The new Anglican Ordinariate is established today!

  • Thread starter Thread starter YoungTradCath
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Faithdancer said:
Henry VIII “stole?” The rest of your post seems to speak of preservation. So is Henry VIII then to be posthumously thanked, even if preserving great tradition was only an inadvertent effect of his creation of the Church of England?
Click to expand...
Yes, he did. Is there something in saying that that doesn’t align with the history books? No, he isn’t to be thanked.
Faithdancer said:
Nice to read a post with a moderate and conciliatory tone in this thread. Just one addition- most of the Anglican and Episcopalian websites I’ve visited, and there have been a number- indicate that baptism is the only Sacrament necessary to receive communion in their churches.
Click to expand...
So?
 
Faithdancer said:
Nice to read a post with a moderate and conciliatory tone in this thread. Just one addition- most of the Anglican and Episcopalian websites I’ve visited, and there have been a number- indicate that baptism is the only Sacrament necessary to receive communion in their churches.
Click to expand...
Thanks - with hindsight you are right. I have noticed that what they normally say after sharing the peace which in their liturgy comes before the offertory and Eucharistic Prayer(much more sensible in my opinion) is “If you normally receive comunion in your own church you are welcome to receive here, but you can also come forward for a blessing. Just keep your hands crossed at the altar rail.”
 
YoungTradCath said:
Yes, he did. Is there something in saying that that doesn’t align with the history books? No, he isn’t to be thanked.

So?
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you are trying to say. The English Church had its own distintive rite - the Sarum Use - not the Roman Rite when Henry decided that the Pope would not have jurisdiction on the Church in England. True he retained the liturgy unaltered, but after his death the Book Of Common Prayer was introduced, services were in the vernacular, the daily office was revised. The official break with Rome was only made during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Later on the Church of England developed its disitictive musical tradition with choral matins and choral evensong and use of anthems - both Latin and English. This is part of the tradition that the ordinariate is bringing with them.
 
liturgyluver said:
I am not sure what you are trying to say. The English Church had its own distintive rite - the Sarum Use - not the Roman Rite when Henry decided that the Pope would not have jurisdiction on the Church in England. True he retained the liturgy unaltered, but after his death the Book Of Common Prayer was introduced, services were in the vernacular, the daily office was revised. The official break with Rome was only made during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Later on the Church of England developed its disitictive musical tradition with choral matins and choral evensong and use of anthems - both Latin and English. This is part of the tradition that the ordinariate is bringing with them.
Click to expand...
Yes, and the Sarum Rite even still sees some use in England. I was responding to Faithdancer’s question, “He ‘stole?’” Yes, Henry VIII did steal from the Catholic Church and thus the people of God when he started the Church of England.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Yes, and the Sarum Rite even still sees some use in England. I was responding to Faithdancer’s question, “He ‘stole?’” Yes, Henry VIII did steal from the Catholic Church and thus the people of God when he started the Church of England.
Click to expand...
I see what you mean - I think. I would argue that in liturgical terms we are getting back something far richer than what was originally stolen. The way the anglo-catholic movement developed a distinctive english catholic identity with the glorious musical tradition of robed choirs singing daily offices, traditional hymnody, the contemplative offices such as evensong, and the way Anglicans can deliver tradition and reverence in the vernacular has always amazed me.
 
liturgyluver said:
I see what you mean - I think. I would argue that in liturgical terms we are getting back something far richer than what was originally stolen. The way the anglo-catholic movement developed a distinctive english catholic identity with the glorious musical tradition of robed choirs singing daily offices, traditional hymnody, the contemplative offices such as evensong, and the way Anglicans can deliver tradition and reverence in the vernacular has always amazed me.
Click to expand...
I just want some hymns! 😃
 
liturgyluver said:
I see what you mean - I think. I would argue that in liturgical terms we are getting back something far richer than what was originally stolen. The way the anglo-catholic movement developed a distinctive english catholic identity with the glorious musical tradition of robed choirs singing daily offices, traditional hymnody, the contemplative offices such as evensong, and the way Anglicans can deliver tradition and reverence in the vernacular has always amazed me.
Click to expand...
Right. Their liturgies are beautiful, I agree.
 
I’m very happy to see our Anglican brothers and sisters coming home! God Bless the Catholic Church!
 
liturgyluver said:
Thanks - with hindsight you are right. I have noticed that what they normally say after sharing the peace which in their liturgy comes before the offertory and Eucharistic Prayer(much more sensible in my opinion) is “If you normally receive comunion in your own church you are welcome to receive here, but you can also come forward for a blessing. Just keep your hands crossed at the altar rail.”
Click to expand...
Exactly, and that’s what I did. And the blessing was actually quite beautiful and elaborated, still felt spiritually very much like a blessing, although I guess that sadly, some might question the validity of the blessing, since it was not delivered by a Roman Catholic priest.
 
liturgyluver said:
I am not sure what you are trying to say. The English Church had its own distintive rite - the Sarum Use - not the Roman Rite when Henry decided that the Pope would not have jurisdiction on the Church in England. True he retained the liturgy unaltered, but after his death the Book Of Common Prayer was introduced, services were in the vernacular, the daily office was revised. The official break with Rome was only made during the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Later on the Church of England developed its disitictive musical tradition with choral matins and choral evensong and use of anthems - both Latin and English. This is part of the tradition that the ordinariate is bringing with them.
Click to expand...
Good points liturgyluver, and kudos for ignoring the vaguely pejorative and ultimately meaningless single word challenge.
 
faithdancer:

Goodness no, I am not trying to shout at you. I’m sorry you feel that I am because I captilized the word “not.”

While most people “are aware of this” (not allowed to receive in other churches) your post to me sounded as though you felt it was perfectly alright as a Catholic to receive Communion in other churches. I was meerly trying to point out that while their services are beautiful and “Catholic like” some are “fooled” (under the wrong impression) into believing it is ok to receive. While they may feel they have AS the Vatican does not and as Catholics we are to follow Rome. I apologize if you did not understand my post.

While baptism might be good enough in their church to receive communion there, it is not for Rome and as Catholics this should be important to us just as receiving a blessing from a priest in another church. AS that has been broken is not something to take lightly otherwise the priest/bishops that are coming back to the Catholic church would not have to undergo time in formation and education and be ordained into the Catholic Church.

This is why I referred you to the video which I found to be very educational. I thought you might find it educational too.

This is an exciting time for all of us. I too am looking forward to wonderful hymns. 🙂
 
horselvr said:
faithdancer:

Goodness no, I am not trying to shout at you. I’m sorry you feel that I am because I captilized the word “not.”

While most people “are aware of this” (not allowed to receive in other churches) your post to me sounded as though you felt it was perfectly alright as a Catholic to receive Communion in other churches. I was meerly trying to point out that while their services are beautiful and “Catholic like” some are “fooled” (under the wrong impression) into believing it is ok to receive. While they may feel they have AS the Vatican does not and as Catholics we are to follow Rome. I apologize if you did not understand my post.

While baptism might be good enough in their church to receive communion there, it is not for Rome and as Catholics this should be important to us just as receiving a blessing from a priest in another church. AS that has been broken is not something to take lightly otherwise the priest/bishops that are coming back to the Catholic church would not have to undergo time in formation and education and be ordained into the Catholic Church.

This is why I referred you to the video which I found to be very educational. I thought you might find it educational too.

This is an exciting time for all of us. I too am looking forward to wonderful hymns. 🙂
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying, horselvr. No worries! I didn’t take the Eucharist last night in the Episcopal church although I’m not yet a confirmed Catholic.I was following the Catholic doctrine on Confirmation and the Eucharist, as you have noted above.

In addition to my infant Catholic baptism, I was also baptized in a Protestant church as a kid, after my mother divorced and remarried a Protestant man. However, several Catholic priests have told me that the second baptism doesn’t count, and is not an impediment to my being considered a Catholic.
 
Oh thank you so much for answering me. I was so worried that you thought I was being rude to you. I am so glad you realize my intentions. 🙂
 
horselvr said:
faithdancer:

Goodness no, I am not trying to shout at you. I’m sorry you feel that I am because I captilized the word “not.”

While most people “are aware of this” (not allowed to receive in other churches) your post to me sounded as though you felt it was perfectly alright as a Catholic to receive Communion in other churches. I was meerly trying to point out that while their services are beautiful and “Catholic like” some are “fooled” (under the wrong impression) into believing it is ok to receive. While they may feel they have AS the Vatican does not and as Catholics we are to follow Rome. I apologize if you did not understand my post.

While baptism might be good enough in their church to receive communion there, it is not for Rome and as Catholics this should be important to us just as receiving a blessing from a priest in another church. AS that has been broken is not something to take lightly otherwise the priest/bishops that are coming back to the Catholic church would not have to undergo time in formation and education and be ordained into the Catholic Church.

This is why I referred you to the video which I found to be very educational. I thought you might find it educational too.

This is an exciting time for all of us. I too am looking forward to wonderful hymns. 🙂
Click to expand...
Horselvr, Confirmation is not necessary to receive Communion in the Catholic Church. If that were so, all of our 7 and 8 year old First Communicants would not be able to receive the Sacrament! An adult who has received their Baptism and First Communion but has not been Confirmed (and there are plenty of those) only needs to go to Confession and be free of mortal sin. Of course, they should seek Confirmation as soon as possible. We do not require our adult RCIA candidates who have been previously Baptized in the Catholic Church and Communed to refrain from Communion until they have been Confirmed. The only really necessary Sacrament is Baptism, and Confession if one is in mortal sin. However, all Catholics should be Confirmed, it is a very important Sacrament.

A person, however, who has been baptized but never catechized, should receive catechesis first, then Confession , Communion and Confirmation, mostly this is done through RCIA. However, strictly speaking, the Confirmation is not required. My husband was received into the Church and Baptized as an adult, but never did get Confirmed–although I frequently encourage him-and it is permissible for him to receive Communion. We also got married without him being confirmed, as that is not strictly necessary, although it is highly encouraged these days.

I am only pointing this out because there may be baptized Catholics out there coming back to the Church, who have received their First Communion who may think that they have to wait until they are confirmed, when that is not so. They can return and go to Confession and Communion and then seek Confirmation. However, they should speak with their parish priest and follow his instructions on the matter.
 
CV Catholic:

I never said confirmation was necessary to receive Communion in the Catholic Church.
 
horselvr said:
CV Catholic:

I never said confirmation was necessary to receive Communion in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I must have misunderstood your post. It seemed as if that was what you were saying.
 
YoungTradCath said:
Praise be to God.

Pope Benedict is the Pope of Christian unity.

usordinariate.org/

Anyone else want to attend Mass at one of their churches? Their masses seem absolutely fantastic.

For example:
walsingham-church.org/site/Weekly_Bulletin_files/Mass-Mary%20Mother%20of%20God%202012.pdf

It seems they do a wonderful liturgy. The structure of the Mass is, in my opinion, is one of the best of any rite. I would love to go to Mass at one of these Ordinariate churches. The music is ridiculous, in a good way. I think it’s an excellent compromise between the EF and the OF, along with some of its own Anglican flavor. I like. I mean, look at where they put the “peace.” Before the Offertory. What a genius idea!

Anyone else hoping that this will have a “gravitational pull?” 😃

We’re taking back what Henry VIII stole! And for the better! Just another reason liturgy fascinates me.
Click to expand...
That parish is in my diocese, my good friend and sponsor attends there sometimes with her husband, he teaches at the school. They are both former Anglicans. Personally I have never been but would like to someday. This particular church is beautiful.

I am very happy about this ordinariate being established and so are they, this being dear to their hearts.
 
CB_Catholic said:
Horselvr, Confirmation is not necessary to receive Communion in the Catholic Church. If that were so, all of our 7 and 8 year old First Communicants would not be able to receive the Sacrament! An adult who has received their Baptism and First Communion but has not been Confirmed (and there are plenty of those) only needs to go to Confession and be free of mortal sin. Of course, they should seek Confirmation as soon as possible. We do not require our adult RCIA candidates who have been previously Baptized in the Catholic Church and Communed to refrain from Communion until they have been Confirmed. The only really necessary Sacrament is Baptism, and Confession if one is in mortal sin. However, all Catholics should be Confirmed, it is a very important Sacrament.

A person, however, who has been baptized but never catechized, should receive catechesis first, then Confession , Communion and Confirmation, mostly this is done through RCIA. However, strictly speaking, the Confirmation is not required. My husband was received into the Church and Baptized as an adult, but never did get Confirmed–although I frequently encourage him-and it is permissible for him to receive Communion. We also got married without him being confirmed, as that is not strictly necessary, although it is highly encouraged these days.

I am only pointing this out because there may be baptized Catholics out there coming back to the Church, who have received their First Communion who may think that they have to wait until they are confirmed, when that is not so. They can return and go to Confession and Communion and then seek Confirmation. However, they should speak with their parish priest and follow his instructions on the matter.
Click to expand...
Carolyn, this is news to me, and I’m so glad you made the points. I was told by an RCIA instructor that a baptized Catholic is not to receive Communion until one has had First Communion and Confirmation; the way she said this made it sound like Canon Law. However, she also told me that I should be in weekly RCIA, which in that parish includes the unbaptized, but the Deacon of a different parish told me I simply needed to attend bi-monthly Confirmation classes. I started going to Reconciliation six months ago, which the first parish I mentioned discourages until the subject is covered in RCIA, but the latter parish Religious Ed director encourages. Now, based on what you’ve said here, I’m getting the impression that there is no binding dogma on the issue and it’s up to the parish:confused:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top