If you've attended their masses, what do you think?
The first time I attended, I remember thinking it was like the TLM in English. But this was before they switched from the Book of Divine Worship to DW: The Missal. Now I think it feels more like the NO than the TLM.
I attended one this past Sunday and it did not feel as Novus Ordo-ey as it had in the past. I don't know if that is because something changed or if I was just more present during the mass.
Also interested in your thoughts if you are a former Anglican, especially if you attended a Continuing Anglican church.
Never attended but want to (want to get the Anglican Breviary too) ... interested to hear what others have to say
I went to one of their Masses and walked out halfway through when I realised it was them.
Why, because it's a way of sneaking married men into the Catholic priesthood. And there is such an example, of a married Anglican priest who joined the Ordinariate, then went Trad and became a Trad priest.
A married Trad priest. And the Trads were jubilant.
Quote from: awkward customer on February 02, 2024, 03:03:51 AMI went to one of their Masses and walked out halfway through when I realised it was them.
Why, because it's a way of sneaking married men into the Catholic priesthood. And there is such an example, of a married Anglican priest who joined the Ordinariate, then went Trad and became a Trad priest.
A married Trad priest. And the Trads were jubilant.
Married priests have been around forever. Nothing to be upset about.
Quote from: Melkite on February 02, 2024, 04:46:46 AMQuote from: awkward customer on February 02, 2024, 03:03:51 AMI went to one of their Masses and walked out halfway through when I realised it was them.
Why, because it's a way of sneaking married men into the Catholic priesthood. And there is such an example, of a married Anglican priest who joined the Ordinariate, then went Trad and became a Trad priest.
A married Trad priest. And the Trads were jubilant.
Married priests have been around forever. Nothing to be upset about.
Yes it is something to be upset about. When have married priests existed in the Roman Rite?
Please don't use the existence of married priests in the Eastern Catholic Rites as an entry point for the further destruction of the Western Catholic priesthood.
The Ordinariate is yet another sly attempt at this.
Quote from: awkward customer on February 02, 2024, 10:42:20 AMQuote from: Melkite on February 02, 2024, 04:46:46 AMQuote from: awkward customer on February 02, 2024, 03:03:51 AMI went to one of their Masses and walked out halfway through when I realised it was them.
Why, because it's a way of sneaking married men into the Catholic priesthood. And there is such an example, of a married Anglican priest who joined the Ordinariate, then went Trad and became a Trad priest.
A married Trad priest. And the Trads were jubilant.
Married priests have been around forever. Nothing to be upset about.
Yes it is something to be upset about. When have married priests existed in the Roman Rite?
Please don't use the existence of married priests in the Eastern Catholic Rites as an entry point for the further destruction of the Western Catholic priesthood.
The Ordinariate is yet another sly attempt at this.
Oh grow up with your emoting.
Eastern Rites are not a sly attempt at implementing a married priesthood, first and foremost. Which you imply with the use of the word 'another'
Secondly,
QuoteWhen have married priests existed in the Roman Rite?
Read a history book.
Clerical celibacy is an act of administration, not dogma. It's as simple as that. Is it unimportant and should we get rid of it? Absolutely not - quite the contrary. But to have a hissy fit because a very minor group has married priests is intellectually infantile.
Only retarded Trads could get upset at a group of relatively orthodox Christians wanting to join the Church en masse because they're slightly different.
Quote from: awkward customer on February 02, 2024, 10:42:20 AMYes it is something to be upset about. When have married priests existed in the Roman Rite?
For most of the first millenium. The idea that priestly celibacy was the sole practice in the West since apostolic times is a pious fairy tale.
QuotePlease don't use the existence of married priests in the Eastern Catholic Rites as an entry point for the further destruction of the Western Catholic priesthood.
I'm not. I'm talking about Western married priests.
Do you doubt the validity of married priests? If not, then how could allowing them again in the West possibly constitute the destruction of its priesthood?
QuoteThe Ordinariate is yet another sly attempt at this.
The only ordinariate priests that are allowed to be married are those who were Anglican priests prior to conversion. Those going into seminary for the ordinariates after conversion must be and remain celibate, just like the rest of the Latin Church. Doesn't seem very sly. They won't be able to poach Latins who want to be married priests.
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on February 02, 2024, 11:05:31 AMOnly retarded Trads could get upset at a group of relatively orthodox Christians wanting to join the Church en masse because they're slightly different.
I don't know how effective it's been, but I've heard that the main reason behind allowing married convert priests is to remove some of the hesitance their Anglican parishioners may have in coming with them. Granted, if married priesthood is the only thing holding them back, then their hesitance is superficial. But if allowing a married priest in the West here and there ends up saving hundreds or thousands of souls that otherwise wouldn't have been...I can't see a rational argument against that.
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on February 02, 2024, 11:05:31 AMQuote from: awkward customer on February 02, 2024, 10:42:20 AMQuote from: Melkite on February 02, 2024, 04:46:46 AMQuote from: awkward customer on February 02, 2024, 03:03:51 AMI went to one of their Masses and walked out halfway through when I realised it was them.
Why, because it's a way of sneaking married men into the Catholic priesthood. And there is such an example, of a married Anglican priest who joined the Ordinariate, then went Trad and became a Trad priest.
A married Trad priest. And the Trads were jubilant.
Married priests have been around forever. Nothing to be upset about.
Yes it is something to be upset about. When have married priests existed in the Roman Rite?
Please don't use the existence of married priests in the Eastern Catholic Rites as an entry point for the further destruction of the Western Catholic priesthood.
The Ordinariate is yet another sly attempt at this.
Oh grow up with your emoting.
Eastern Rites are not a sly attempt at implementing a married priesthood, first and foremost. Which you imply with the use of the word 'another'
Secondly,
QuoteWhen have married priests existed in the Roman Rite?
Read a history book.
Clerical celibacy is an act of administration, not dogma. It's as simple as that. Is it unimportant and should we get rid of it? Absolutely not - quite the contrary. But to have a hissy fit because a very minor group has married priests is intellectually infantile.
Only retarded Trads could get upset at a group of relatively orthodox Christians wanting to join the Church en masse because they're slightly different.
I didn't say that the Eastern Rite Catholics are a sly attempt at anything. I was referring to the Anglican Ordinariate.
Sorry you got confused.
Too much emoting on your part.
Keep hacking away at the concept of priestly celibacy because, hey, it doesn't really matter, does it?
Not everything that the conciliar church comes up with is harmful to the Faith - right?
If you don't see the problem with this continual war of attrition against priestly celibacy, then you're part of the problem.
And I'll emote all I like.
Quote from: awkward customer on February 02, 2024, 11:35:39 AMKeep hacking away at the concept of priestly celibacy because, hey, it doesn't really matter, does it?
Not everything that the conciliar church comes up with is harmful to the Faith - right?
If you don't see the problem with this continual war of attrition against priestly celibacy, then you're part of the problem.
And I'll emote all I like.
I could equally say that if you continue to believe medieval disciplinary changes to be of apostolic origin and continuous practice, or that they've somehow become doctrinally binding on the form and matter of the sacrament of holy orders, then *you're* part of the problem.
Priestly celibacy doesn't matter any more than receiving the eucharist in both species does. In both cases, the medieval Latin discipline deviates from the apostolic norm. Those changes are permissible for a time when there is a practical need, but once that need is gone, the apostolic practice should be resumed. Holding onto an obsolete practice because it's longstanding custom is just as much antiquarianism as going back to an older practice for no other reason than it is older.
Note: I'm not saying priestly celibacy is obsolete in the West. I'm just saying your line of argument is wrong.
Quote from: Melkite on February 02, 2024, 12:08:49 PMQuote from: awkward customer on February 02, 2024, 11:35:39 AMKeep hacking away at the concept of priestly celibacy because, hey, it doesn't really matter, does it?
Not everything that the conciliar church comes up with is harmful to the Faith - right?
If you don't see the problem with this continual war of attrition against priestly celibacy, then you're part of the problem.
And I'll emote all I like.
I could equally say that if you continue to believe medieval disciplinary changes to be of apostolic origin and continuous practice, or that they've somehow become doctrinally binding on the form and matter of the sacrament of holy orders, then *you're* part of the problem.
Priestly celibacy doesn't matter any more than receiving the eucharist in both species does. In both cases, the medieval Latin discipline deviates from the apostolic norm. Those changes are permissible for a time when there is a practical need, but once that need is gone, the apostolic practice should be resumed. Holding onto an obsolete practice because it's longstanding custom is just as much antiquarianism as going back to an older practice for no other reason than it is older.
Note: I'm not saying priestly celibacy is obsolete in the West. I'm just saying your line of argument is wrong.
My line of argument is that at a time when the Catholic Faith is under attack from without and within to an extent that has never been known, it seems unnecessary to argue the way you do, especially when the Ordinariate is a product of the very men who undermine the Faith whenever they can.
Undermining the tradition of priestly celibacy in the West is another way of attacking the identity of Catholics in the West. I'm not saying that you don't have valid points. But now is not the time to make them, IMO. Save them for when the situation calms down and some sanity returns to the Church, if it ever does.
Quote from: awkward customer on February 02, 2024, 12:52:28 PMUndermining the tradition of priestly celibacy in the West is another way of attacking the identity of Catholics in the West. I'm not saying that you don't have valid points. But now is not the time to make them, IMO. Save them for when the situation calms down and some sanity returns to the Church, if it ever does.
The three ordinariates together make up about ten thousand people. I don't see how allowing a relatively few number of ex-Anglican married priests to be ordained in the Catholic Church is undermining priestly celibacy in the West or attacking your identity as a Catholic. You're overreacting. Why do things have to be perfect in Rome before other Catholic groups are allowed to manage things in their own houses?
Understanding that married priesthood in the Latin Church isn't the norm, but special exceptions can be made, is not asking a lot of people. It's a very simple concept. Priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma. If the majority of Latin Catholics, and a supermajority of traditional Latin Catholics, are ignorant of this, is it better to catechize them now, or bury one's head in the sand and wait for fair weather before addressing the problem?
Quote from: Melkite on February 02, 2024, 01:15:34 PMQuote from: awkward customer on February 02, 2024, 12:52:28 PMUndermining the tradition of priestly celibacy in the West is another way of attacking the identity of Catholics in the West. I'm not saying that you don't have valid points. But now is not the time to make them, IMO. Save them for when the situation calms down and some sanity returns to the Church, if it ever does.
The three ordinariates together make up about ten thousand people. I don't see how allowing a relatively few number of ex-Anglican married priests to be ordained in the Catholic Church is undermining priestly celibacy in the West or attacking your identity as a Catholic. You're overreacting. Why do things have to be perfect in Rome before other Catholic groups are allowed to manage things in their own houses?
Understanding that married priesthood in the Latin Church isn't the norm, but special exceptions can be made, is not asking a lot of people. It's a very simple concept. Priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a dogma. If the majority of Latin Catholics, and a supermajority of traditional Latin Catholics, are ignorant of this, is it better to catechize them now, or bury one's head in the sand and wait for fair weather before addressing the problem?
It's not a problem.
The continual undermining of the Faith is the problem. And the Ordinariate was concocted by the very men who have done most to continue the undermining.
And not all ordinariate priests stay in the ordinariate. Some become Trads and offer the TLM, including married ones. Tradition does not need this.
Quote from: awkward customer on February 02, 2024, 01:29:50 PMIt's not a problem.
The continual undermining of the Faith is the problem. And the Ordinariate was concocted by the very men who have done most to continue the undermining.
And not all ordinariate priests stay in the ordinariate. Some become Trads and offer the TLM, including married ones. Tradition does not need this.
It's a problem if a Catholic, because of an errant folk piety, is scandalized by something that is not scandalous. It's a serious problem if, because of that folk piety, an entire church (or significant part thereof) is unduly scandalized.
You have yet to explain *how* married ordinariate priests are undermining the faith. Merely restating the claim is not an argument.
What does it matter who created the Ordinariates? Do you think they are inherently invalid or illicit because of it? If it weren't for the men who created them, would you still have a problem with their establishment? If so, why?
Ordinariate priests not staying in the ordinariate is irrelevant. That's a separate issue that doesn't have to do with the goodness or badness of the ordinariates.
Back to the original question: what did you think of their mass? Before you left half-way through because you were incensed that a married man had the audacity to stand at the altar? What did you think of it before you realized it was an ordinariate mass?
And since it wasn't in Latin, I assume for the first half, you were under the impression it was a reverent Novus Ordo. Do you see the ordinariate mass as having even less validity than the NOM?
Quote from: Melkite on February 02, 2024, 01:56:45 PMQuote from: awkward customer on February 02, 2024, 01:29:50 PMIt's not a problem.
The continual undermining of the Faith is the problem. And the Ordinariate was concocted by the very men who have done most to continue the undermining.
And not all ordinariate priests stay in the ordinariate. Some become Trads and offer the TLM, including married ones. Tradition does not need this.
It's a problem if a Catholic, because of an errant folk piety, is scandalized by something that is not scandalous. It's a serious problem if, because of that folk piety, an entire church (or significant part thereof) is unduly scandalized.
You have yet to explain *how* married ordinariate priests are undermining the faith. Merely restating the claim is not an argument.
What does it matter who created the Ordinariates? Do you think they are inherently invalid or illicit because of it? If it weren't for the men who created them, would you still have a problem with their establishment? If so, why?
Ordinariate priests not staying in the ordinariate is irrelevant. That's a separate issue that doesn't have to do with the goodness or badness of the ordinariates.
Back to the original question: what did you think of their mass? Before you left half-way through because you were incensed that a married man had the audacity to stand at the altar? What did you think of it before you realized it was an ordinariate mass?
And since it wasn't in Latin, I assume for the first half, you were under the impression it was a reverent Novus Ordo. Do you see the ordinariate mass as having even less validity than the NOM?
I've only just noticed that you're a Melkite Catholic. Does that explain your position in this discussion, which is to trash the Western tradition of priestly celibacy?
As for the Mass, I knew it was the Ordinariate as soon as I arrived and only stayed out of curiosity.
It was a TLM said by an Ordinariate priest and there was no indication that he was married. I left because I doubted if he was actually a priest.
Quote from: awkward customer on February 02, 2024, 06:02:45 PMI've only just noticed that you're a Melkite Catholic. Does that explain your position in this discussion, which is to trash the Western tradition of priestly celibacy?
As for the Mass, I knew it was the Ordinariate as soon as I arrived and only stayed out of curiosity.
It was a TLM said by an Ordinariate priest and there was no indication that he was married. I left because I doubted if he was actually a priest.
I have a feeling that anything, short of praising priestly celibacy as the only legitimate practice and being of certain apostolic origin, is something you would find to be trashing. So history trashes Latin tradition.
You said earlier in the thread that you got up and left when you realized it was an ordinariate mass. You also said you left because the ordinariate was a way of sneaking married men into the Catholic priesthood. But if the priest wasn't married, then why did you get up and leave? On principle?
What reason did you have to doubt he was actually a priest?
Quote from: Melkite on February 02, 2024, 11:08:32 PMI have a feeling that anything, short of praising priestly celibacy as the only legitimate practice and being of certain apostolic origin, is something you would find to be trashing. So history trashes Latin tradition.
You have trashed the Western tradition of priestly celibacy repeatedly.
Meanwhile, I haven't said a word against the way the Eastern Catholics do things. Not a word, and neither would I.
Now please learn some manners and until you do - get lost.
Quote from: awkward customer on February 03, 2024, 04:16:00 AMQuote from: Melkite on February 02, 2024, 11:08:32 PMI have a feeling that anything, short of praising priestly celibacy as the only legitimate practice and being of certain apostolic origin, is something you would find to be trashing. So history trashes Latin tradition.
You have trashed the Western tradition of priestly celibacy repeatedly.
Meanwhile, I haven't said a word against the way the Eastern Catholics do things. Not a word, and neither would I.
Now please learn some manners and until you do - get lost.
You're a perfect example of why women shouldn't have, and historically haven't had, a voice. Get in the kitchen, if you want to be so "traditional"
Quote from: LausTibiChriste on February 03, 2024, 06:43:43 AMYou're a perfect example of why women shouldn't, and historically haven't, had a voice. Get in the kitchen, if you want to be so "traditional"
Hilarious.
Especially when it comes from a man who regularly loses his rag and shrieks hysterical insults as a result.
Quote from: awkward customer on February 03, 2024, 04:16:00 AMYou have trashed the Western tradition of priestly celibacy repeatedly.
Meanwhile, I haven't said a word against the way the Eastern Catholics do things. Not a word, and neither would I.
Now please learn some manners and until you do - get lost.
While I don't think it should be enforced across the board, I see the value in priestly celibacy, and recognize that bishops have the right to restrict candidates for ordination to celibate men. Even Orthodox bishops here and there have refused to ordain married men.
Being honest about history is not trashing your tradition. You, on the other hand, only came onto this thread to trash the ordinariates. I mean, I did ask what everyone's thoughts were on them, so if trashing them is your thought on the subject, I can't fault you for that. But maybe you should take the plank out of your own eye before trying to take the speck out of others'.
I've never been to an Ordinariate Mass but I joined an Ordinariate Facebook group. They seem very devoted and traditional. They rarely "whine" about the Vatican II revolution like we tend to ;D :P ;) and that's understandable as they haven't been affected by it much until joining the Ordinariate. I just wished they kept their traditional calendar and lectionary instead of the NO one. That's the biggest issue I have with them. They should have just stayed high church. Otherwise I'm glad they exist. Perhaps one day they would restore the Serum Rite.
Don't know why but I am very drawn to the ordinariate. Perhaps its because of the sacral usage of english and rich ecclesial history. I even got their Daily office prayer book and sometimes listen to sermons online. The ordinariate priests often talk about the priestly celibacy and I assume they defend it more than NO priests.