The Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham

  • Thread starter Thread starter High_Church_Anglican
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

High_Church_Anglican

Guest
Hello all, first post on here 🙂

What’s everyone’s view on The Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham? As a particularly high church, Catholic Anglican I think that the principle is great, but the execution not so much. It provides a gateway to Rome (thus a gateway to unity) that allows our services to remain almost entirely unaltered in some cases, whilst removing (and this is surely the greatest appeal) all the liberal doctrine which has plagued us traditionalists for the past 50 years, particularly with female ordinations. Unfortunately, it is not exactly doing the best at the moment in several important areas. Anyone have any thoughts about all this?
 
Last edited:
Hi, HCA. In what areas do you think the Ordinariate is not doing so well?
 
From what I’ve heard, it struggles financially, which is a knock on effect from the small number of people actually joining the Ordinariate (of course this is the real problem with all similar situations). For example, the nearest Ordinariate church to me is very far away considering the large number of “standard” Roman churches near me. This may be because actually finding the church building itself is difficult, most groups having to leave their previous CofE church behind
 
Last edited:
So perhaps it’s found it difficult to live up to the high hopes some held at its foundation.

I think it likely that readers on this forum may be more closely acquainted with the Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter. I wonder if a similar situation applies there.
 
I’m inclined to agree with you, many thought that Anglo-Catholics would be brought in in there thousands.
Yes, I assume the forums’ main users are Americans so I’ll ask around. Their Ordinariate is certainly similar, though without much of the rich Anglican history we have I would have thought it wouldn’t fair much better.
 
I am a convert from Anglicanism of thirty eight years now. I always missed the Anglican liturgy and “culture”, especially when compared to the worst of some modern Catholic parishes, however my conversion was one of belief rather then preference so there was never one moment that I regretted it.

When the Ordinariate became available I considered that I might join it. So I attended several masses at our city’s one parish. The numbers were very small. Maybe the priest, his wife and four regulars. The liturgy was beautiful and done well, as one would expect, and steeped in Englishness (but not at all “quaint”). The people were all very nice and were working very hard to build it up, but I had changed so much over the thirty five years that I didn’t immediately take to it. There were practical problems for me at the time in getting to the Mass so the decision was made for me.

I wish them well and may well enquire again. However our city has a vibrant and growing FSSP parish, which is strong “competition”.
 
Last edited:
Interesting… What were some of the main features of the Mass different to the ordinary form of the Roman rite? Here in my Anglo-Catholic parish we use (certainly against canon law) the full Roman rite, so I really wouldn’t know what might be considered a uniquely Anglican adaptation.
 
As a Catholic convert to Anglicanism, before I converted I considered switching to an Ordinariate parish. I didnt because I dont think the Ordinariate has sufficient protections from the regular diocesan bishops in matters of governance and personnel.
 
The Ordinariate composed their own liturgy from historic English sources. It is more similar to 1662 than the Roman Rite. It had some crucial changes from 1662 to restore the sacrifice of the mass, the real presence and communion of saints.

I’ve just checked that they are still going in my city (in Australia) and see they now have a second Sunday mass in another borrowed parish. I doubt that the numbers are overflowing, but that’s a positive sign.
 
There’s still a lot of misconception about the Ordinariate, unfortunately this hasn’t been helped by some clergy who weren’t happy about the Ordinariate or do not understand it.

I’m very lucky to have access to an Ordinariate Use Mass and community in the U.K. and it’s growing - more cradle Catholics are attending as they like the liturgy and the music. There are still a number of people in the Anglican church who are holding on but realising the way things are really going and so there is still a slow stream of people coming into the Ordinariate.

In reality the Ordinariate has been hampered by some cradle Catholics who see it as ‘becoming Catholics through the back door’, or worse, ‘not really Catholic’ and by not an insignificant amount of clergy who for some reason felt threatened by an Ordinariate presence in a diocese. No, we don’t have much money and we are not as widespread as we would like to be but we are definitely present and doing our part so that all may be one. Please keep praying for the Ordinariate.
 
I hope it won’t seem discourteous if I offer a few thoughts from the outside about the English Anglican and Ordinariate experience (I am even less qualified to speak about the N American or Australian ones).

1 Perhaps Pope Benedict underestimated the ability of the Church of England to encompass traditionalist as well as progressive Christians through the special arrangements made for traditionalist parishes (jury still out, of course).

2 Perhaps Pope Benedict overestimated the power of the beautiful Anglican liturgy as the reason why Anglicans have not rejoined Rome: perhaps ecclesiological and theological differences still carry considerable weight.

3 Perhaps Pope Benedict underestimated the isolation Ordinariate parishes might feel, and how important it was for Roman Rite parishes and structures to support them — or perhaps the Church has had too many other problems on its plate to give sufficient attention to Ordinariate issues.
 
I think all of these are very good points. The 2nd point especially, as I know my own parish priest feels the Ordinariate should not foucus so much on liturgy, as so many of our society (the traditionalist group of parishes) parishes are basically Roman in their liturgy anyway. However, to change much other than this would certainly be a challenge for the notoriously stubborn church (no offence intented 😀). I don’t necessarily mean doctrinal changes, but perhaps take a more pastoral rather than legalistic approach specifically in Ordinariate churches. I would agree with you somewhat on your first point, but even if that is the case now, it won’t be for long, the liberal wave still in full force.
 
As to point 1, the precipitating moment that resulted in the issuing of Anglicanorum Coetibus, after many, many years of backing and forthing with a varying cast of Continuing Anglicans, in the US, was the failure of the CoE to ensure the accommodation of those members who doctrinally could not accept the looming prospect of female bishops. Which resulted in a number of exchanges and visits, from 3 (4?) CoE bishops to Rome, early in 2009, asking for a refuge. Which was the proximate cause of the issuing of the Apostolic constitution.

As to point 2, that doubtless played a part. Part 3, ditto.

I followed the multi-year saga of the Anglican Continuum members who sought some form of union with the RCC. It was a multi-facted issue that, around the time Anglicanorum Coetibus was issued, I found myself posting on, on the old incarnation of the board, many times, from the perspective of having observed the saga for those years.

I had my own opinion of how successful the US Ordinariate was likely to be. In the years following, I haven’t seen indications that I was fundamentally wrong. But I haven’t seen a lot of detailed figures, either…
 
High_Church_Anglican said:
Hello all, first post on here 🙂

What’s everyone’s view on The Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham? As a particularly high church, Catholic Anglican I think that the principle is great, but the execution not so much. It provides a gateway to Rome (thus a gateway to unity) that allows our services to remain almost entirely unaltered in some cases, whilst removing (and this is surely the greatest appeal) all the liberal doctrine which has plagued us traditionalists for the past 50 years, particularly with female ordinations. Unfortunately, it is not exactly doing the best at the moment in several important areas. Anyone have any thoughts about all this?
Click to expand...
First things first:

Why is this thread in the non-Catholic religions forum? A strangers coming into this forum with only a quick glance may get confused and decide not to pursue the matter further.

The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham is intended for Catholics coming in from the Anglican tradition. They are fully Catholic, whose previous background happens to be Anglican. They are not “Anglo-Catholic” or any other group of current Anglicans.

(Member of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter - the North American equivalent, though as a cradle Catholic myself, I was received into the Ordinariate by exception. To save space here, anyone who wants to know my background can just message me.)
 
Last edited:
I am well aware that members of the Ordinariate are Catholic. As stated, it’s my first post here and it seemed reasonable to me to put it under this heading as it deals with Anglicanism aswell (regardless of the fact that I believe the Anglican church to be catholic, if I wanted to be pedantic).
 
Last edited:
I became an Episcopalian. It is more traditional than many people realize, but very full of outspoken liberals in the pews. That being said Anglican liturgy and pastoral practices fit me very well and I havent had too many complaints.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top