Anglican Ordinariate (Gathering of Anglicans coming home to Rome)

[GKC]

Huh. Well, I think the Orthodox Western Rite uses that phrase. And as far as I am aware, the Catholic Church also teaches that Christ was only sacrificed once.

You’re right. The one sacrifice is not repeated, but re-presented, in the Mass.

GKC

 

[Joseph651]

In my area there is no Anglican Church making the transition to Rome. I on the other hand crossed over to the Catholic Church after talking to our local priest. That was over a year ago. I thank God for the See of Peter and what he is doing to bring the church back together. I often wonder why folks whom believe what the Bible tell us to be God’s words, still continue to belong to a Christian sect instead of coming back to the one true church? Just wondering!

 

[MarkBrown]

I have a question. In this new group what will the liturgy be like? Will it be base on the book of common prayer 1928, with the gloria at the end? And the language of "his one sacrifice of himself ONCE offered?

How can that be a Catholic Mass?

Pipper,

go to the website for Our Lady of the Atonement in San Antonio. There is a video of the Anglican Use liturgy. The video is over an hour, and that is without the sermon. The Book of Divine Worship is used, written and approved by Rome almost 30 years ago.

Also “corrects” the Nicene Creed of the 1928 which leaves out Holy as in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. A typo never corrected. Or another case of theology gone astray.

Fr. Mark

 

[GKC]

Pipper,

go to the website for Our Lady of the Atonement in San Antonio. There is a video of the Anglican Use liturgy. The video is over an hour, and that is without the sermon. The Book of Divine Worship is used, written and approved by Rome almost 30 years ago.

Also “corrects” the Nicene Creed of the 1928 which leaves out Holy as in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. A typo never corrected. Or another case of theology gone astray.

Fr. Mark

Typo.

We hand write it in, in my parish.

GKC

 

[BernadetteM]

In my area there is no Anglican Church making the transition to Rome. I on the other hand crossed over to the Catholic Church after talking to our local priest. That was over a year ago. I thank God for the See of Peter and what he is doing to bring the church back together. I often wonder why folks whom believe what the Bible tell us to be God’s words, still continue to belong to a Christian sect instead of coming back to the one true church? Just wondering!

Joseph,

If you know of other TEC or Continuing Anglicans who would be interested in the Ordinariate, you can gather together as a group and have Evening Prayer and write to Archbishop Wuerl of your intention be belong to the Ordinariate. There appears to be several priests coming in without a parish, so you would be able to ask if one would like to be the Pastor. Also, even if you don’t know anyone else interested, it would be a good idea that you write to Wuerl of your intention so that in the future if an Anglican Use parish is close enough you can join it. I myself, also converted many years ago and unless my former parish joins, although it is over an hour away, I will not have an AU parish to attend. But I feel the Holy Spirit is the One leading this and that the Ordinariate will grow as TEC becomes more and more secular.

God Bless

Bernadette

 

[rr1213]

On google maps, a map has been created to show the parishes in Canada and the States who have declared for the Ordinariate. The count is at 46, put will be updated as 2 more parishes this weekend have voted to join.

Do you have a link? I’d love to see it.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I wouldn’t think one would want TEC bishops in the mix. They carry enough baggage from being in TEC for so long. It’s hard to live in that communion for years without being contaminated with liberal hippie neo-pagan thinking. I already see TEC contamination amongst some of the bishops that left TEC for ACNA…I can’t imagine that not being the case with TEC bishops headed to Rome. But like you say, probably few to none will join the ordinariates anyway

I will be watching. But I’d be surprised if there were any TEC bishops in the mix. There are no more doctrinal Anglo-Catholics in there, since +Iker left.

GKC

 

[Bluegoat]

I wouldn’t think one would want TEC bishops in the mix. They carry enough baggage from being in TEC for so long. It’s hard to live in that communion for years without being contaminated with liberal hippie neo-pagan thinking. I already see TEC contamination amongst some of the bishops that left TEC for ACNA…I can’t imagine that not being the case with TEC bishops headed to Rome. But like you say, probably few to none will join the ordinariates anyway

Liberal hippy neo-pagans! Oh my!

But you know, while as a Canadian I generally find the American use of the word liberal just weird, in my experience the ACC types, who I think are similar to the TEC ones, are not hippies. They remind me a lot more of baby boomers, who may once have been hippies, but are certainly not any more.

 

[JohnnyReb]

Interesting, indeed.

GKC

This is interesting. I find it interesting that several continuing Anglicans are part of the mix, because my first thought was if they had considered becoming part of a continuing Anglican movement. I almost had to wonder what the RCC had to offer that a continuing Anglican movement does not (ok, some might say valid sacraments, Holy Orders etc) I am not seeing it. The Ironic thing is that many in my parish left the RCC over some of the issues I have, but like me, value the CC as a Christian tradition.

However, if continuing Anglicans, including the parish I am now affliated with, chose to return to Rome say as part of these Ordinates, I would probably go along. I would prayerfully consider the matter, but I would have to assume it was the Holy Spirit at work.

 

[JohnnyReb]

I wouldn’t think one would want TEC bishops in the mix. They carry enough baggage from being in TEC for so long. It’s hard to live in that communion for years without being contaminated with liberal hippie neo-pagan thinking. I already see TEC contamination amongst some of the bishops that left TEC for ACNA…I can’t imagine that not being the case with TEC bishops headed to Rome. But like you say, probably few to none will join the ordinariates anyway

What if they want to come along? Do you tell them “No you can’t play too?” I would assume if they joined the ordinariates, they would want to dump that baggage. I can see where it might creep into ACNA. Hopefully they nip that stuff in the bud real fast.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not suggesting the Catholic Church thumb their nose and reject anyone. So I want to make that clear. But what I am saying is that many folks might wish the TEC bishops and clergy make the jump but a lot of folks in here don’t realize the depths of heresy and heterodox baggage that years of TEC brainwashing has done to these people. ACNA has inherited a lot of women’s ordination sympathizers, people who have liberal views on divorce and divinity, and it’s important to realize that a “conservative” Anglican is akin to a somewhat liberal Catholic and a “moderate” Anglican is usually tantamount to being a “bigtime lib” in the Catholic Church. A liberal Anglican is akin to being so far out in left field that you’d need Special Ops to find you and bring you back to sanity.

I’m merely making the point that some people in here are so eager to just bring folks in to the Catholic Church and they don’t realize that not everyone forsakes their former life completely and rather decides to bring some heavy baggage. If people haven’t left TEC by now with all the Robinson gay stuff, the outright unwillingness to proclaim Jesus as Lord, the gay ordination stuff in Anaheim, the totem pole stuff, the hindu nonsense in L.A., the indaba garbage, the pro-choice mantras, the “seusscharist,” and all the other heretically offensive tripe, then my opinion is they’re never going to seriously be orthodox. If all that insanity hasn’t driven one to sanity, nothing truly will and a conversion to Catholicism might be trite, crass, and more an outward thing than an inner one.

Of course I cannot and will not judge a person’s conviction if they take the ordinariate route. Guys like Father Mark in here who are taking the ordinariate route were NEVER liberals to begin with and having known him for some time, he is a staunch advocate for orthodoxy and tradition and a conservative morality. So we’ll see what happens.

What if they want to come along? Do you tell them “No you can’t play too?” I would assume if they joined the ordinariates, they would want to dump that baggage. I can see where it might creep into ACNA. Hopefully they nip that stuff in the bud real fast.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I find the way Canadians say “eh” all the time to be weird, but who’s counting? I don’t think the American use of the word differs from anyone else. People who think actively sodomizing men should be clerics, pro-abortion people should be clergy, cross-dressing drag queens should be handing out communion, and worshipping alongside Hindus with Agni the fire god, gotta tell ya…that’s liberal

Liberal hippy neo-pagans! Oh my!

But you know, while as a Canadian I generally find the American use of the word liberal just weird, in my experience the ACC types, who I think are similar to the TEC ones, are not hippies. They remind me a lot more of baby boomers, who may once have been hippies, but are certainly not any more.

 

[Bluegoat]

I find the way Canadians say “eh” all the time to be weird, but who’s counting? I don’t think the American use of the word differs from anyone else. People who think actively sodomizing men should be clerics, pro-abortion people should be clergy, cross-dressing drag queens should be handing out communion, and worshipping alongside Hindus with Agni the fire god, gotta tell ya…that’s liberal

American usage is so strange that mant non-Americans find it impossible to understand what Americans are talking about politically. I actually had a guy deny to me that the USA was a liberal democracy, because that would mean they were socialists!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I think Canadians can often come off as a bit condescending myself in the way they address Americans. “Strange” is not what I would use to describe the American use of the word “liberal.” I would not say that America is a liberal democracy myself actually. It’s actually not a democracy but a constitutional republic in any case. The United States is a right of center country and I think it’s fair to say that our Puritan/Separatist heritage is a bit in the DNA of our nation. I don’t think there’s much liberal about us. If you look at our constitution, our health care system, our use of government, and the overall values I think most of Europe and the rest of the world tends to view us as Puritanical and overly-conservative, never liberal. So perhaps that’s what the poster was reacting to when you said that. And being a Canadian, you live in a highly socialized state where the government has much more far-reaching power in your daily lives. So from where he’s standing, and where I’m standing actually, Canada is pretty socialistic and compared to our neighbors to the North, we’re pretty conservative IMO. From the American definition of “liberal,” socialism in indeed a liberal thing. Socialism can, however, go in a leftist or a right direction. Most historians categorize Hitler’s national socialism as right wing in nature and the model the Soviets undertook as leftist. South America is full of leftist socialism, etc. I don’t really see a problem with the terminology.

But keep in mind you’re discussing the term “liberal” within a governmental/political framework. I’m talking about TEC, a religious body, and their liberal values ecclesiastically, theologically, and morally, which I think they are indeed uber liberals.

American usage is so strange that mant non-Americans find it impossible to understand what Americans are talking about politically. I actually had a guy deny to me that the USA was a liberal democracy, because that would mean they were socialists!

 

[Bluegoat]

I think Canadians can often come off as a bit condescending myself in the way they address Americans. “Strange” is not what I would use to describe the American use of the word “liberal.” I would not say that America is a liberal democracy myself actually. It’s actually not a democracy but a constitutional republic in any case. The United States is a right of center country and I think it’s fair to say that our Puritan/Separatist heritage is a bit in the DNA of our nation. I don’t think there’s much liberal about us. If you look at our constitution, our health care system, our use of government, and the overall values I think most of Europe and the rest of the world tends to view us as Puritanical and overly-conservative, never liberal. So perhaps that’s what the poster was reacting to when you said that. And being a Canadian, you live in a highly socialized state where the government has much more far-reaching power in your daily lives. So from where he’s standing, and where I’m standing actually, Canada is pretty socialistic and compared to our neighbors to the North, we’re pretty conservative IMO. From the American definition of “liberal,” socialism in indeed a liberal thing. Socialism can, however, go in a leftist or a right direction. Most historians categorize Hitler’s national socialism as right wing in nature and the model the Soviets undertook as leftist. South America is full of leftist socialism, etc. I don’t really see a problem with the terminology.

But keep in mind you’re discussing the term “liberal” within a governmental/political framework. I’m talking about TEC, a religious body, and their liberal values ecclesiastically, theologically, and morally, which I think they are indeed uber liberals.

Well, I’m not meaning to be condescending. However, liberalism does have a specific meaning, and it doesn’t correspond to the way Americans use it at the moment. Even more conservative American politicians share many basic liberal values, like elected government, freedom of religion, capitalism, and individualism. Some libertarians, who can be far right in some cases, are almost uber-liberals. Which is why I use the word weird - some very conservative American values seem liberal to me.

I suppose Canadians are more left-ish on average than Americans, but to call us socialists seems to be going a bit far. Canadians have private property, and all business is not owned by the state as in a real socialist system - Canadians are basically capitalists and only tend to support government owned/run industry or business in limited sectors.

As far as the freedoms we have, or interference by the state - I don’t know. I know many Americans feel Canadian taxes are too high. OTOH, Canadians are always perplexed that American’s accept certain government interferences - anti-terrorism stuff comes to mind. In general I would say Canadians feel that government is a tool to accomplish our will, whereas Americans seem to feel alienated from their government, or to have a sort of adversarial relationship to it.

As far as TEC goes, I just try to avoid political terminology with regard to religion. I’d just say heterodox myself, or heretical, or possibly even apostate. (Though that last makes people angrier than is perhaps wise.)

 

[JohnnyReb]

I’m not suggesting the Catholic Church thumb their nose and reject anyone. So I want to make that clear. But what I am saying is that many folks might wish the TEC bishops and clergy make the jump but a lot of folks in here don’t realize the depths of heresy and heterodox baggage that years of TEC brainwashing has done to these people. ACNA has inherited a lot of women’s ordination sympathizers, people who have liberal views on divorce and divinity, and it’s important to realize that a “conservative” Anglican is akin to a somewhat liberal Catholic and a “moderate” Anglican is usually tantamount to being a “bigtime lib” in the Catholic Church. A liberal Anglican is akin to being so far out in left field that you’d need Special Ops to find you and bring you back to sanity.

I’m merely making the point that some people in here are so eager to just bring folks in to the Catholic Church and they don’t realize that not everyone forsakes their former life completely and rather decides to bring some heavy baggage. If people haven’t left TEC by now with all the Robinson gay stuff, the outright unwillingness to proclaim Jesus as Lord, the gay ordination stuff in Anaheim, the totem pole stuff, the hindu nonsense in L.A., the indaba garbage, the pro-choice mantras, the “seusscharist,” and all the other heretically offensive tripe, then my opinion is they’re never going to seriously be orthodox. If all that insanity hasn’t driven one to sanity, nothing truly will and a conversion to Catholicism might be trite, crass, and more an outward thing than an inner one.

This^^^Also, the RCC has a tendancy to promote people coming into it because of its belief that is the fullness of the entire church established by Christ. They want people to return home so much, that they may not be stopping to test these individuals to see if they are really of Catholic mindset and ready to submit themselves to the Pope and Magisterium. I know it was this way with my confirmation. I was still very Pentecostal in orientation when I was confirmed, and in reality, was not ready in hindsight to be confirmed.

Of course I cannot and will not judge a person’s conviction if they take the ordinariate route. Guys like Father Mark in here who are taking the ordinariate route were NEVER liberals to begin with and having known him for some time, he is a staunch advocate for orthodoxy and tradition and a conservative morality. So we’ll see what happens.

I am very interested in what interests them in the ordinariate route rather than sticking with a continuing Anglican route. Perhaps I assume too much because that seems more reasonable to me and appealing to me. So I am interested in what others are thinking.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I never called you guys socialists. I don’t believe that. I said that Canada is a more heavily socialized state. That’s just a fact, not a slam. You guys have socialized medicine where we do not. I’m not saying that’s good or bad. I’ve heard differing opinions ranging from “hate it!” to “love it!” about your health care system. God knows ours is loaded with flaws and idiocy. The United States has socialized structures like Social Security and Medicare. So saying that a country is more socialized than another doesn’t necessarily mean you’re socialists and you guys where a hammer and cicle. My understanding is that socialism, by the way, doesn’t mean individuals cannot own private property. When land is completely owned by the State, that is communism. Collectivization like in the former Soviet republics and in North Korea and Cuba, that is communism. Socialist countries allow for private property. Take Nazi Germany. It was a national socialist country officially. There were plenty of people who owned private property. But everything was socialized otherwise with financial structures and the government reached pretty deeply into people’s lives. I think collectivization and taking away private property is what separates socialism from communism; at least that was always my feeble and humble understanding.

I agree completely that there is a weird dichotomy in our country with the government. You’re correct. Too many Americans of the far right variety were giving wet sloppy kisses to the Patriot Act that wire-tapped our phones and gave the NSA the right to spy on our emails and internet surfing and phone calls and yet they get all bent out of shape at an airport frisk by the TSA now that Obama is in charge. Republicans are in love with Homeland Security and the military and FBI, NSA, etc. and nation-building but they hate social security and medicare, etc. Democrats are equally perplexing as they complain right and left about the Patriot Act but then re-authorize it and more “torture” has happened under Obama’s watch than Bush. Also more of that re-patriation of subcontracting torture out to third world nations has happened under Obama than Bush. Weird. Both are for bail-outs as long as their guy is in office.

I think it’s perfectly fine to use the term “liberal” when describing religions. But that’s just me. I think liberalism in context is a perfectly acceptable term and nine out of ten folks in here know what I mean by it…but that’s just moi (french for the Quebec posters )

I also agree with you about libertarians. They want a complete and total don’t tread on me live and let live/stay out of my business culture but guys who are libertarian like Ron Paul want to criminalize abortion (incidentally so do I,but I don’t claim to be a libertarian so there’s no hypocrisy there!)? Confusing…

Well, I’m not meaning to be condescending. However, liberalism does have a specific meaning, and it doesn’t correspond to the way Americans use it at the moment. Even more conservative American politicians share many basic liberal values, like elected government, freedom of religion, capitalism, and individualism. Some libertarians, who can be far right in some cases, are almost uber-liberals. Which is why I use the word weird - some very conservative American values seem liberal to me.

I suppose Canadians are more left-ish on average than Americans, but to call us socialists seems to be going a bit far. Canadians have private property, and all business is not owned by the state as in a real socialist system - Canadians are basically capitalists and only tend to support government owned/run industry or business in limited sectors.

As far as the freedoms we have, or interference by the state - I don’t know. I know many Americans feel Canadian taxes are too high. OTOH, Canadians are always perplexed that American’s accept certain government interferences - anti-terrorism stuff comes to mind. In general I would say Canadians feel that government is a tool to accomplish our will, whereas Americans seem to feel alienated from their government, or to have a sort of adversarial relationship to it.

As far as TEC goes, I just try to avoid political terminology with regard to religion. I’d just say heterodox myself, or heretical, or possibly even apostate. (Though that last makes people angrier than is perhaps wise.)

 

[jordananglo]

I am very interested in what interests them in the ordinariate route rather than sticking with a continuing Anglican route. Perhaps I assume too much because that seems more reasonable to me and appealing to me. So I am interested in what others are thinking.

Simple:

Continuing Anglicans are mostly high-church protestants, and have become congregationalist in practice in many places. I speak from my own experience.

Anglo-Catholics have claimed to be Catholics separated by history from Rome. Now we have a chance to be reunited with the rest of Catholic Christendom, keeping our own liturgical and spiritual forms and traditions. It’s what many have been praying for for years, but it takes humility, vision, and courage to jump on this.

It is worth stressing that one continuing Anglican group (the largest I think), the TAC, has been a driving force behind the creation of the Ordinariate scheme. If we affirm the same faith, we should not be divided from each other. This has the ability to create real unity in the Anglo-Catholic world that has always alluded continuing Anglicans, who have tended to fracture when something happens they don’t like (are are continuing to do so).

 

[GKC]

Simple:

Continuing Anglicans are mostly high-church protestants, and have become congregationalist in practice in many places. I speak from my own experience.

Anglo-Catholics have claimed to be Catholics separated by history from Rome. Now we have a chance to be reunited with the rest of Catholic Christendom, keeping our own liturgical and spiritual forms and traditions. It’s what many have been praying for for years, but it takes humility, vision, and courage to jump on this.

It is worth stressing that one continuing Anglican group (the largest I think), the TAC, has been a driving force behind the creation of the Ordinariate scheme. If we affirm the same faith, we should not be divided from each other. This has the ability to create real unity in the Anglo-Catholic world that has always alluded continuing Anglicans, who have tended to fracture when something happens they don’t like (are are continuing to do so).

I agree with almost all of this.

GKC

Anglicanus-Catholicus

 

[JohnnyReb]

Simple:

Continuing Anglicans are mostly high-church protestants, and have become congregationalist in practice in many places. I speak from my own experience.

Anglo-Catholics have claimed to be Catholics separated by history from Rome. Now we have a chance to be reunited with the rest of Catholic Christendom, keeping our own liturgical and spiritual forms and traditions. It’s what many have been praying for for years, but it takes humility, vision, and courage to jump on this.

It is worth stressing that one continuing Anglican group (the largest I think), the TAC, has been a driving force behind the creation of the Ordinariate scheme. If we affirm the same faith, we should not be divided from each other. This has the ability to create real unity in the Anglo-Catholic world that has always alluded continuing Anglicans, who have tended to fracture when something happens they don’t like (are are continuing to do so).

Ahhh that makes sense to me, and to why I would personally not find the ordinariate too appeal at this time. I do not embrace the same exact faith as taught by the RCC in the sense that I could affirm all the dogmas of the church. There are a few key ones that I disagree with. That is my Protestant side coming out. I accept all points of the Nicene Creed and say it every Sunday with conviction. In that sense, I embrace the Catholic faith.

I do wonder, do these Anglo Catholics Embrace

1. Transubstantiation
2. Marian Dogmas
3. Indulgences
4. Purgatory
5. Rejection of Artificial Birth Control