like to see it grow and see their communities flourish. I'd really be saddened to see the ENGLISH rite go the way of the Latin Rite (marginalized) in favor of the novus-something-or-other mass.

      I see the Ordinariates not so much as something contrived or constructed, but rather grafted so the plant that is cut off would not wither and die. The changes made are attempts to cut off things that would make it difficult to have a flow or continuity from that community to the larger Church.

      It's strange for one to deride the view that the Ordinariate clerics would see themselves as "setting an example for the rest of the Church…" and so forth. Gee, isn't setting an example what clerics are supposed to do? I myself have come to a conclusion that they're the start of something bigger. We won't see the results in our lifetime- like the great cathedrals, they were all finished beyond the lifetimes of their planners, architects, and initial builders.

      So have faith that the Holy Spirit is with us. After all, this already has a precedent with Eastern Catholics. How terribly uncharitable of us to attack the Ordinariates from the side that is supposed to receive them.

      1. I see the Ordinariates not so much as something contrived or constructed, but rather grafted so the plant that is cut off would not wither and die.
        Yes, and I do too. We should keep in mind Pope Paul VI, John Paul II, and Pope Benedict XVI have always seen the Anglican musical and liturgical tradition as one worthy of preservation and something very much in the Catholic tradition. They have never dismissed it as simply adopting "protestant" ways. I think Monsignor Burnham alludes to this thinking amongst some Catholics.

        If it takes the Catholic Church to become the guardian and the repository for that tradition (the Church has a long history of doing this in the arts) while Anglicanism itself discards certain liturgical customs (the central role of the divine office), music, art, and architecture, then the establishment of the Ordinariate becomes a beacon and a place of refuge for those wanting a clear signal these traditions are being kept alive.

        The three popes were and are committed to preserving that heritage not just for Anglicans converting to the Catholic Church, but for the benefit of the cradle-born Catholics too. It fits in perfectly with Pope Benedict's vision of the Church as an arsenal of beauty and for preserving the best of the western Christian liturgical heritage. It may explain why the Ordinariate could be called Benedict's "passion". Most surely exemplified by his recent very generous donation to the Ordinariate.

        1. But how can we talk about preserving the liturgical heritage when we've lost the Book of Common Prayer? We are not Anglican without it.

          1. Dave, If you "lost" it, that happened many years ago, whether it is the UK, Canada, or other Commonwealth churches. Remember only about 18% of Cof E churches today use a pure prayer book liturgy.

            Most Anglicans in the UK use the rites from "Common Worship" which incorporates much if not most of the original prayer book features, some use features as an option. The 1662 BCP is still the official one and recognized by Parliament, but not in practice.
            The overwhelming majority of EPUSA churches use the 1979 liturgy (with Roman and some Byzantine elements) and have for some years. It contains large borrowings from the prayer book. Both contemporary service books show you how the novus ordo of the Latin church has come to influence Anglican, and to a great degree, Lutheran and Methodist worship in the past 40 years. Churches in the "reformed " tradition have been drawn towards a greater eucharist-centered sunday observance because of the Roman Novus Ordo and the 1979 liturgies. In most cases this has come at the expense of Matins, and Evensong celebrations.

            You would have to go to one of the "Reformed Episcopal" or other low church, evangelical parishes (many of which by the way also reject women priests) to find the 1928 or 1662 prayer book in their eucharistic liturgy and divine office.

            It's interesting to note,the vast majority of Anglican churches in the U.S. with matins as the principle service on sunday, using the 1928 prayer book, are these "Reformed", "Evangelical", sometime they call themselves "Orthodox" Anglican churches.

            1. The Anglican Catholic Church and the Anglican Church in America use the 1928 BCP. The REC uses its own version.

  9. Poor Mr Bowles! When he was received into the Church, he says he was happy to avoid the "fashionable" churches – well good for him. To deliberately settle for what he regarded as "ordinary" or "run of the mill" services might well be an act of heroic virtue.

    But to go on from there to, in effect, express unhappiness that others do not take the same path, seems rather akin to the grumbles of the early hires in the parable of the labourers in the vineyard.

    With 6 former anglican bishops and 60+ priests and over 1,000 laity on its books in its first 18 months, this new jurisdiction is not doing all that badly – but yes, there are many more out there and writing in terms calulated to discourage others is not exactly an indication of brotherly love.

    1. Those discouraging others… For what purpose, with what motive? Are they discouraging others because they feel that the only way to God is their own, personal path, which is to match the exclusivity of the Church having the fullness of Truth? I didn't know the Church was just one person other than Jesus Christ Himself.

      Maybe the accusation is… that the Ordinariates are not made with the ultimate aim of glorifying and praising God, but with the aim of glorifying and praising the individual person first, in an act of idolatry. But then you only have to look at the sort of difficulty the members of the Ordinariates have to endure- I'm not sure if glorifying oneself is worth the trouble of being attacked at all sides, by Protestants, by "Catholics" by small numbers of people who know about them or care, by lack of facilities, by their own self-doubt, by disappointment, by poverty. I'm sure that self-glorifying individuals don't go through all those things if their aim isn't something greater than themselves.

      Let us remember the parable of the Generous Employer.

      14 Take that thine is, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee.
      15 Is it not lawful for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye evil, because I am good?
      16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.

      (Matt 20:14-16)

    2. Mourad of Enfield may well take complicated bus, underground or car routes to attend grand services in central London Catholic churches but that form of eclecticism is not particularly Catholic but self-indulgent. The Mass is the Mass wherever or however celebrated. In my suburb we have a great Jesuit parish which provides worship for all tastes.

      He also persistently misinterprets the parable of the vineyard for his own judgmental purposes. The parable is concerned with reward. The statistics he quotes ignore that problem of the scattered character of the British Ordinariate where only very few congregations are able to worship together Sunday by Sunday. The rest are absorbed in local Catholic parishes. He also ignores the advanced age of the majority of lay members and also the fact that these bishops held humble posts in the Church of England before their receptions. None were members of the House of Lords nor were involved in consultation by the College of Bishops. In comparison with Bishop Leonard and Bishop Rutt, they are small fry and, with the exception of Mgr Burnham, academic and intellectual ability is beyond their powers.

      1. The great puzzlement is why John Bowles should feel so threatened by the Ordinariate. The Holy Father has not ,as yet, made membership of the Ordinariate compulsory. But perhaps he is correct to be concerned. Our Lord chose simple, humble folk to get His work started, fishermen for example-small fry.

        1. "Chippiness","fishermen", "small-fry". Are we talking about Pope Benedict opening up an ordinariate", or does he secretly yearn to launch a fish and chips shop for his formerly Anglican flock?

      2. Dear Mr Bowles for an ordinary 'pew-sitter' you have a number of very large chips on your shoulders (or so it seems to me from your writing – I may well be wrong). The joke goes that a well-balanced personality is sign of equal chips on both shoulders. Why are you so bothered about the structure of the Ordinariates? Can you not act as your self-defined ordinary pew-sitter simply say that this initiative of the Holy Father deserves if not our support, at least our best wishes for success. How does it alter what happens in your ordinary suburban parish? I shan't mention vineyards (I agree with you on this point) but what about 'In my Father's House are many mansions…..'

        1. I am a german Catholic, likely never to take part in an Ordinariate liturgy. Still I am most interested in the development and wish it well. I wonder how an Englishman could be so hostile to his brothers and sisters not only in spirit, but also in blood? One explanation is that there are deeper issues running. Mr Bowles might consider consulting his analyst instead of venting off online.
          Considering "grand services in central London Catholic churches" – what about a Papal visit? All those people gathering for Holy Mass with our Holy Father – did they all just look for the sensation? Have you never attended an episcopal or priestly ordination (or should I say "priesting")? What about weddings? funerals? baptisms? Are they all "self indulgent"? Mr Bowles, it might be possible that you never went to mass outside your parish, but what a dull life you must lead. I pity you!

        2. Oh, personally, I saw the Prodigal Son more. Like the older, "worthier" son being angry that the younger, "unworthier" son is being given more love.

          I just remembered the Vineyard Workers since Mr. Mourad brought it up. "Are you envious because I am generous?" was the certain phrase from that parable that stuck to me. Someone feels resentful that someone else is being generous.

  10. I wonder whether some of these commentators are Catholics at all. I defend ordinary 'pew sitting' (an offensive term) Catholics because they understand the Mass and Eucharistic reality, and am patronised for doing so. The vast majority of Catholics throughout the Universal Church fall into this category.

    Then we have the accusation of chippiness as a response to genuine criticism which is held by many Catholics in Britain, clerical and lay, who do not read or comment on websites but who discuss these matters among themselves. What an absurd canard.

    Finally we have Victor of Germany who illustrates rare occurences like a papal visit and the occasional offices in order to pity and denigrate. normative Catholic worship. He may well spend his time travelling the world to attend these functions in addition to ordinations, marriages, and baptisms but, if so, what an unbalanced worshipping life he leads.

    Perhaps support of this kind for the Ordinariates encourages some of the clerical members to think they have arrived to teach the Church lessons in liturgy and worship and to lead in mission and evangeliism? Doubtful! When one knows the people involved the bombast becomes pathetic. Like all converts, these people are there to learn, not to teach. It took time for the c19 converts to re-enter life as Catholics, and the majority since usually welcome a quiet interval to help them settle down.

    1. I plead guilty -Chips with everything – I am obviously hoisted by my own canard! (a feeble joke).
      Mr Bowles your criticism, which you suggest is merely what many (most?) Catholics think about the Ordinariate, is unsubstantiated. You also indulge in ad hominem attacks on the former CofE bishops who are now Monsignori. Not fit to sit in the House of Lords was one point and lacking in intellectual capability was another. Well you are correct on the :Lords Spiritual aspect, but one of them was a principal of a theological college (or is that negative evidence in your book?). Many fine priests have in the past struggled to master the intellectual side of their formation, and others with starred firsts have failed dismally at the pastoral and practical sides of the priestly role.
      You may well be correct in your general view that the Ordinariate project is doomed to failure and should have been strangled at birth – but it is also possible that it may succeed. I still am at a loss to understand your hostility though. You are from your suburban stronghold seeing things through a London perspective. Hence you dwell on the low numbers in the Archdiocese of Westminster. The numbers are bigger in Southwark, but perhaps like the black cab drivers south of the river is another world. Are you not happy that over a thousand lay people have joined the Universal Church – even if many of them are in your words of 'advanced years'.
      There is no requirement for you to get involved – as a former Anglican who went through the RCIA process you were not indelibly marked and doomed to be recycled as Ordinariate fodder.
      Is it possible for you to lay out in a simple order your actual problems? Try a style such as Point#1….. then Point#2….. etc
      This might encourage dialogue rather than the current Punch and Judy show………….

Leave a Reply