The Catholic Herald, the UK’s best Catholic weekly, has this about the structure of the Ordinariate for Anglicans coming into communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
My emphases and comments.
Church reveals fine details of ordinariate
By Anna ArcoPersonal ordinariates for groups of Anglican converts around the world are likely to develop their own missal according to traditional Anglican use, an English Church official has said.
Fr Marcus Stock, the general secretary of the Bishops of England and Wales, said that while an ordinariate in Britain would be likely to follow the Roman Rite, he expected that there an Anglican use of the Roman Rite would be developed.
Fr Stock said: “When we are talking about the ordinariate we’re not just talking about England and Wales but for across the world and I’d be surprised if something isn’t developed for use for all the ordinariates. I don’t think they’ll develop particular ones.
“There will be an Anglican Traditional Use, such as there is in the United States who use the book of divine worship, which again they might simply adapt that for use in ordinariates around the world.”
He said that Anglican patrimony and tradition did not only refer to the missal used in Mass, but also to things like Evensong and Morning Prayer “and a slightly different form of the Breviary than the Roman rite would use and additional funeral rites and marriage rites which might reflect a particular tradition in the Anglican communion”. [Could Latin Rite priests use it? I wonder.]
“So it will probably be more of a sacramentary than a missal, which will have different rites,” Fr Stock said. “That’s a long-term project.”
The ordinariate in England and Wales, which is due to be established by a decree from the Congregation of the Doctrine of Faith, will have a principal church which is to serve a similar function to a diocesan cathedral.
Fr Stock said: “They will need a place to meet, to have meetings and gather as a group. Not a cathedral as such, but a principal church, it’s called in the constitution, where the members of the ordinariate can gather for the celebration of liturgies and where the ordinary will be based.”
The bishops have been on the look out for a church of sufficient size, capacity and centrality to serve as the principal church for the ordinariate. [What is the name of the seminary with the beautiful chapel that is due to close?]
Fr Stock said: “Like any diocesan centre, you want somewhere where people can get to easily, so that’s all being looked into at the moment. And that will hopefully not just have the church, but also accommodation for the ordinary and a bit of luck some additional facilities for social meeting and some offices for the ordinariate.”
While the bishops’ conference has pledged £250,000, which is in a restricted fund of the Catholic Trust for England and Wales at the moment until the ordinariate is actually established, Fr Stock said that funding for the ordinariate has also been coming in from other sources. He cited charities, individuals and communities which have pledged “not insubstantial amounts” to assist the establishment of an ordinariate.
He said that financing the ordinariate would clearly be “a major strategic concern for the ordinary when he is appointed and his council when that is constituted”.
Fr Stock said the rapid ordination of the three former Anglican bishops who were received into the Church on the first of January and will be ordained priests on January 15, was a unique situation.
He said “The pastoral arrangements that have been put at the inception of the ordinariate are to recognise the fact that there is a pastoral need for those men who have been ministering to the congregations hitherto need to be making their journey into the Catholic Church and that’s why these provisions have been put into place. Of course those men who are going to have to be prepared for the Catholic priesthood—things to do with canon law and pastoral practice that they need to get used to and need to learn those things. But it is a recognition that fundamentally we need to keep these groups together to meet their spiritual needs.”
When he was asked whether it was a step forward from the pastoral provision which was granted to former Anglican clergymen in the 1990s thanks to the efforts of Cardinal Basil Hume, Fr Stock said: “I think it’s recognised that that may have been a weakness at the time, that there wasn’t a recognition of the need for their pastors to accompany the people, but any priest who has been parish priest will tell you that after a bit time the priest and people get very close. It’s important sometimes for priests to accompany their people.”
The ordinariate represents a completely new canonical structure which is similar to a military diocese, but allows groups of Anglicans who wish to keep their patrimony to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church.
Members of the ordinariate will be fully-fledged Catholics of the Roman Rite – this means they are not like the Eastern ritual churches which are in communion with Rome. Ordinariate priests will be able celebrate Mass normally in Catholic churches and Catholics attending ordinariate Masses will be able to receive Communion there.
Fr Stock today issued an extensive guide to the ordinariate on behalf of the Bishops of England and Wales.
Benedict XVI is the Pope of Christian Unity.
Loading ...
Hopefully they will use the English Missal
“What is the name of the seminary with the beautiful chapel that is due to close?”
Ushaw College, sadly. Yes, if it could be kept intact and in use for the Church, that would be
wonderful.
rtmp723:
Agreed. The “Missale Anglicanum” in either the English or American version (both published by Knott, I think) would fit the bill quite well. Most Anglo-Catholics are quite familiar with it, and it would reinforce the “reform of the reform” that is a part of the Holy Father’s initiative right now.
So is this going to be a different rite along the lines of the Eastern rites, or another form of the same rite along the lines of the EF and OF?
They could ways use the English/Anglican/American Missal as an EF because it’s the TLM in English with Sarum collects etc… and the BDW that the current Anglican Use as an OF.
I do not understand why Anglicans-become-Catholics are given special concessions to retain various parts of their “tradition” – be it their liturgy, their churches, etc. etc. Why don’t they become fully Roman Catholic and embrace all of Her tradition?
Also, what do Anglicans believe regarding the Eucharist? I have heard some Anglican priests say they believe they confect the Eucharist. I have heard other Anglican priests say they believe their “consecration” to be symbolic. This confusion among Anglicans concerns me; it also concerns me that we allow Anglicans to convert en-masse amidst such confusion about the most important and central part of the faith – the Eucharist.
Please, no EF/OF fuzziness. All of us should pray it’s the English Missal.
For so many reasons, I’m confident its adoption would hasten the demise of the of the Novus Ordo by decades.
Regarding the Divine Office, the principle has long been that one fulfills one’s obligation to the Office when one is praying with a group using a different Office – e.g., a Dominican who is visiting a Benedictine monastery and prays Vespers with the monks is not bound to repeat Vespers according to the Dominican ritual, he has fulfilled his obligation.
As to taking up oneself, for private prayer, the Office that is proper to another, especially on a stable basis, that is less clear. I think if a cleric were to desire to do so, he should ask his local or personal Ordinary for permission. There would certainly be good reasons for doing so, beside the aesthetics (if we’re talking about a Latin priest asking for permission to use the Anglican Use Office) – a commitment to “outreach” to disaffected Anglicans, an expression of solidarity with the new Ordinariate and the clergy and faithful therein…
Damian Thompson has more about the Ushaw College situtation (including a pic of that beautiful chapel) at this link.
Clinton :Ushaw.
It’s near Durham. Too big , too far from London, expensive to renovate and keepup. It’s closure is a victory anyway, of and in itself.They would hate it perpeuated in any catholic way whatsoever. It represents ..what ? it’s recent past is none too glorious, but THEY want it to go, it’s like wreckervating, there’s a closed mindset. Would that, would that.(NB Cousins : too far is laughable, the distance is mental). Weepworthy.
So I can assume Raymond Arroyo misspoke the other night on EWTN when he said the three Anglican bishops would quickly be ordained deacons, then priests, then BISHOPS?
http://www.ushaw.ac.uk/seminary/About/Buildings.html
The Chapel of St. Cuthbert at Ushaw College is extremely beautiful. I think this place would be a good choice of a building as needed. However, I do not know if it has been sold already.
All this news, and the links given (Thank you, Father Z) is excellent news for the Church in Great Britain. Many of the new priests will be more traditional, both liturgically and theologically than some now. The Rite will not be like the one in Houston, as far as I can read and from what I have heard from England. This may need clarifying.
Anyway, this is fantastic news and greatly to be celebrated by the entire Church.
Do the exact same thing for the traditionalist priests! Give them all the shuttered and closed churches and seminaries in each diocese, and give them their own bishops!
Sarum for the EF, please.
kittenchan – it says that “Members of the ordinariate will be fully-fledged Catholics of the Roman Rite” (which must be correct; the Ordinariate is created by Rome, rather than an apostolic Church in communion with Rome). So this must be more like another Form rather than a different Rite in the sense of the Eastern Rite Churches.
But is it a Form or a Use or a Rite, and what is the difference between them? We seem to read of the Ambrosian Rite (in Milan) but the Sarum Use, and we now have the two Forms (EF & OF). Is there a formal difference?
Whatever liturgy they adopt, I hope they follow the Anglican tradition of publishing a Latin translation.
It seems that the rite will be different. And, not Sarum. As to the terms, rite is probably the wrong term, and one should use “form”. However, here is a good link, the Anglican Use Society, to help us understand some of the terms. Here is a quotation:
What liturgy will the members of the Ordinariate celebrate?
The Ordinariate will not be a Ritual Church; that is, the Ordinariate will not be principally defined by the liturgical rites it uses. In addition to the Roman Rite, some of the liturgical rites of the Anglican tradition which have been adapted and approved by the Holy See may be used by the members of the Ordinariate. It is expected that in due course, suitable rituals (Sacramentary, Divine Office, etc.) will be promulgated for Ordinariates across the world. However, as it will be fully a part of the Latin Catholic Church (as distinct from the Byzantine, Maronite, Chaldean Catholic Church, etc.) the Ordinariate will always be able to use the Roman Rite.
There are meetings listed on this blogspot for explanations. If anyone here can go, that would be interesting.
http://anglicanusenews.blogspot.com/
wantny,
A good bit of the “Anglican Tradition” you seem to question predates the Reformation. And while there is certainly strong differences of opinion amongst Anglicans as to what the Eucharist means, Anglican converting to the fullness of the Catholic faith certainly do understand and embrace Catholic Eucharistic theology — indeed, Catholic theology, period! (See Bl. John Henry Cardinal Newman’s Apologia!)
It seems to me that “The Anglican Missal” (Gregorian Canon ONLY)”, the so-called Knott’s Missal, and the Book of Divine Worship are all wonderful examples of the English CATHOLIC tradition! And, frankly, are more liturgically respectful, in many ways, than the current, and thankfully, soon to be replaced, translation used by ICEL.
Pope Benedict XVI IS the Pope of Christian Unity!
I once had in my possession [never lend books] an Anglo-Catholic Missal, which, although totally in English, was an exact copy of my [larger] St. Andrew’s Missal. The only reason I twigged it was not Catholic, apart from lack of imprimatur, was reference to the pope as “pastor inter pares”.
I think their liturgy will be a development of melding the language of the Book of Common Prayer, with our own Missals – sans reference to the Thirty Nine Articles, I hope!
Further to my earlier post:
Reference to: http://catholicgossipblogspot.com contains some pertinent references, under St. Silas The Martyr Kentish Town, to the subject.
I think that this is wonderful news. God grant Pope Benedict many happy and blessed years and I pray for God’s blessings upon the Ordinariate!
This paragraph, however, was just a little bit confusing, I think:
“Members of the ordinariate will be fully-fledged Catholics of the Roman Rite – this means they are not like the Eastern ritual churches which are in communion with Rome. Ordinariate priests will be able celebrate Mass normally in Catholic churches and Catholics attending ordinariate Masses will be able to receive Communion there.”
The first sentence is correct. Members of the Anglican Ordinariate will be full members of the Latin Church and the Roman rite. No new “Rite” is being created here, but rather as has been stated a particular “Usage” within a particular sui juris Church, aka the Latin Church.
The second sentence though, when combined with the first, may create some unintended confusion due to some imprecision in the use of language. Eastern Catholic priests DO in fact celebrate “the Mass” (aka “Divine Liturgy”) in Catholic churches all over the world. These particular Catholic churches are generally under the jurisdiction of an Eastern Catholic ordinary. Sometimes Eastern Catholic missions and parishes do reside or function out of an existing Latin parish. Our Eastern Catholic clergy can and do concelebrate on occasion with Latin clergy (and vice versa), but this is not “normally” (as in frequently) done since they have responsibilities to serve in their own jurisdiction.
Also, the Catholic faithful of any rite or particular sui juris Church, as Father Z. has mentioned on several occasions, may receive Holy Communion in any Catholic Church of whatever jurisdiction or rite.
So really it seems that the main difference between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the parishes and missions of the Ordinariate is that:
a. ECC’s will function (normally) as a distinct sui juris Church in the communion of Catholic Churches, which includes the Latin Church. The AO will function within the sui juris Latin Church.
b. ECC’s will (normally) have a Bishop as their head with a distinct territory. The AO may have a Bishop as its head, but its jurisdiction will function quite differently and will not necessarily be bound territorially in the same way.
c. The ECC’s will have their own distinct Rite, whereas the AO will only have a particular usage of an existing Rite. One could argue some similarity with particular rescensions (such as the Ruthenian rescension of the Byzantine rite) and “Usages.” I’m sure that some liturgist or canonist will correct me on that, though.
Deacon,
The above quotation was from Fr Marcus Stock, the same source as Father Z’s article. One thing which is clear is that the AO is part of the Latin Rite. Yes, there will be non-territorial bishops or priests over these dioceses, and I think the jury is still out on the terms form, usage, or rite, but clear as to the Personal Ordinariate being part of the Latin Rite. Partly, the information coming out has purposefully been so specific as to this AO, that the larger categories are not being used. from what I have read to date. When I attended the Houston Anglican Usage, I found out it was a 16th century translation of the Tridentine Mass. The Anglican Usage of Pope John Paul II was based on a church by church agreement. This new Anglican Ordinariate is much larger and covers more territory, as it were. Some of the Anglican”masses” in England are based on the 1962 Missal, and I hear these will stay the same. It will be interesting to see how these variations shake down, or whether all the parishes will be asked to have the same ritual–the idea of Father Stock’s of a new Sacramentary means that what has been happening may not continue exactly. These independent dioceses may come to include the Anglican Usage parishes. But, the Ordinariate terms are not the same as those of the AU. I highly suggest one reads the Q and A from Father Stock on the site I provided above and here again. http://anglicanusenews.blogspot.com/
Great news indeed. If it is anything like the Anglican use I’ve seen in the U.S., I’d “jump ship” to one of these parishes over 99% of the “regular” Catholic parishes in the U.S. in a heartbeat.
I was also surprised by the words “… the need for their pastors to accompany the people, but any priest who has been parish priest will tell you that after a bit time the priest and people get very close.” I know many Catholics who have similar feelings when their pastor is taken away just because “their time is up” at that parish.
For an Anglican Missal, it’s simple: Take
(a) the EF missal,
(b) the OF lectionary, and
(c) the Prayerbook of 1549
Work with these two principles:
i. Thomas Cranmer was a heretic; his writing needs amendment.
ii. Thomas Cranmer wrote the most beautiful liturgical English.
Then come up with something like this:
1. The priest begins with the collect: “Almighty God, unto whom all hearts be open …”.
2. Then The Sign of the Cross and “In the name of the Father …”
3. Then the priest issues the Call to Confession “Ye that do truly …
4. Then kneeling the people and the priest pray, in place of the Confiteor, the General Confession “Almighty God … we acknowledge and bewail ….”
5. Then the priest’s pardon: “Almighty God .. of his great mercy …”
6. Then the Kyrie and Gloria, as an option done in Anglican Chant.
7. Then lessons as in the OF, the psalm as an option done in Anglican Chant.
8. Then follow the EF to the “Domine non sum dignus ..”, the Sanctus and the Agnus Dei as an option done in Anglican Chant.
9. In place of the “Domine non sum dignus” use the Prayer of Humble Access: “We do not presume to come …”.
10. After the Communion antiphon, the Prayer of Thanksgiving “Almighty and everliving God, we most heartily thank thee…”
11. Then concluding collect, the benediction, and the dismissal as in the OF.
Amendment welcome.
Thanks but no thanks. The EF stays in Latin for everyone. The theology is not better expressed in Cranmer English just because it sounds nice.
David Zampino:
Thank you for your response. I will definitely research Newman’s Apologia. Admittedly, my knowledge of the Anglican/Catholic relationship is very limited.
I’ve just always been astounded when I hear Anglicans give inconsistent definitions of the Eucharist. I am also confused as to whether Anglican priests actually DO have the ability to confect the Eucharist.
BobP:
Better tell that to the pope before it’s too late!
P.S. Glib dismissal of people’s legitimate traditions is a poor way of attracting them to the Church.
“I am also confused as to whether Anglican priests actually DO have the ability to confect the Eucharist.”
It depends on the circumstances of their ordination. If they received the priesthood from one who would be a valid Catholic bishop — the “Old Catholic” and other breakaway sects come to mind — using a proper ceremonial with the proper intent, then they would receive what amounts to valid Catholic orders. This is why some Anglican priests and bishops (which would seem to include a number of Anglo-Catholics) are re-ordained “conditionally.” I have heard news to the effect that the Holy See does not currently see fit to recognize this circumstance, which is curious, as I wonder how they would anticipate the situation in the future. There is also the matter that the Church’s role in determining the validity of a Sacrament is interpretive, not creative. She does not presume to declare what is and is not a Sacrament; only Christ does.
Sam Schmitt:
Legitimate traditions are now heretic things that are old and sound nice?
My comment should read:
Sam Schmitt:
Heretic things that are old and sound nice are now legitimate traditions.
manwithblackhat:
Thanks so much for all that information; I appreciate it. It’s very helpful.
Wantny, you said “I do not understand why Anglicans-become-Catholics are given special concessions to retain various parts of their “tradition” – be it their liturgy, their churches, etc. etc. Why don’t they become fully Roman Catholic and embrace all of Her tradition? ”
They intend to embrace the faith, but you can’t ask them to start whining Kumbaya in off-key wails and holding hands like a bunch of 8 year-old day campers (& like we do)—not after maintaining a liturgical tradition that looks more like the real thing than our own! Let them alone. They probably will either teach us something or shame us into acting like adults in church for a change. At least I hope we are open enough to gain something from the experience.
Wantny, Latin Rite Roman Catholics standing in Church, believe it or not, will give various accounts of what the Eucharist is. A good 40% of them don’t believe it’s anything but a symbol. I kid you not.
Building on the comment by C. above: a Latin Anglican Rite could (presumably) be easily worked out from the existing Latin translations of (versions of) The Book of Common Prayer (one or another of which is – or has recently been – still in regular if not frequent use!).
How far is The Book of Common Prayer from being something like an English-language adaptive translation of the Sarum Use? (Cf. the official modern-language versions of the OF – ?)
And how much of its text could be deemed explicitly ‘heretical’, or, on the other hand, simply used ‘as is’?
manwithblackhat and wantny,
Pope St. Leo XIII clarified the stance of the Church with regard to Anglican Orders. “On the Nullity of Anglican Orders” Apostolicae Curae
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm
I understand that Dr. Charles Augustus Briggs reports in his book ‘Church Unity’ (1909) that Pius X assured him that ‘Apostolicae Curae’ was not an infallable statement of the matter.
Supertradmum,
“Pope St. (?) Leo XIII clarified the stance of the Church with regard to Anglican Orders. “On the Nullity of Anglican Orders” Apostolicae Curae”
But that does not mean that since Pope Leo XIII’s declaration ALL Anglican bishops, priests and deacons did not possess valid orders. Many, as manwithblackhat has pointed out, pursued ordination/consecration from various validly consecrated Orthodox, schismatic Latin and Old Catholic bishops.
Venerator Sti Lot says:
I understand that Dr. Charles Augustus Briggs reports in his book ‘Church Unity’ (1909) that Pius X assured him that ‘Apostolicae Curae’ was not an infalliable statement of the matter.
Are you saying that Briggs is infallible when he said that?
manwithblackhat says:
It depends on the circumstances of their ordination. If they received the priesthood from one who would be a valid Catholic bishop — the “Old Catholic” and other breakaway sects come to mind — using a proper ceremonial with the proper intent, then they would receive what amounts to valid Catholic orders. This is why some Anglican priests and bishops (which would seem to include a number of Anglo-Catholics) are re-ordained “conditionally.”
I have heard news to the effect that the Holy See does not currently see fit to recognize this circumstance, which is curious, as I wonder how they would anticipate the situation in the future. There is also the matter that the Church’s role in determining the validity of a Sacrament is interpretive, not creative. She does not presume to declare what is and is not a Sacrament; only Christ does.
The only one I am aware of who fits that case is the late Graham Leonard. When he became Catholic, he said that he would not submit to condition ordination, that the Church must accept his orders, both presbyteral and episcopal.
He was conditionally ordained a priest, with some added prayers recognizing his previous ministry.
I’ve dealt here before with the problem of recognition of validity of presbyteral Orders of Anglicans who had a validly consecrated bishop (Orthodox, Old Catholic, etc) as a concelebrant at ordination. Rome’s position, which I do not think has changed, is that a concelebrant with valid episcopal Orders is not sufficient for recognizing validity. It is not a matter of saying that the Orders are not valid, but rather of not having the certitude that they are.
Robert,
What about the case of the International Charismatic Episcopal Church?
“ICCEC bishops begin seeking a line of apostolic succession that will be recognized as valid by the Roman Catholic Church. In the summer, two bishops make contact with the Igreja Catolica Apostolica Brasileira (ICAB), the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church. ICAB’s line of apostolic succession comes through its founder, former Roman Catholic bishop Carlos Duarte Costa of Brazil, who left the Roman Catholic Church in 1945.”
Several ICCEC bishops were also in fact consecrated in a valid line of succession. I also recall reading somewhere about several Anglican bishops post-Apostolicae Curae were reconsecrated by obliging Orthodox bishops. Of course, and since you have done more research on this can address it better than I, this matters not unless subsequent consecrations and ordinations took place within a restored rite that addressed the Catholic concerns about validity in the earlier Edwardine Ordinal…correct?
Also there is the matter of intention, and perhaps that also touches on the matter of certitude you mention.
If you have a link to a place where you have addressed it, I would be very interested in reading it.
God bless.