Divine Worship: the Missal to be published in November

This week the Catholic Truth Society announced the publication in November of Divine Worship: The Missal. These texts for the celebration of Mass have been approved and promulgated by the Holy See for use in the Personal Ordinariates established under the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus.

divine worship missalWith high quality leather binding, gilding, Florentine blocking, ribbons and beautifully illustrated, this Missal will foster the noble and worthy celebration of the sacred liturgy in the Ordinariates worldwide, and provide an essential study text for all who love the Church’s worship. The Missal includes the Order of Mass, Proper of Time and Sanctoral cycle with votive, ritual and Masses for the dead with all the main liturgical texts set to music.

It can be pre-ordered from CTS Online at a price of £300.

(Ordinariate Groups in the UK are asked to contact Mgr Keith Newton’s secretary – secretary@ordinariate.org.uk – for further information about a special purchase order.)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

31 Responses to Divine Worship: the Missal to be published in November

  1. Alan Fouche says:

    The extraordinary cost of this production will place access to the new Missal beyond the reach of many Ordinariate members, who include a substantial number of pensioners. It is well known that some of the Ordinariate leaders in England strongly favour the Novus Ordo and look with disfavour on their Anglican liturgical heritage. Is this a way of ensuring that their practices will prevail? Indeed many Ordinariate services in England are indistinguishable from mainstream Catholic masses, leading one to wonder why the celebrants in question ever joined the Ordinariate. Rather than a lavishly produced example of gilding and Florentine blocking (whatever that may be), we need a reasonably priced Missal that can be obtained and used by lay members of the Ordinariate. In this regard, it is interesting to note that a new copy of the reissued 1962 Roman Missal, consisting of 2248 pages printed on paper of excellent quality, can be obtained from an American publisher for about $US60. Ordinariate members who have looked forward with eager anticipation to the new Missal are entitled to feel cheated.

    • The CTS altar edition of the Roman Missal in English costs £230, not significantly cheaper. However, there are two cheaper versions (the chapel version – £115 – and the study version – £50). Time will tell whether a cheaper, simpler version of the Ordinariate Missal will be made available – but this will depend on the number of copies which are likely to be bought. (In the case of the altar edition, the publisher will be lucky if many more than 200 are sold, which of course justifies the steep price.)

      • I have just checked the prices of the USCCB edition of the Roman Missal, which are considerably lower. The altar edition costs $129 (less than one third of the CTS Divine Worship Missal), the chapel edition $84 and the study edition $26 !! (The Catholic Truth Society is obviously not a cheap publisher. These price differences make one wonder whether the American publisher might have been able to produce a more affordable Divine Worship Missal.)

  2. Antonia says:

    I’ve been hesitating about whether to comment, because I really don’t want to start a thread of the sort that occasionally appears here (apologies if it happens, David)…

    But am I completely alone in feeling uncomfortable and ambivalent about the publication of this missal, beautiful though it looks? I wonder what other things Ordinariate groups could profitably do with such a sum of money; will they feel under pressure to buy it?

    I worry that so much time and energy spent on the words used in worship will short-circuit the process of discovering other less tangible but possibly more urgent definitions of what our Anglican Patrimony is. I hope the newly re-formed Anglicanorum Cœtibus Society will address this question! In England (I cannot speak for other countries) the language of Cranmer is not a treasure that many ex-Anglicans bring with them. I hear how people joining the Church through the Ordinariate have had to struggle to get used to a form of liturgy which bears little relation to anything they actually experienced as Anglicans (few clergy or laypeople will have worshipped regularly with the Book of Common Prayer and many will have actively avoided it) and which, ironically, sets them apart from their fellow Catholics just as they encounter the joy of being received into the Universal Church.

    I question just how much projects like this new missal will foster the aims of Anglicanorum Cœtibus of forging bonds of unity with our dioceses, preaching the Gospel to every creature and seeking to heal the wounds in the Body of Christ. Our energy is limited, the time is short and the fields ready for harvest. It’s vital to consider what our priorities should be.

    • Dear Antonia,

      I cannot support your point of view 100%. I do believe that liturgy is part of the patrimony, even in the UK. Those Anglicans who, following Vatican II, opted for the Roman Missal, even though it was not a legitimate Anglican liturgy, did so to demonstrate their desire for communion with the See of Peter, at the risk of abandoning their Anglican heritage.

      The C of E went on to develop the various “Series”, the Alternative Service Book and Common Worship as an attempt to integrate important features of the Book of Common Prayer with many elements of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Catholic liturgy. Not even this was accepted and used by many Anglo-Catholics, although Bishop Andrew Burnham was instrumental in its formulation.

      When, therefore, many groups of Anglicans petitioned to enter into full communion, whilst maintaining elements of Anglican Patrimony, what did they honestly intend to bring with them in the area of liturgy? If they intended to go on using the Ordinary Form, despite their no longer having to do so in order to demonstrate their Catholicity, why on earth did they ask for a separate jurisdiction?.

      If, however, their intention was to comply with Vatican II’s and Pope Benedict’s vision of receptive ecumenism, bringing into the Catholic Church significant elements of Anglicanism, then – I believe – they should have reflected on their liturgical practice and decided to use a form similar to Common Worship, incorporating contemporary-language versions of emblematic Anglican (Cranmerian) prayers like the Collect for Purity, the other Cranmerian Collect translations, the Prayer of Humble Access and the Thanksgiving after Communion from the Book of Common Prayer, the Anglican practice of using many biblical quotations in the Communion Service (like the Commandments, or Beatitudes, the Comfortable Words, the Sentences, the Blessing formula) into the text of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. As in The Book of Divine Worship, a second Ordo in hieratic language could have been provided for.

      As it is, we only have the Elizabethan hieratic Mass. That this is no longer typically Anglican for many people in Britain, is evident, but I contend that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (or the Extraordinary Form) are considerably less so. I think it is clear what my suggestion would be, but I have been warned in no uncertain terms not to promote it because it would have no chance of being accepted by the authorities.

      David Murphy.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        David,

        You wrote: I cannot support your point of view 100%. I do believe that liturgy is part of the patrimony, even in the UK. Those Anglicans who, following Vatican II, opted for the Roman Missal, even though it was not a legitimate Anglican liturgy, did so to demonstrate their desire for communion with the See of Peter, at the risk of abandoning their Anglican heritage.

        The reality is that each ordinariate congregation has its own patrimony, and that the patrimony of many congregations in the United Kingdom includes extensive — or even exclusive — use of the ordinary form of the Roman Rite. I’m not convinced that the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham will die if some — perhaps even a majority — of its congregations continue to use the ordinary form of the Roman Rite, as they did as Anglicans.

        My impression is that the situation in the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter and in the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross is very different than in the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. The preponderance of ordinariate congregations in North America and in Australia used Anglican liturgical books prior to joining the respective ordinariates, and thus have naturally gravitated to the Divine Worship use. These ordinariates also have had virtually no ordinariate-wide events, so there’s little doubt that their distinctive liturgy has much more significance in their common identity.

        The tragedy here would be to impose a “one size fits all” solution on three ordinariates that are very different from one another — especially if doing so causes an ordinariate’s members to abandon it in favor of the respective local dioceses.

        You wrote: When, therefore, many groups of Anglicans petitioned to enter into full communion, whilst maintaining elements of Anglican Patrimony, what did they honestly intend to bring with them in the area of liturgy? If they intended to go on using the Ordinary Form, despite their no longer having to do so in order to demonstrate their Catholicity, why on earth did they ask for a separate jurisdiction?

        There are still substantial differences in the liturgy itself — choice of liturgical music, manner of preaching, public celebration of morning prayer and evensong, festivals in the ordinariate’s liturgical calendar, etc. — that are praiseworthy and distinctive. There are also substantial differences in pastoral practice — involvement of the laity in administration and governance, etc. — with which many Roman Catholic diocesan bishops are likely to meddle and interfere, or even squelch, out of misunderstanding. And there also are well established working relationships within the respective communities that allow each community to operate efficiently, and that would be lost completely with assimilation of the ordinariate congregations into the local dioceses.

        My gut instinct, at this point, is that the ordinariate-wide activities of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham probably are much more significant, in terms of bonding and identity of the ordinariate’s members, than the use of a liturgy that differs from that of the diocesan parishes that host them.

        You wrote: If, however, their intention was to comply with Vatican II’s and Pope Benedict’s vision of receptive ecumenism, bringing into the Catholic Church significant elements of Anglicanism, then – I believe – they should have reflected on their liturgical practice and decided to use a form similar to Common Worship, incorporating contemporary-language versions of emblematic Anglican (Cranmerian) prayers like the Collect for Purity, the other Cranmerian Collect translations, the Prayer of Humble Access and the Thanksgiving after Communion from the Book of Common Prayer, the Anglican practice of using many biblical quotations in the Communion Service (like the Commandments, or Beatitudes, the Comfortable Words, the Sentences, the Blessing formula) into the text of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. As in The Book of Divine Worship, a second Ordo in hieratic language could have been provided for.

        As it is, we only have the Elizabethan hieratic Mass. That this is no longer typically Anglican for many people in Britain, is evident, but I contend that the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (or the Extraordinary Form) are considerably less so. I think it is clear what my suggestion would be, but I have been warned in no uncertain terms not to promote it because it would have no chance of being accepted by the authorities.

        Yes, you are definitely onto something here. There is definitely a need for an edition of the Divine Worship use in contemporary English.

        Norm.

  3. EPMS says:

    How different the response in the US and Canada. I note in “More News” that the congregation in Scranton is buying three copies, one as a gift to a diocesan priest who is a friend of the parish, and is collecting for a fourth. Not every group will be able to afford this level of enthusiasm, but the roll-out of the new missal will definitely be greeted as a day of celebration in the OCSP.

    • William Tighe says:

      “How different the response in the US and Canada.”

      I don’t really understand this. Would you please expand upon this further?

  4. EPMS says:

    Thought I did. Apart from the “Typical Roman Catholic Mass” which Fr Waun has recently started offering at Our Lady of Good Counsel,Jacksonville, NC, the English-speaking groups in OCSP use Divine Worship exclusively. So the opportunity to trade in their loose leaf altar missals for a worthily bound version can only be welcome. As Mr Murphy points out, the price is comparable to any bound altar missal. I’m sure most groups will easily find donors.

  5. Michal says:

    Dear Rev22:17,

    You wrote:
    > The tragedy here would be to impose
    > a “one size fits all” solution on three
    > ordinariates that are very different
    > from one another . . .

    No one wants to do that. Each Ordinariate community has quite a few choices, depending on its preferences: (1) the Ordinary Form of the Roman rite which, as we know, can be used in a variety of ways, (2) the Divine Worship missal which also can be used in a variety of ways (cf., page 18 — as printed — here: http://www.portalmag.co.uk/portal/portal-2013-12.pdf ).

    You also wrote:
    > There is definitely a need for an edition
    > of the Divine Worship use in contemporary
    > English.

    As far as I know, the idea is: “If you want contemporary English, use OF, if you want Elizabethan language, use the DW missal.”

    Regards,
    Michal

  6. EPMS says:

    I think it likely that OOLW groups who worship in the OF in a shared space and share mostly a social bond will cease to exist once their core membership gets past a certain age. There will be nothing distinctive to attract a potential new Catholic, nothing to lure a former Anglican already worshipping in a diocesan parish. That is not a reason to force anyone to use an uncongenial liturgy, however. I have made the point before about the burden of having to take on the trappings of a heritage you no longer identify with for some ceremonial or tourist reason.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      EPMS,

      You wrote: There will be nothing distinctive to attract a potential new Catholic, nothing to lure a former Anglican already worshipping in a diocesan parish.

      I don’t agree with this nonsense at all.

      >> Even ordinariate congregations that choose to worship according to the ordinary form of the Roman Rite typically celebrate morning prayer and evensong publicly. This is rare in diocesan parishes, even though the required liturgical books are readily available.

      >> The Anglican congregations also bring their own tradition of hymnody and chant — styles of music that are rarely heard in the parishes of many dioceses.

      >> There are also more than a few reports indicating that ordinariate clergy are much more effective preachers than the clergy of many dioceses.

      >> And there are also more than a few indications that the tradition of the ordinariates places much greater emphasis on evangelism than many diocesan parishes. If true, this undoubtedly will lead to ordinariate communities with running vibrant RCIA programs and much growth through their efforts in this direction.

      And many, especially those raised in the Anglican tradition and in ordinariate congregations that adhere to these practices, undoubtedly will choose membership in ordinariate communities over diocesan parishes precisely for these reasons.

      Norm.

      • EPMS says:

        I would be interested to see evidence of public daily offices in OOLW groups. Morning Prayer, particularly.

  7. Austin11 says:

    There seems to me to be a lack of obedience in the English Ordinariate in liturgical matters that harks back to the worst habits of Anglo-Catholics within Anglicanism. Pope Benedict clearly wanted a liturgy that reflected Anglican tradition, this liturgy has been prepared with considerable effort and at some cost. The least the Ordinariate congregations could do it to use it regularly. It would be better if they used it gratefully. Divine Worship offers the resources to celebrate almost precisely as one would using the English Missal, which only the most prejudiced would consider a Cranmerian pseudo Protestant rite. A modern Anglican rite would be entirely superfluous, since such services are only a few decades in the tradition, have changed constantly, and never offered a single satisfactory Catholic canon. Catholic clergy, as we know, used the Novus Ordo in the main. Since the new translation has come into effect, there is both nothing to be nostalgic for and a perfectly acceptable modern language rite.

    • William Tighe says:

      Putting aside your first sentence, I agree entirely with your comment. I see no need for a “modern English Anglican rite;” first, since there is no “Anglican Rite” in the Catholic Church, but rather an “Anglican Use of the Roman Rite,” and, secondly, because apart from the “modern English,” the “modern English Anglican rites” in authorized use in the Church of England, the Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, and the Anglican Church of Australia (to mention only those Anglican ecclesial communities in those countries where there are Catholic Anglican Ordinariates) are very different from one another, as well as from the “Prayer Book background” and from, of course, their more remote “Sarum Use of the Roman Rite” putative ancestor. There would have to be a different “modern English Anglican (Use of the Roman) Rite” for each of these geographical areas, or a hybrid creation – something which (not to go into further criticisms of such a development on both the practical and theoretical level) Rome would be very unlikely to approve, given its clear insistence on one single world-wide “Anglican Use of the Roman (Mass) Rite” (cf. its refusal of one proposed Eucharistic rite for English Anglicans alone, and another for those elsewhere).

      My understanding (on which, if mistaken, I seek correction) is that the “Anglican Patrimony,” whatever it means and of what it consists, encompasses, chronologically, for the Ordinariates’ harvest and storehouses, so to speak, the whole period from 597 to ca. 1970/1976/1992/2011 – let the reader understand! It thus cannot be said consistently or even coherently that the “Sarum Use of the Roman Rite” is alien to the “Anglican Patrimony,” even if (note that I write “if” rather than “though”) its current use may not be allowed without special permission; and since that “Sarum Use” is itself a development of the Roman Rite brought to England in 597, it is hard to see how it could be argued cogently that the EF of the Roman Rite is alien to the Anglican Patrimony, especially as all Ordinariate priests have the canonical right to employ the OF of the Roman Rite, which OF is arguably (although I am not interested in making that argument) more remote from any conceivable “Anglican Patrimony” than the EF.

      Given this, it seem reasonable to require the use of the OF for those who prefer “modern language liturgy,” although I wish that some way could be found to incorporate into it, or, rather, to use with it, popular Anglican prayers such as Humble Access, Thanksgiving, in a modern English version that accurately renders the originals, without bowdlerizing or castrating them.

      • Professor Tighe,

        You write:

        “Given this, it seem reasonable to require the use of the OF for those who prefer “modern language liturgy,” although I wish that some way could be found to incorporate into it, or, rather, to use with it, popular Anglican prayers such as Humble Access, Thanksgiving, in a modern English version that accurately renders the originals, without bowdlerizing or castrating them.”

        This is precisely what I was suggesting in my comment to Antonia – not taking over some modern Anglican rite lock, stock and barrel.

        David Murphy

  8. EPMS says:

    I think you have nutshelled the mentality of many English Anglo-Catholics now in the Ordinariate. Gratitude is not likely to be forthcoming. The long term future of the OOLW does not lie with them, I think.

  9. Br. John-Bede says:

    Fascinating thread.

    Antonia, your comment about the need to discover “less tangible” aspects of the Anglican patrimony than liturgical texts is important. I hope this forum and more extensive reflections we might expect to read in the recently revived _Anglicanorum Coetibus Society_ will explore this further. An article of mine on the Anglican choral heritage is expected to be published soon in the Society for Catholic Liturgy’s journal, _Antiphon_. Part of that article re-visits the point made elsewhere, which is that a patristic/monastic emphasis is at the root of English spirituality (and thus the Anglican patrimony). This means a spirituality that emphasizes an integration of liturgy and _lectio divina_ (which includes a recollected, reflective ethos in liturgy, preaching, music, ceremony, etc.)

    There are Catholic liturgists who correctly point out that this is what the OF is supposed to be about (and this is allegedly thanks, in part, to Newman’s influence). But in my experience—as a Catholic of 30 years who has worshipped in many places in the U.S. and in the U.K., both OF and EF—this hope hasn’t been realized. (The few CofE parishes I visited in the U.K. have also left me discouraged about Anglicanism’s own sense of this aspect of its identity. The situation in most CofE cathedrals I’ve visited has been better in this respect.)

    Norm, your statement about each ordinariate congregation having its own patrimony is also very important, and I hope it too leads to further reflection. How is a congregation’s patrimony defined/determined? And when a priest is assigned to a congregation, how does he know what that patrimony is? Is he obliged to make it his own? Since most of our congregations are small and new, defining their patrimonies is a lot to take on in addition to simple survival. And since the pool of available clergy is limited, can we expect new priests to accord with their new congregations’ patrimonies?

    Reluctant though I am to suggest this, is more uniformity called for at this stage? If so, narrowing the range of liturgico-textual options seems necessary.

    Br. John-Bede

    • Rev22:17 says:

      Brother John-Bede,

      You wrote: Norm, your statement about each ordinariate congregation having its own patrimony is also very important, and I hope it too leads to further reflection. How is a congregation’s patrimony defined/determined? And when a priest is assigned to a congregation, how does he know what that patrimony is? Is he obliged to make it his own? Since most of our congregations are small and new, defining their patrimonies is a lot to take on in addition to simple survival. And since the pool of available clergy is limited, can we expect new priests to accord with their new congregations’ patrimonies?

      Yes, every pastor must identify and work with the patrimony of the congregation to which he is assigned. If you live in London and you want to go to Athens, a ticket for a flight from Rome to Athens won’t be of much use. Rather, you have to start the journey to Athens where you are — that is, in London. In the same way, a new pastor must identify the patrimony of his congregation and use it as the starting point to lead the members of the congregation into a deeper experience of faith. In a Catholic parish, this patrimony might include special celebrations connected to its patronal and titular feasts, or established lay organizations (sodality, knitting group, men’s group, Knights of Columbus, bible study groups, groups connected to various renewal movements, groups of oblates or “third order” affiliates of religious orders, soup kitchens, thrift shops, and other ministerial outreach, youth and young adult groups, etc.) that constitute part of the parish’s identity and mission and that bond the members together in common purpose. A pastor who disregards such patrimony will drive members away very quickly. The consequence is that large groups migrate to neighboring parishes that are more receptive to their particular spiritual traditions and practices.

      Norm.

  10. EPMS says:

    My observation is that what some people mean by a distinctive “Anglican ethos” is actually the taste and manner of the British middle class and its colonial imitators. Before the influx of Catholics from Ireland and the rest of Europe English Catholic worship reflected this same sensibility.

  11. Br. John-Bede says:

    I agree that the Anglican ethos has a lot to do with the quality of reserve the English are known for. True, this quality is a generalization about an entire people and its culture. Generalizations call for caution. And it is also true that there have been moments when that constant quality of reserve wasn’t so constant. (England produced the first major instance in Europe of regicide, for example, though it was done by at least the appearance of law and order.) But this quality of restraint keeps re-asserting itself. As a musicologist, I find it remarkable that British music has avoided such examples of musical éclat as Hildgard of Bingen’s extreme vocal ranges, the ornate polyphony of the twelfth-thirteenth-centuries Notre Dame School, the extravagance of the Baroque, and musical Modernism’s shock of the new.

    What hasn’t been sufficiently researched—in part because modern scholarship too often shies away from taking religion seriously—are the spiritual roots of this quality of restraint. There are important aspects of monasticism (discretion, recollection, avoiding admiratio, etc.) that bear a striking resemblance to the English quality of being reserved. The emphatically Protestant elements in English culture would not have been, and are not, willing to acknowledge the influence of monasticism after the 16th-century dissolution of the monasteries. (Not to mention the influential landowners of what had formerly been monastic real estate.) But there is ample scholarship that shows the monastic influence in Anglicanism. Now that this patrimony has been welcomed into the Catholic treasury of spiritualities and liturgies, perhaps the Ordinariates can re-discover this patrimony’s pre-Reformation monastic roots.

    Br. John-Bede

  12. T Graham says:

    I confess to being puzzled as to why – given the lack of interest in most groups of the OOLW with respect to the Ordinariate rite – the Ordinariate rite has been saddled with the modern calendar, and the three-year lectionary. Those who wish to use the OF will go along with the modern lectionary, and prefer it; those who wish to use the Ordinariate rite (like my own group in Croydon) would have preferred the traditional calendar and lectionary. And this is worrying with regards to the new Missal: does anyone know, for example, if the Graduals, Tracts and so on have been fitted around the new OF lectionary rather than following the English Missal?

  13. EPMS says:

    Norm, assuming you have better things to do I followed up on my own question. Precious Blood, Borough is the only group I could find with public daily Morning and Evening Prayer. Of the 52 groups in the OOLW, one has MP three times a week, three have MP once a week, three have EP once a week, three have EP once a month, two have EP on major feasts or “as advertised” (all this from the “Groups” page on the OOLW site, compared to group websites where available). Don’t forget that about a third of the groups only meet as a group for mass once a month.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      EPMS,

      You wrote: Precious Blood, Borough is the only group I could find with public daily Morning and Evening Prayer. Of the 52 groups in the OOLW, one has MP three times a week, three have MP once a week, three have EP once a week, three have EP once a month, two have EP on major feasts or “as advertised” (all this from the “Groups” page on the OOLW site, compared to group websites where available).

      There’s no real surprise that some groups have more extensive resources in this area than others. In most congregations of the Anglican tradition, though, Sunday seems to be the normal day for public morning prayer and evensong in addition to mass.

      You wrote: Don’t forget that about a third of the groups only meet as a group for mass once a month.

      Yes, and this is clearly much more problematic. The monthly masses, coupled with teaching and fellowship, may sustain a common identity in the near term, but this situation is far from stable. Groups in this category that are successful in evangelization will grow and develop the resources to do more, while those that are not successful in evangelization will wither and die out.

      Still, the disappearance of some of these groups will not be the end of the ordinariate. The larger groups within the ordinariate undoubtedly are sufficient to sustain it.

      Norm.

    • Thanks for this survey, EPMS. In some ways it is very positive (you won’t find this level of community daily office in most diocesan Catholic parishes).

      However, it also serves to underline something which worries me about a large number of Ordinariate groups.

      It should not be necessary for any group to have mass only once a month. We have sufficient clergy to ensure a weekly celebration at least. There are even some quite elderly priests who celebrate Mass publicly every single day (and why not?) Similarly each group should be able to have at least one Morning or Evening Prayer per week (of course, I do not mean a full-blown Solemn Evensong).

      David Murphy

      • EPMS says:

        Many, perhaps most, of the once a month groups are composed of former Anglicans now attending a number of diocesan parishes who meet on, say, the third Tuesday of the month for mass and fellowship. The meeting place is not local, by British standards, for many of the members and more frequent get-togethers would probably pose a hardship. The frequent choice of a weekday/evening suggests that members have commitments in their new parishes on Sundays. I imagine these events have more in common with a support group or an Old Boy Pub Night than with an evangelistic opportunity, but perhaps attendees could share their experience.

      • I appreciate what you are saying, EPMS. I know the arguments. But there are ways and means. What about making two groups which both meet every weekend, one on Saturday and one on Sunday? Or four groups meeting every other week? They will be small to begin with, but their primary aim should be evangelisation. And the priest can travel, so that he is saying the daily office in church every day but in varying locations. But then I am not the pastor, and perhaps do not see the difficulties correctly.

        David Murphy

  14. EPMS says:

    As you have noted elsewhere, a number of groups have pastors who also lead or assist at one or more diocesan parishes, which may be another reason why the groups meet on days other than Sundays. I would be interested to know how many OOLW clergy minister exclusively or primarily to Ordinariate groups. About a quarter of the clergy ordained in the OCSP function primarily outside the Ordinariate, as diocesan clergy, chaplains, etc. but I get the impression that the percentage in the OOLW is higher.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s