Thoughts on the Anglican Ordinariates?

[Melkite]

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.

[LausTibiChriste]

Never attended but want to (want to get the Anglican Breviary too) ... interested to hear what others have to say

[awkward customer]

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.

[Melkite]

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.

Married priests have been around forever.  Nothing to be upset about.

[awkward customer]

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.

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.

[LausTibiChriste]

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.

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,

When 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.

[Melkite]

Yes 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.

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.

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?

The 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.

[Melkite]

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 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.

[awkward customer]

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.

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,

When 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.

[awkward customer]

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.

[Melkite]

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.

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.   

[awkward customer]

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.

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.

[Melkite]

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.

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? 

[awkward customer]

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.

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.

[Melkite]

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.

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?