Wed 22nd Oct 2014 | Last updated: Tue 21st Oct 2014 at 16:13pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

On Saturday, 17 deacons will be ordained for the ordinariate — but in Westminster Cathedral and not in their own church. The reason why is a disgrace

Archbishop Nichols is less helpful to the ordinariate than he could be. Why is that?

By on Thursday, 24 May 2012

The ordinariate's first members are ordained at Westminster Cathedral (Mazur/

The ordinariate's first members are ordained at Westminster Cathedral (Mazur/

At Westminster Cathedral this Saturday, another milestone for the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham will be reached, with the ordination of another 17 former Anglican priests as deacons on their way to the Catholic priesthood. The ordination Mass will be celebrated by Auxiliary Bishop Alan Hopes of Westminster. “I have been informed”, says the author of the excellent A Reluctant Sinner blog, “that it has been quite some time since Westminster Cathedral will have witnessed the ordination of so many men at the one Mass.”

This is a good opportunity, therefore, to ask once more a serious question, which I asked recently in Faith magazine: the answer I gave ought to have evoked some kind of response from the powers that be (at whom it was aimed): it predictably aroused, however, a resonant silence from that quarter. The question is this: what is happening, exactly, in and to the ordinariate, whose first anniversary has now passed? I had always assumed that the ordinariate would begin in a small way, consolidate over a year or so, and then find itself growing naturally as Catholic-minded Anglicans perceived it to be a real alternative to an Anglicanism increasingly under liberal Protestant domination. Is the ordinariate showing signs of fulfilling the potential many of us had hoped to see realised?

Well, it’s too early to tell. But there’s no doubt that there are certain things needed if Anglicanorum coetibus is to take concrete and permanent form here: one of them is that the existing hierarchy should in the early stages help and cooperate with it, while at the same time rigorously respecting and fostering the new jurisdiction’s absolute independence. The question now is whether this – or the reverse – is actually what the hierarchy is doing.

As I have already written in this column, I am beginning to wonder if the warm welcome with which even formerly hostile members of our hierarchy greeted the establishment of the ordinariate was genuine. Was their conversion authentic? Or were they being devious? Is the truth that their warm words were what they knew the Pope wanted them to utter, but that their true intention, hidden this time, in contrast to their open hostility to the original “Roman Option”, was to allow the whole thing to get under way and then quietly and over time to strangle it? I think that is the real truth.

If it is not, why, unlike the new American ordinariate and the even newer Australian ordinariate (who were both assigned a church building on their erection), has the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham still not been given a principal church? In the words of Damian Thompson: “The failure to address the matter is so morale-sapping that I really can’t blame those Anglicans who are hesitating to take the plunge.… “

This is not the first time I have voiced these anxieties. The last time I did so, I attracted the following online comment. I have reason to suppose (I say no more), that the following anonymous writer has good sources:

The ordinariate haven’t got a clue with whom they’re dealing – their representatives sat round a table in the Vatican … formulating an ordinariate and expecting that His Holiness’s requests on their behalf would be fulfilled, all the time not having a clue that they were being whispered against, campaigned against by both Catholics and Anglicans who made it palpably clear that this initiative was detrimental to the “dialogue towards unity” and temporarily compromised their positions as oecumenical ambassadors – that this was a counter-productive “wacked-out” scheme by an ailing Pope who merely needed to be placated until he died – hence delaying tactics, obfuscations, procedurality, red tape and making everything as difficult and administratively untenable as possible; with patronising sympathy and hand-wringing at their lot while sneering, dismissing and chuckling to themselves that the whole thing will eventually come to naught… that the administration will crumble via crises and power politics and personality clashes and outright frustration at the situation… and ultimately the ordinariate will be re-integrated into the conference system and those not happy about it will crawl back to their friends in the C of E.

This certainly looks like a convincing answer to Damian Thompson’s question: “where is the London church that will serve as the ordinariate’s headquarters?” The answer is that it exists in the imagination and the aspirations of the Ordinary and his entourage: but that it has no existence in reality and never will without the firm intervention of the Pope. The following is the answer that Archbishop Nichols gave at a press conference, to a question about the provision of an ordinariate “cathedral”: “I think that is something probably beyond their resources at the present time, and I don’t think the ordinariate would thank us, actually, to simply give it responsibility for a church that it would have to then maintain and upkeep.

The fact is, however, that those who have crossed the Tiber to the ordinariate do regard a main church as a priority. The fact is also that those 17 new deacons (so many more than are usually ordained at Westminster Cathedral) weren’t being ordained for the Archdiocese of Westminster but for the ordinariate: they ought to have been ordained at the ordinariate’s principal church. The reason that they haven’t got one is simple: it is that Archbishop Nichols has decided that he will not make one available — not because he hasn’t got one but because he is hostile to the ordinariate . To say he won’t give them one because of the costs of maintenance is utterly ridiculous: the archbishop could easily help with that problem for a year or two out of petty cash: it would make up just a little for the extreme meanness of the financial help given by the mainstream English Church thus far. I would not be at all surprised if the very unusual recent gift by the Holy Father of £150,000 wasn’t at least partly intended by him as a rebuke to the English church for its parsimony, and also a way of reminding them of his own very strong support for this brave venture.

There is something else going on. I have a suspicion that there is a hidden ecumenical agenda here, behind the policy of keeping the ordinariate homeless. And behind that lies another intention. At the same time as the Anglican Bishop of London was making it plain that he would sooner demolish an unused Anglican building or turn it into a carpet warehouse than allow an ordinariate parish to use it, Archbishop Nichols was saying that the natural place for ordinariate Catholics to worship would be their local Catholic parish church. Well, it would certainly be the best place if you just want to absorb them within the local parish, while hijacking their clergy – at first to “help out”, and then, who knows? – rather than give them the independent ecclesial existence envisaged in Anglicanorum coetibus.

I really do hope that the nuncio Archbishop Mennini is keeping his eye on this one. For, if he isn’t, and if Rome simply assumes that Archbishop Nichols is doing everything that is necessary for the Pope’s vision to be realised, I fear that the whole enterprise may run into the sands. Everything depends on its maintaining its momentum. But it cannot do that entirely alone in the early stages. In the US and in Australia, the local hierarchy is getting behind the ordinariate. Not here. Why is that?

  • signum_magnum

    I really would like to think that members of the Ordinariate are assimilated with the Church, but the signs are not there. The Ordinariate has its own liturgy (pertaining to its ‘Anglican’ Patrimony, it now wants its own churches, and, forgive me for saying this, but if their churches are as over- decorated as the Anglo-Catholic shrine at Walsingham, then perhaps we should all go that extra mile to accomodate them.

    I would be interested to know what the particular mission is given that we claim membership of One Catholic and Apostolic Church and evangelisation is the call from the Holy Father..

  • Corvopolitanae

    I suggest the Ordinariate begin negotiations with the Rosminians, in that case. They own St Etheldreda’s. 

  • Lazarus

    Well, in one sense, they shouldn’t be assimilated: they are to a degree separate which is why they are an ordinariate rather than simply part of the various dioceses.

    In terms of what their mission is, I suppose you’ll get various answers, but clearly part of the answer is being true to their Anglican patrimony, while being fully part of the Catholic Church. But let’s leave it to the Holy Father:

    ‘The Holy Father, speaking at St Mary’s College, Oscott, at the end of his 2010 State Visit to the United Kingdom, said the Ordinariate “should be seen as a prophetic gesture that can contribute positively to the developing relations between Anglicans and Catholics. It helps us to set our sights on the ultimate goal of all ecumenical activity: the restoration of full ecclesial communion in the context of which the mutual exchange of gifts from our respective spiritual patrimonies serves as an enrichment to us all”. ‘

  • signum_magnum

    O.K. They shouldn’t be assimilated, but we should provide them with a suitable Church so they can practice their Anglican Roman Catholicism more fully?

    I rest my case, and am rather saddened.

  • Jae

    I agree with your post, nicely put.

  • Thomas

    Yes the government seizes the cathedrals by force and then 500 years later we are not even supposed to point that historical fact out. I guess social justice in the UK only applies to citizens of former colonial exploits such as Pakistan refugees. Maybe they should let Richard Dawkins turn an Anglican church into a temple of reason and see if they like that…

  • Jason Clifford

    Every parish, order and institution depends upon the help of the whole Church when faced with large costs. Why should the ordinariate not also receive similar help?

    My local parish needed to carry out substantial works to the parish church. The local parish was not able to raise the money to do the works so the diocese made a loan available.

    To claim that only those who are able to raise large amounts of money are deserving of being Catholic is not only nonsense but it is to worship the idol of money.

  • jeffdownie

    Jessica, only two Catholic churches have closed in Westminster in recent times. One was offered and rejected, the other in Harringay was already gone and likely to be unsuitable. The rest are mostly very busy with large congregations.

  • JessicaHof

    Thanks Jeff; interesting. But I don’t see why the Church has to be in London. The Anglican Mother Church isn’t :)

  • haoben405
  • haoben405
  • amator Dei

    As a Catholic I accept that the Pope has universal jurisdiction over the Church. Is this the same thing as having to agree with every opinion or teaching that he issues – if these (the great majority) are not explicitly defined as “infallible”? If this is not so, it would be good for people to refrain from branding others as Protestants, heretics, dissenters, cafeteria Catholics and the like. 

  • David Murphy

    Although I am a member of the Ordinariate, I must point out that my comments represent only one man’s view, as yet. I, like the Holy Father, see the Ordinariate(s) as a prophetic link between the Anglican Church and the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church from which Anglicanism came. They fulfil this prophetic role within the Roman Catholic Church. In a very similar way the structure which emerges for CofE Anglo-Catholics after this year’s decisions on the episcopal ordination of women (whether it be the Society of St Wilfred and St Hilda or a revised flying-bishop – quasi Ordinariate – structure or …) will perform this prohetic role within the Anglican Communion. The break in relations and friendship and mission and purpose which appears to have taken place wherever CofE groups have become Ordinariate Catholics is absolutely regrettable and fundamentally counter-productive. Anglican Anglo-Catholics and Catholic Anglo-Catholics should have a common yet complimentary purpose, that of keeping Rome alive in Canterbury and enriching Rome with Canterbury, and bringing the two ever closer together.
    Thus I see no reason at all why CofE Anglo-Catholic parishes and Ordinariate parishes should not all be members of Forward in Faith (much the same way that former Bishop Mercer has remained a member of the Community of the Resurrection). And with that the question of the principal church would be solved (by the way, I prefer to say Cathedral, because that is what it is, just like Aldershot Cathedral for the Military Ordinariate in England and Wales). The Forward in Faith church in London (Christ the King, Gordon Square) could immediately become the pro-cathedral for the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham while remaining the principal church of Forward in Faith – an ecumenical cathedral, and what a fantastic one – WOW !! And then one can begin to dream – an ecumenical choir with an ecumenical Choir School, Vatican approval of inter-communion between all the members of Forward in Faith whether Anglican or Catholic, leading hopefully one day to Vatican recognition of the priestly ordination of the Anglican Forward in Faith priests … and …

  • Patrick_Hadley

    I know that there was a lot to learn in quite a short time, but I would have thought that it should have been fully explained to those converting to Catholicism as members of the Ordinariate why they could not remain members of Anglican organisations such as Forward in Faith.

    Are you sure that Fr Robert Mercer has remained a member of the Community of the Resurrection? How can a Catholic priest be a member of an Anglican religious community?

  • KierenMullarkey

    Maybe I missed something … But what exactly is a Catholic Anglo-Catholic? Members of the Ordinariate, as I understand it, are Catholics of the Latin Rite, and definitely not “Anglo”. Regarding intercommunion and the validity of orders, I think he’ll would freeze over first!

    I believe the CTS have published a little leaflet on the Ordinariate, I would suggest that all members of the Ordinariate read it.

  • Lindi

    I like option number 1.

  • jeffdownie

     Fair point Jessica!

  • Cjkeeffe

    The same blogger said teh Archbishop Vincent was to celebrate teh Mass for marriaghe later taht afetrnoon. I thought priests coudl only say one mass on a normal day – thus whats the prolem with him not doing the ordaining earlier in the day?
    Why can’t the ordiante’s just simily become catholics via rcia why do we need the ordiante?

  • David Murphy

    You are right to point out that my shorthand version (Catholic Anglo-Catholics)is not quite correct. It should really read Roman Catholic Anglo-Catholics, but it is also a fact that the Ordinariate is – at least officially – more “Catholic” than CofE Anglo-Catholics, and “Anglo-” describes the specific mission of the Ordinariate to bring Anglican patrimony into the Catholic Church.
    Ordinariate Catholics have thus certainly not ceased to be Anglo-Catholics.
    I also happen to believe that intercommunion and the validity of orders are probably not far from the Pope’s personal agenda in creating the Ordinariates, but then I am an eternal optimist.
    I must admit that I have not read the CTS booklet, but know the Apostolic Constitution, the Complementary Norms, the Decrees of Erection of the Ordinariates very well and have myself compiled a thesaurus on the Anglican Patrimony, so I should be surprised if I gain very many new insights from the booklet.

  • Sszorin

    They, the bishops, espouse the doctrine of the protestants-judaizers, the doctrine of the “separate jewish track” to salvation. The proof is that they abandoned the task of converting the Jews. Psycho terror,progressive guidance by the mass media and “the Catholic Church is guilty for the Holocaust” guilt indoctrination are the jewish instruments to mold the minds of the successors of the apostles  and to direct their decision making for the benefit of  Christ’s enemies. In the USA the U.S. Conference of the Catholic Bishops handed the dogma of the New Covenant superseding the Old Covenant to the jewish trash collectors. The bishops [the co-responsibility went higher still] signed the document that the salvation promises of the Old Covenant to the obstinate Jews are eternally valid and not dependent on the necessity of accepting the New Covenant sealed by the blood of Christ. The document that the bishops signed was the fruit of the ‘New theology’ of the post-Vatican II. ‘New Church’ for the ‘New Order’. The Jews rejoiced. Abraham Foxman, the director of the Anti-defamation League said, after the death of John Paul II., :
    “Most importantly, the Pope rejected the destructive concept of supersessionism …. while sharing his understanding of Judaism as a living heritage, of the permanent validity of God’s covenant with the Jewish people.” Under the pressure mainly from the so called traditionalist catholics, the SSPX included, [and I do not discount the sobering up of some prelates and of Benedict XVI. from the 'New Wine' of the Vatican II.] the Vatican ordered, under the guise of “clarifying” of the text, a quiet retraction of the heretical passages in the document in question. But the damage has been done. For the Jews “the clarification” is a step back, but they took two steps forward before and so they end up a step ahead from before. Now they can laugh and point out that there is no permanency of belief in the Church, the so called Holy Spirit is an errant guide that vaccilates on the question whether the Old Covenant has been superseded or not, and so it follows that the claims of the Church on the inerrancy of its doctrines and its teachings are false, it follows that the Church is false. The trap of the “Nostra Aetate”, the Second Vatican Council document on the Jews with its deliberately set ambiguous language, has worked. Our ‘elder brothers in faith’ the perfidious Jews infected with their virus the program that runs the life of the Catholic Church and so could start demolishing the edifice of the faith, brick of a dogma by brick. For their wicked designs and aims. What did the pope Paul VI. said ?…”..
    the smoke of Satan has entered the Temple of God.”
    Which of the bishops “on this island” is capable of telling the Jews, to their faces, that their “judaic” covenant is not valid ? How many of them would sign the USCCB document, how many of them are Catholic ? How many of them ‘sit on the fences’, of ecumenism, modernism, syncretism…, not being here but somewhere else, being “neither hot nor cold” ? Who is not afraid to say that the Synagogue of Satan is the cause of a lot of evil ? And what would be the odds on the catholic media and the catholic elite defending the bishop who would have the courage and the conviction to tell the Jews “…you live in error and in blindness?” ? …[John 7:13]
    The protestant so called reformers, who were in fact the revolutionaries of the banner ‘non serviam’, the banner raised by that First Protestant even before the creation of Man, the revolutionaries propagated and enforced, amongst their legion, the claim that there is no THE authority [except the humble themselves] on matters of interpreting the word of God in the Holy Books, and that there is no one true Church, only “the Churches”. How many RC bishops follow the protestant dogma that there are many rooms/churches in the House of God ? If the Jews have their own wing why shouldn’t the luterans or the calvinists have the apartments of their own? How many bishops are so possessed by the ecumania that they do not preach the supremacy and the exclusivity of the Catholic Church any more ? How many regard as true the claims made by God Himself on behalf of and for His church ? Do they have the real faith ? Jesus Christ [also, among other Churches] “subsists in” the Catholic Church or “is” [His mystical Body is] the Catholic Church ? What kind of a choice between these two claims can an archbishop of “this island” make if he is recorded saying that he struggles with his faith ? 
    On the 4th of November 1995, in Litmanová in Slovakia, one of the seers of Virgin Mary, Iveta [Ivetka] Korčáková conveying the messages of Our Lady said : “Something will come what was never experienced by the world before and what will never happen again because we need purification…What do you think what else could wake you up?… And purification means that there will be no more indifferent people. I am either for God or against Him. There is nothing in between. Either – or. That is the purification….I know that falsehood which will come will be so big that it will shake the strongest ones…. It will be the fraud that had never been experienced by this world so far. Because the Church needs purification. Do you understand? But if you stay with your Mother the falsehood cannot reach you. There will be many of those who will follow this falsehood.” [As of the end of March 2012 Iveta has been living, temporarily, in Tunbridge Wells, U.K.].

  • David Murphy

    Yes, I am sure that Fr. Robert Mercer is still a member of the Community of the Resurrection (cf. the new St. Agatha’s Portsmouth Ordinariate website).
    And my musings regarding Forward in Faith do not of course reflect the status quo. But I see no reason whatever why it cannot be extended beyond denominational borders to include the Ordinariate. The former Director of Forward in Faith, Mgr. John Broadhurst, the other former flying bishops, and all the other former Forward in Faith members, have not abandoned Anglo-Catholicism but have brought part of the movement into direct communion with the See of Peter.
    Am I so crazy?

  • David Murphy

    I agree that this is the normal and right way for a community to finD a worship space – first maybe rent a space, perhaps share a space with others and then collect the means to acquire or build a church of their own and I am confident that this will happen – it is what happened in the Anglican Use parishes in the States and more recently (post-Ordinariate founding) inthe case of St. Thomas More in Stanton, PA.
    But this article and the ensuing comments refer to the Principal Church or Cathedral of the UK Ordinariate. It would make sense for a suitably sized beautiful church to be put at the Ordinariate’s disposal as a Pro-Cathedral for the short to medium term until such time as the above process can take place.

  • David Murphy

    Patrick, it is blatently obvious that you do not wish to help your new Ordinariate friends. You do not need to repeat it ad infinitum.

  • David Murphy

    I dfon’t like to apportion blame, but the Bishop of London’s short-sightedness does distress me. In creating the Personal Ordinariates, Pope Benedict has not harmed the Church of England in any way. The Ordinariate Catholics would have left the Anglican Communion anyway and become run of the mill Roman Catholics.
    What the Pope has done is to make the Roman Catholic Church more Anglican by encouraging the Anglican Patrimony to be brought into and to enrich the Roman Catholic Church (one would do well to take note of that word “enrich”). And he has created and set aside a part of the Roman Catholic Church with the specific aim of preserving and promoting that patrimony. He has not recognised and incorporated elements of any other Reformation Church!
    On the other hand the C of E is doing everything in its power to make the Anglican Communion less not more “Catholic” – it is still not clear whether a similar provision will be offered to Anglo-Catholics within the C of E, with their own ordinaries, officially recognised liturgy, etc.  

  • David Murphy

    St. Etheldreda’s is a fine mediaeval church – the only one in London that is used by the Roman Catholic Church – but is supremely unsuitable as the Ordinariate Cathedral. It is far too small. The Ordinariate national events, which now have to take place at St. James’. Spanish Place, St. Patrick’s, Soho Square, and Westminster Cathedral for lack of their own premises, would never have fit into St. Etheldreda and this would rather defeat the purpose.
    The Ordinariate will have 80 priests by the end of this year and way over a thousand lay faithful, and we are only 18 months into the experiment.

  • W Oddie

    Realistic. I know too much.

  • W Oddie

    The splendid Anglican shrine at Walsingham, compared with the reduced, bare, brutalist concrete Catholic one, is the comparison between what many Catholics would like the Catholic Church everywhere to be (as it already is at the Oxford and Brompton Oratories) and what it all too sadly and too often is. It is also the explanation why the Ordinariate wants to keep its liturgical independence, and why the pope agreed to set it up in the first place. Who can blame them?

  • W Oddie

    Couldn’t agree more. It would be perfect: and the Ordinariate would give it the proper care it deserves. Rosminians, please note: you would be doing a great thing for the Church and the pope.

  • W Oddie

    A great base of operations and fabulous cassocks, please. Don’t be so pompous.

  • KierenMullarkey

    I am still trying to figure out what is meant by the Anglican Patrimony. Also, I am waiting to see how the Ordinariate will develop in the North, at the moment the majority seem to be based in the South, although there exists plenty of ‘Anglo Catholics’ in the Diocese of Blackburn.

    It would be interesting to hear your thoughts.

  • Patrick_Hadley

    There may be no problem with an Anglican community offering hospitality to Fr Mercer and allowing him to continue to live with them after he became a Catholic.  That is rather different from him being a member of the community. I cannot imagine that he would have been ordained as priest if he were still a member, rather than a guest, of an Anglican community.

    Does Mgr Broadhurst still consider himself to be an Anglo-Catholic? I would hope that he realises that while has brought some elements of his Anglican patrimony with him from the Church of England, he has left Anglicanism behind.

  • KierenMullarkey

    I noticed on one of your other posts that there is soon to be 1000 laity welcomed into communion with the Catholic Church through the Ordinariate, of course that would relate to a small Catholic parish. This is not me knocking the Ordinariate, but should a Mother Church be a priority at this time?

  • KierenMullarkey

    I noticed on one of your other posts that there is soon to be 1000 laity welcomed into communion with the Catholic Church through the Ordinariate, of course that would relate to a small Catholic parish. This is not me knocking the Ordinariate, but should a Mother Church be a priority at this time?

  • signum_magnum

    Oh dear Dr. Oddie. The ‘brutalist concrete Catholic one’ bears no resemblance to the RC Shrine which is at the Slipper Chapel. I am assuming you are thinking of the Chapel of Reconciliation nearby, which, whilst not to my taste, is far from being as you describe. As for the Anglican Shrine, I have not been to the Oxford or Brompton Oratories, but regularly go to the Birmingham Oratory, and this Oratory, so beloved by Bl. John Henry Newman is nothing as OTT Walsingham.

    I will not get into an ‘ours is better than yours’ but will say that sometimes less is more. Btw, the Parish Church, in the grounds of which Hope-Paton is buried, was delightful, and evoked a peace that, after the Shrine, my soul needed, and their choir, which was in practice that evening was of concert quality and would shame many of our Catholic choirs. (They were practicing Tallis).

  • Burt

    I am glad to notice the Holy Father has not been inclined to award Vincent the red hat to pull his rabbits from. I wonder why?…not!
    Unless the Archbishop starts to act like an authentic leader of the One True Church I hope we never have to call him Cardinal.

  • paulpriest

    Dr Oddie: That wasn’t an anonymous comment in response to Damian Thompson.
    I wrote it.

  • Burt

    Oh how I long for the day when the RCIA way is done away with. it is another of the novelties introduced since (but not because of…maybe) Vatican II. No doubt it has been detrimental to authentic Catholicism. Imagine if converts such as Ronald Knox, Evelyn Waugh or G. K. Chesterton had to put up with misinformed, uneducated, parish busybodies, opining their views and presenting them with the pseudo-Catholicism I expect is the usual case today. In more sane days, a one to one, with a good priest and the Catechism, overlooked by The Holy Ghost was surely best.

  • JPW

    How about St Agatha’s…in Portsmouth.

  • henleng291
  • Little Black Censored

    This comment is a good example of what will hold many back from the Ordinariate: i.e. a dislike of continuity, an insistence on a clean break and implicit renunciation of error. This dislike of continuity has been evident even in the management of the Ordinariate itself, while members hoping for other things, like David Murphy, will have to keep quiet and stay optimistic.

  • Deeveeant

    Yet, despite directly insulting me, you failed to answer my question.  Perhaps a sad reflection of the church at large.

  • Arthur Rusdell-Wilson

    I agree with much of what David says. I have never understood why Christ the King Gordon Square has never either being asked for, or offered, as the mother church of the Ordinariate. Helpfully, it is not a church, either parochial or peculiar, of the Church of England. My understanding is that it still vests in Trustees established by the, now defunct, Catholic Apostolic Church, or Irvingites. It could offer hospitality to the Ordinariate, whilst still offering similar hospitality to Forward in Faith. Many of the friends of the Ordinariate, and of Catholic Anglicanism, were dismayed to see the unnecessary gulf which quickly grew between the Ordinariate and Forward in Faith.
    A point also needs to be made about the status of the Ordinariate. Whilst it is not a Ritual Church, but part of the Latin Rite, this does not mean that it is part of the Conference of Bishops of England and Wales in a manner similar to that Conference’s other dioceses. Its Ordinary is a member of that Conference, so that the Ordinariate, and the dioceses may co-operate, as all Catholics should, in the mission of the Church in this land. However each of the bishops of England and Wales has ordinary jurisdiction which is proper to his office, whilst the Ordinary’s jurisdiction is vicarious, and the one of whom he is Vicar is our Holy Father the Pope. Whilst being a member of the Conference, none of the Archbishops who are fellow members is his Metropolitan, neither are they Metropolitan to any of the clergy or laity of the Ordinariate.
    It is my belief that the mission of the Ordinariate, entrusted to it by His Holiness will suffer if it is not clearly seen to be ‘united, not absorbed.’  

  • LongIslandMichael

    The more I read and see about Archbishop Nichols the less and less I like. He sounds like the UK version of Milwaukee’s Archbishop Rembert Weakland with regards to vindictiveness and lack of charity. 

  • John Shiner Coventry

    Rome was not built in a day and  Archbishop Vincent is a holy priest but has many big problems 
    to consider every day. Please be patient, The Church is not a building but the followers of  Jesus
    Christ and is not about earthly power and possessions however desirable.