Wed 20th Aug 2014 | Last updated: Wed 20th Aug 2014 at 15:26pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Latest News

Ordinariate news: How many priests and people will come?

By on Friday, 11 March 2011

The three first priests of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham are ordained in Westminster Cathedral in January PA

The three first priests of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham are ordained in Westminster Cathedral in January PA

There’s been a lot of speculation about the numbers for the new Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham and varying reports on how many Anglican priests ceased their ministry on Ash Wednesday in order to join the ordinariate. They have begun preparation for reception and ordination. The numbers have ranged from 20 priests and 200 people to 75 priests and almost 1,000 people.

Fr Keith Newton, the Ordinary, said today that at present “it looks like over 60 priests and about 750 lay people” are set to join the ordinariate.

  • Mr. Blind

    Martyjo,

    “Only the blindest of people would argue that these references of Our Lord applied merely to the lifespan of St. Peter and were not intended to institute the Holy See built upon Peter and his successors”

    The Lords references I suggest are for any man prepared to take up the burden of the office of St Peter. That is not to say our Pope has not encumbered such nobility on himself, but nowhere is there any such scripture I am aware of, that departs this special privelage on the Roman Catholic Church alone. Indeed, there are those outside the RCC who have earned such title by Word and Deed.

    I believe the Pope has taken up St Peters Burden of office for who else’s voice in our vast atheist wilderness do we hear amidst the cheers of Gods enemies but was it the Roman Church that has made him worthy of such honour or could it be that it is his simple love and devotion to God by which he has become enobled by Christ himself?

    Sometimes, it is necessary to give up power to achieve it!

    May God forgive me for any redress of error –

  • Anonymous

    The one who wrote the book upon which was based the anti-Catholic film “The Magdalene Sisters” was exposed by her own family as a fraud. She had never been raised by those nuns in Ireland, as she claimed, but used the abuse controversy to make money at the expense of some very good reputations. I had an aunt who was taken in by the Magdalene Sisters in Ireland. She flourished under their kindness.

    As for the sexual abuse of children by clergy. In general, the relatively low percentage of cases legally recorded as proven, by which I mean those which have been proven without doubt, and without the attraction of money for testimony some forty years after the alleged offence(s), in terms of the universal priesthood, have mostly involved teenage boys, which hints at a male/male attraction. Now, no one will tell me that such an attraction is just a celibacy issue.

  • Anonymous

    People in glass houses should refrain from throwing stones. Remember, the founder of the Anglican religion you defend died of syphilis!

  • Eric Conway

    I’m not getting into the gutter with you. Bye, bye, take care & God bless.

  • Anonymous

    I quite enjoy a wee sneer at “wimmin” priests myself. It’s as ridiculous a manifestation theologically as the bearded lady of the circus was anatomically. Thank God for the Catholic Church which, even in its present crisis, will never revive within her hallowed walls what is, in effect, pagansim.

  • Anonymous

    I think you confuse the burden incumbent upon all Christians (to live uprightly) with the specific office imparted to Peter and the Apostles (to preach and teach with authority). You surely do not believe that it is by human strength alone that the successors of St. Peter have, until this very day, refused to conform to the world’s ever-declining standards of morality?

    No, it is by divine power (infallibility) that these popes, otherwise prone to human weakness like the rest of us, have resisted, like Jesus Christ Our Lord in the desert, the beasts of human passion and the offers of earthly comfort from Satan, to stand steadfast before a mocking world.

  • weary convert

    Did Henry VIII actually die of syphilis? By the time of his welcome demise he probably suffered from every illness under the sun. As to the Anglican Church, actually I suppose the “founder” if so one can call her, was Elizabeth I whose church policy was an attempt to find a middle way after the extravagant radicalism of poor young Edward VI’s ministers and the fanaticism and burnings of the ultra-Catholic Mary. In that respect I think one will find that the number of people burned at the stake for Mary in her few short years as Queen roughly equalled those priests martyred in the reign of Elizabeth. However it is obviously quite wrong to try to balance one lot of horrid deaths against another.

    Perhaps I might revert to an earlier comment by “Martyjo” (has he really made 279 comments on this “blog” – good gracious!) where he states (not to me, however), “You surely do not believe that it is by human strength alone that the successors of St. Peter have, until this very day, refused to conform to the world’s ever-declining standards of morality?”

    Looking at the Tudor period, it is perhaps relevant that Mary’s Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Pole, was nearly elected Pope himself in 1550 only to be pipped at the post by the undoubtedly homosexual Julius III who notoriously made his teenage catamite a Cardinal. And then the unfortunate Pole’s life ended under a cloud with the universally detested, Jew-baiting and possibly insane Pope Paul IV accusing him of heresy.

    I hope these comments show how it is necessary to discuss the complicated religious struggles of the 16th century in a dispassionate way and not to toss rhetoric around like the character, “Din the Downshouter” in the novel “The Cardinal”

  • http://twitter.com/McHeir Paulina

    Okay, just let them be, I mean those theologians. Why we have to change the Tradition because of their lack of imagination? The condition is simple: you have to obey the Church and many years ago you had your aggiornamento. That’s enough.

  • Anonymous

    Goodness, you must own the entire BBC religious history collection. Watch out, though, for rumour has it that the BBC is ever so slightly biased against Catholicism.

    It’s not good to sit on a couch all day tattie munching your way through programme after programme, soaking in all those dark and perverse works of fiction. I blame the miserable British weather myself. That together with these dull energy-saving light bulbs. It’s little wonder you’re suffering from serious SAD syndrome.

    Get yourself under one of those special lamps or something, brighten up, get yourself a social life and read some balanced works. Who knows, you might even begin to appreciate what Cardinal Pole suffered for his stance against Henry’s divorce, no less than the martyrdom of his mother and some sibblings.

    On that score, don’t you find it just a tad odd that a man who sacrificed everything rather than compromise God’s moral law to suit Henry VIII, would himself be a closet pervert, as you suggest? Go on with you now, get some light in your life and stop drinking in all that bigoted rubbish.

  • Weary Convert

    What an extraordinary response to a few simple statements which tried to stress that the religious disputes of the 16th century require careful and dispassionate study. Where on earth does the writer get the idea that I suggest Cardinal Pole was a “closet pervert?” He was a civilised and devoted man whose family suffered appallingly from the wickedness of Henry VIII. And while Pole did not go out of his way to stop the burnings, he did manage to have a few spared, emphasising again the need to study the period dispassionately.

    It was fairly recently that I came across this “blog” (such an ugly word), hoping to find a place of intelligent discussion but instead it seems to be riddled with the history and theology of the public bar. I now realise, therefore, that there is little point in continuing to look at what I regret are the wilder fantasies of obsessives who post much but seem to learn little. It perhaps demonstrates Sebastian’s comment in “Brideshead.” – “I wish I liked Catholics more.”

  • Weary Convert

    Further to my last posting, for interest I trawled though some other comments made on this website and discovered, I think, that many years ago, Martyjo seems to have defected from the Church to the Society of St. Pius X. As the most recent meetings of that organisation with the Vatican demonstrate, discussion with such a group is pointless. If however, Martyjo has left that Society and returned to the Church, then I naturally apologise for this mistake but sadly would still see little use in attempting any further discussion with one so quick to turn any comment which he neither understands nor accepts, to personal abuse. Maybe this is a standard tactic in that Society towards anyone who disagrees with their Protestant-like determination to dissent from the mainstream Church.

  • Semper Fidelis

    Well said Martyjo. The whole ” abuse industry ” in Ireland is highly questionable. The legal profession were trawling for ” victims ” in order to make a financial killing. In addition to your facts about the woman who invented her story about the Magdalene Laundries, the guy who made the propagandist film you refer to, which is repeated ad-nauseum on Irish TV, is a virulent anti-Catholic bigot. The Irish media ( & their British & other counterparts ) went into hysterics of mass anti-Catholic hysteria over highly questionable claims of abuse, whenit related to the Catholic Church. However, just this week reports emerged of horrific cases of abuse/neglect of children in the States care over the last few years ( 200 chidren died in the States care in the last 10 years ) ; the reaction of the Irish media ?. – hardly a peep. I rest my case !.

  • Anonymous

    I regret that you find our intellectual standards here to be inferior to your own, but you can’t seriously expect a rational religious discussion based on quotations from novels and crank claims about “Jew-baiting” and “almost certainly homosexual” popes, can you?

    Now it’s humility time! I owe you an apology for misunderstanding your references to Cardinal Pole. You did not, in fact, insinuate that he was a pervert, I just read it wrong. Let’s say that I had a stressful day yesterday.

    Anyway, there is no point in going over all the same old Protestant lies with you about the popes and about Mary being more of a serial killer than Elizabeth. The bottom line is that, regardless of the personal failings in Popes, yes, even great personal sins, it remains a fact that God preserves them from error when they teach on faith and morals to the universal Church. The Protestant revolutionaries lost sight of this, judging, as they do, all things on a purely natural level.

    As for the personal failings of Catholics in general, and their relationship to Sebastian’s comment in “Brideshead” that he wished he liked Catholics more, the simple reality is that we Catholics are sinners. We do try to live uprightly, but we are human and weak. That’s why Our Lord gave His Church the Sacrament of Confession, a truly astonishing supernatural gift for the regaining of one’s peace of soul.

    Anyway, to the oft-repeated claim that the Catholic Church is full of hypocrites, I can but respond that there is always room for one more!

    By the way, I suspect Sebastian did eventually get to like Catholics more when, in the end, he finally listened to his conscience and abandoned his homosexual activity.

  • Anonymous

    A person who holds a discussion with himself on a blog doesn’t really deserve to be taken seriously.

  • Bonydiver

    Presuming your conclusions as the identfy the successor to Peter relying upon ones ability to resist todays declining standards, that supports my view and scripture that it is Christ himself who decides the successor to his church. Not Rome or its Cardinals. Can you put your hand on your heart with truth and say previous popes have held fast against the declining standards of the day Or have there been times when they have positively contributed towards it?

    Pope Stephen VI 896 to 897. Fueled by his anger with Pope Formosus, his predecessor, he exhumed Formosus’s rotting corpse and put “him” on trial, in the so-called “Cadaver Synod” in January, 897. With the corpse propped up on a throne, a deacon was appointed to answer for the deceased pontiff, who was condemned for performing the functions of a bishop when he had been deposed and for receiving the pontificate while he was the bishop of Porto, among other revived charges that had been leveled against Formosus in the strife during the pontificate of John VIII. The corpse was found guilty, stripped of its sacred vestments, deprived of three fingers of its right hand (the blessing fingers), clad in the garb of a layman, and quickly buried; it was then re-exhumed and thrown in the Tiber. All ordinations performed by Formosus were annulled.

    Pope Benedict IX 1032 to 1044, Again in 1045, and finally from 1047 to 1048, the only man to have served as Pope for three discontinuous periods, Benedict gave up his papacy for the first time in exchange for a large sum of money in 1044. He returned in 1045 to depose his replacement and reigned for one month, after which he left again, possibly to marry, and sold the papacy for a second time, to his Godfather (possibly for over 650 kg /1450 lb of gold). Two years later, Benedict retook Rome and reigned for an additional one year, until 1048. Poppo of Brixen (later to become Pope Damascus II) eventually forced him out of Rome. Benedict’s place and date of death are unknown, but some speculate that he made further attempts to regain the Papal Throne. St. Peter Damian described him as “feasting on immorality” and “a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest” in the Liber Gomorrhianus, a treatise on papal corruption and sex that accused Benedict IX of routine homosexuality and bestiality.

    I could go on

  • Weary Convert

    I wonder how else one can add a new thought to a previous posting? However, I am sure that Martyjo with nearly 300 of these things knows far more about internet etiquette than an old man like me. But picking up on my second posting, as he has not commented on the point made, I suppose that Martyjo is, indeed, a member of the Pius X society so to quote his own comment, on a presumably Catholic “blog”, he “doesn’t really deserve to be taken seriously.” Which means that for me, there is nothing more to say.

  • Anonymous

    When I wrote of the popes not conforming to the world’s ever-declining standards of morality, I wasn’t referring to their personal standards. Rather, I was demonstrating, as you have amply done with your tale of two popes, that despite personal failings, even grave sins, no pope has ever taught against Catholic faith and morals in his official office of Pontiff of the universal Church. It’s an astounding fact, but indisputable.

    As for the two you trawled up from 1000 years ago(?) While it is indeed true that Stephen VI committed the atrocious act against Formosis that you reference, it is less clear what actually motivated him. The general opinion is that he acted more from a desire to please the wicked and vengeful Agiltrude and Emperor Lambert than from any personal hatred of Formosis. Nevertheless, his actions were appalling and his successors made that perfectly clear by their nullifying of his decrees against Formosis and the re-interring of his remains.

    I must take issue with you in the case of the second pope you cite, namely Benedict IX. It seems this pope was placed on the papal throne by his father at the age of around 20 years. He did indeed live dissolutely for some time, although there is no evidence whatever to suggest that this included either homosexual or bestial behaviour.

    It would appear, though, according to the tradition of the Abbey of Grottaferrata, first set down by Abbot Luke, who died about 1085, and corroborated by sepulchral and other monuments within its walls, that Benedict had a rather more happy end than you suggest.

    Writing of Bartholomew, its fourth abbot (1065), Luke tells of the youthful pontiff turning from his sin and coming to Bartholomew for a remedy for his disorders. On the saint’s advice, Benedict definitely resigned the pontificate and died in penitence at Grottaferrata. [See “St. Benedict and Grottaferrata” (Rome, 1895), a work founded on the more important “De Sepulcro Benedicti IX”, by Dom Greg. Piacentini.

    As for his papal office, it seems there is a little more history to that story than you conveyed. I make no defence of Benedict’s personal behaviour, but there were factions and antipopes involved in this business as well. It was not all down to his living a dissolute life. This link provides a little more detail: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02429a.htm

    Suffice it to say that if Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve Apostles could betray Our Lord, and Peter, from fear, deny Him, should we be shocked that certain popes have fallen into quite serious personal sin? The fact still remains that despite all of this, no pope has ever taught against Catholic Faith and morals. Now that is impressive!

  • Anonymous

    I am only too willing to debate with any “weary convert” who puts forward objective, factual argument. I cannot, however, debate with a weary Willy whose argument amounts to quotations from works of fiction interpsersed with the vilest unfounded accusations against past popes. Sorry if that offends, but there it is.

  • Weary Convert

    I am not offended but merely disappointed. I used to read The Catholic Herald avidly, especially in the great days of Vatican II but eventually stopped when it descended into little more than a slightly up-market version of The Universe. Much later I found this website almost by chance and thought that it might be interesting to contribute. But I had never imagined that it would be a vehicle for such wild and wounding comments, not just in response to my own posts but towards many others on other subjects. For example, while the comments I made on Julius III and Paul IV are indisputable and easily confirmed, I fear that even making them was really intended to raise the hackles of those I felt were obscurantists buried in their own prejudices. So it can be seen that the devilish thing about these “blogs” is that one finds oneself in danger of dropping down to the same level as point is scored against point to absolutely no conclusion – and I can see that this is happening to me. So, although Martyjo and those of his persuasion will doubtless delight in the belief that they have driven an enemy from the field, I shall nevertheless withdraw and leave this website to those such as William Oddie and his hatred of the “Spirit of Vatican II” which he neither experienced nor understands.

  • Anonymous

    You are perfectly at liberty to withdraw from this blog if you wish. I, for one, will not imagine that I have driven an enemy from the field. On the contrary, I shall lament the fact that a man of your age, remembering the Faith of old, has withdrawn from debate praising the spirit of Vatican II. You may be certain of one thing, the spirit of Vatican II is not the Holy Spirit!

  • Chris

    What horrible, and revealing, things you say Martyjo. Thank goodness those in the mainstream churches with views like yours are in a small fundamentalist minority. Just nasty.

  • Anonymous

    Well, if I’m nasty in pointing out the truth then long may God preserve that particular nasty streak in me! One thing remains certain, there will be no little lady priests in the Catholic Church. In the true religion the women are expected to model themselves on the Blessed Virign Mother, and that excludes big mamma the parish priestess!

  • Kim

    As a former Anglican now RC I hope that you come soon! I was brought up Anglican, but attended an Episcopalian church in the US. I became Catholic 4 years ago and wish I had moved sooner.

  • Syble

    The Truth? Oh yes. You and you alone know what that is. You astound me in your ability to know so certainly the mind of God. You must be very, very special.

    The True Religion? Oh yes! You, and you alone, have superior knowledge of course. Because you have a willy.

    Actually – tell me the real truth: you’re a plant aren’t you? It’s a wind up isnt’ it? The number of posts you make tell me you can’t possibly have anything useful to do with your time. Just like wee Eck Conway? I get caught out by you guys all the time! I think you’re for real and then realise you are just paid plants to get a contentious debate going. Ah well.

    Congratulations! You had me there for just a wee while!

  • Anonymous

    When will the Anglican Church offer a Roman Catholic Ordinariate for Catholic clergy who want to join a sacramental church that ordains women and does not consider homosexual marriage a sin? Why aren’t Anglicans pressing for this?

  • Anonymous

    You just scolded someone for anti-Catholic bullying, yet your harsh words for those who are Christian and liberal are a form of bigoted bullying.

  • Anonymous

    Obviously, from the comments here, Christians are not known by “how they love one another.” And they seem to put no stock in the commandment, “Love they neighbor as theyself.” In illustrating what that commandment meant, the early church included the story of the Good Samaritan. Samaritans were despised heretics among the Jews.

    Why do so many Christians confine themselves to tribalism in religion?

  • Dio

    yah, well – that´s because “inclusive” means a lot of things, but doesn´t include God, does it? Much more important to include ACTIVE gays (BEING gay isn´t even considered sinful, ACTING on such impulses is) and women (I am one!) who value “clerical power” (whatever that may be) over 2000 years of tradition and the example of Our Lord. Enjoy.

  • Antony Ryan

    Anglican orders are valid as Anglican orders, but invalid as Catholic orders. The former are therefore proper Anglican priests and not laymen.

  • Anonymous

    You are in serious error. Holy Orders is a divine sacrament that can only be bestowed by the Catholic Church, which is of divine foundation. Non-Catholic men cannot make priests out of other men no matter how much they protest to the contrary. Anglican bishops and priests, therefore, are, as the Church has rightly judged, just laymen in the eyes of God.

  • LOZDURHAM

    Tthis is wonderful news blessed john henry is obviously interceeding for Mother Church ,God bless all those who are joining us it will be a true joy to have them in full communion at last.

  • Fr Gerard

    The Anglican Communion has no theology for this and no Catholic Clergy wouldn’t join it as it wouldn’t be a Roman Catholic Ordinariate as it would be divided from Rome. I believe the Anglican Church in Peru came up with some publicity for this idea but former Catholic priests who belong to other ‘Catholic’ jursidictions often have lots of problems with Anglican teaching and, as one former Catholic priest said to me “If I wanted to be an Anglican, I would have joined them when I left. I am looking for a way home”.

  • Fr Gerard

    Excuse the errors in the first line.

  • AgingPapist

    the Episcopal Church of Brazil has a large number of former Roman Catholic priests and they don’t seem to have any difficulty with Anglican teaching.

  • AgingPapist

    Lucifer? LOL LOL Only a child believes in Lucifer and would make these paranoid rantings about protestants echoing something/someone who never existed.

    You’ve made an excellent case for Petrine primacy. Which isn’t the issue as far as most historians of Christianity are concerned. Unfortunately, it has nothing to do with Rome as successor to Peter. Christ never concerned himself with issues of succession and there is no way you can interpret his remarks to Peter as establishing a line of successors in Rome. The list of Peter’s successors is considered questionable, if not downright bogus.

    Rome has used these quotes from Christ to Peter to grab power and prestige for itself. Peter’s overlordship of Christianity through the pope of Rome has never been accepted in the eastern Church. Despite the honors paid to popes who made valuable contributions in ecumenical councils in establishing articles of Faith.

    Orthodoxy and infallibility rest with the universal Church, including the Presbyterate of the Laity–”the royal priesthood” The pope shares in it, but he has no monarachical status. Defamations of protestants will not change this fact. You’re spouting pure humbug.

    Peter and his successors did not possess any guarantees apart from the other 12 apostles. The granting of the keys to Peter alone is open to many interpretations. The power of binding and loosing is granted to all apostles, not just Peter. Peter and only Peter has been commissioned to “confirm the brethren”, but having said that, the other apostles don’t exist at his pleasure and they do not derive their legitimacy as apostles from Peter. Nor should any bishop of the Church have to look to Rome in order to carry out his apostolic mission. Bishops rule by Divine Right. It is a usurpation of power by the pope going back to the early middle ages to make diocesan bishops dependent upon him.

  • Czarina

    Please send some of these priests to the U.S!
    We want and need them!

  • AgingPapist

    “Most Anglicans dont use Roman rite liturgies and they wont be attracted to a group that is entirely Roman and so far exclusively modern’
    —————————————————————————————————————————————————
    In my view, the Ordinariate was set up with largely the Roman church in mind. Drawing more from the “Anglican patrimony” as a model for Roman reform. A smart thing for Rome to do. The clever old Bavarian bureaucrat has got his way again.

    Anglo Catholics who are more at home in Rome than they ever were in the Anglican communion will more than likely be receiving a liturgy approved by the CDW using the Roman novus ordo and the Anglican missal. Both with some optional Sarum and Cranmerian features. It will have a powerful effect on Latin rite Catholics who don’t want an all Latin liturgy, whether it is with Tridentine rubrics and praxis, or balloon masses with prancing clowns as celebrants.

    Most Anglicans in the USA seem more than comfortable with the 1928 BCP, or the 1979 revised novus ordo-like liturgy. They are, after all, more likely to be free thinkers who identify themselves as “broad” or “low church” , and have very antagonistic views towards Anglo Catholics and Rome,. They are true children of the Enlightenment who may just enjoy a good Anglican/Roman floor show with lots of smells and bells.

    What’s really important is the vast majority of Anglicans worldwide approve of women priests and bishops. It is an established practice now in so many parts of the Commonwealth and the USA, and there’s no turning the clock back. It’s just a matter of time before the CofE approves lady overseers. Rome and her Anglo Catholic allies can rant and rave til the cows come home, but the genii is out of the bottle and Anglicans are moving on. Out of the 16th century and surging into the 21st century. They’ll be leaving Pope Benedict and his new found friends to struggle with their unique set of issues while climbing into the 18th century.

    It will be interesting to see what happens after the initial rush of conversions to the Ordinariate. The numbers may improve somewhat at first, but I think soon level off. Waiting to see what new areas of mutual agreement will be reached with the Orthodox

  • AgingPapist

    “Remember, the founder of the Anglican religion you defend died of syphilis!”

    Quite apart from the fact that Henry VIII indeed did not “found” the Anglican “religion”, so did several popes Martyjo.

  • AgingPapist

    Go on with you now, get some light in your life and stop drinking in all that bigoted rubbish.
    ————————————————————————————————————————————————
    Rubbish? Come on. You mean good historical fact. Which must have the same effect for you Martyjo as a bucket of water had for the wicked witch of the west in “The Wizard of Oz”.

  • MartyJo

    I would like to see some evidence for such a ridiculous assertion. And Henry did found the Anglican religion, that’s why he declared himself the head of the Church of England.