Comments: Flying to the Ordinariate

Surely Prof. MacCulloch means "the Latin Rite of the Western Church", and not the other way round?

Posted by Jesse at Monday, 15 November 2010 at 4:00pm GMT

Informative, scholarlt, hilarious and enjoyable !
But Dr D. is too kind to mention that Ebbsfleet is also celebrated for having or being a sandbank !

Round-trip tickets are a Must !

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Monday, 15 November 2010 at 4:38pm GMT

The good professor should stick to history and not attempt to understand current affairs. This sarcastic piece does not do justice to the facts on the ground.

Posted by Neill at Monday, 15 November 2010 at 5:18pm GMT

I'm sorry. I appreciate Dr. MacCulloch's books which take up a lot of my shelf space and have taken up a lot of my time.

But he is making an ass of himself. CofE Anglo-Catholics are being put in a very difficult position by the recent Synods. That many feel compelled to go to Rome is a loss to Anglicanism. MacCulloch's mocking tone toward them is inappropriate to say the least.

If he disagrees with them and feels the "crisis" is being exaggerated, fine. But this mocking is beneath him.

Posted by WannabeAnglican at Monday, 15 November 2010 at 5:32pm GMT

There will be no Book of Common Prayer in the ordinariate, but revised and corrected shreds of Anglican liturgy set within the context of the Roman canon.

Posted by robert Ian wlliams at Monday, 15 November 2010 at 7:29pm GMT

well i think it was a great lighthearted way of dealing with men behaving like children. it gets more and more like a harry potter sequel every week. But there is nothing magical about women in tears, or men who devalue the feminine form to a level only the taliban would be proud of. I remember the female heads bouncing off walls you see i see the blood several years later. I want the flying bishops to wave their wand of humanity dust over the european population instead of their radioactive dust. I want to dream instead of having nightmares. I want to feel safe , i want to know that i am not judged from the pulpit. I want to know that the clergy of any persuasion is reliable and that the only reason they get on a train or a plane is to play their part in creating UNITY. Here endeth my desparing rant from my lonely isolated planet brought about by a clergyman who would never give me a hope or a dream.

Posted by angela at Monday, 15 November 2010 at 7:42pm GMT

Wannabeanglican: "But he is making an ass of himself. CofE Anglo-Catholics are being put in a very difficult position by the recent Synods."

I disagree. Diarmaid MacC knows well that of which he speaks.

You are making the false assumption that (Anglo-)Catholic equals "anti-women priests." That is not necessarily the case. The truth is that some Anglo-Catholics have wilfully painted themselves into a corner over the last decade and a half, and Diarmaid MacC is quite correct to point this out.

Posted by Fr Mark at Monday, 15 November 2010 at 9:16pm GMT

Whereas Ebbsfleet is "a windswept Kentish hamlet in the middle of nowhere", Richborough is a pile of ruins - without even a hamlet to its name - in an equally windswept part of Kent not far from a disused power station and a rubbish dump.

Posted by Hugh of Lincoln at Monday, 15 November 2010 at 10:19pm GMT

"There will be no Book of Common Prayer in the ordinariate, but revised and corrected shreds of Anglican liturgy set within the context of the Roman canon." Well then, what the heck is the point of the Ordinariate at all? If these folks' consciences lead them to seek to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome, then just go! God bless you! Leave the keys! Lots of folks have made that voyage before. (E.g., J H Newman, of recent blessed memory.) Lots of folks have made the voyage in the opposite direction too, and we're happy to have them with us. It seems to me better when these voyages in either direction are made relatively quietly and without a lot of public attention, although it doesn't always work out that way, in either direction. That's too bad, I think.

Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.

Posted by Bill Moorhead at Monday, 15 November 2010 at 11:00pm GMT

Wonder how many of the those swimming the Tiber will be caught up in the traditionalist movement in the RC church?

That would be the movement that strongly beleives that Vatican II was a innovative work of Satan that promotes heresy and that the last handful of Popes are not conservative enough to warrant the title, at least according to the sedevacantists, who call them all antipopes, and condemn John Paul II and Mother Theresa as heretics, while seeking to restore the once-delivered-to-the-saints Latin Mass as the only option since the Novus Ordo masses since Vatican II are works of Satan?

I’m sure that there displeasure with the Anglican Communion’s radical liberalism will pale when they study the documentation of papal edicts, bulls, and pastoral letters that the Traditionalist Catholics put forth in their own defense.

There are ample numbers of dissenting RC lay and clergy to welcome them into their perpetually dissatisfied midst as brothers and sisters cut from the same cloth.

Or perhaps they will ignore all the dissent and rumblings of the RC conservative, traditionalist siblings who paved the way for their exodus?

Either way, I wish them well.

Posted by Priscilla Cardinale at Tuesday, 16 November 2010 at 12:11am GMT

"They represent one faction, which those of us who enjoy grubbing in historical byways term ‘Papalist Catholics’."

...and won't they be surprised that "Papalist Catholics" (whom I call Popoids) are an even SMALLER percentage within the Roman Church, than in the CofE!

[Then again, I suppose they plan to stay EITHER within the bosom of the Ordinariate, or the Potemkin Village called "the Vatican", and never venture out in the messy (but more Christ-like) general precincts of the RCC.]

Posted by JCF at Tuesday, 16 November 2010 at 1:38am GMT

No real surprise at the wincing of some on this web-site - who probably feel that the good doctor might have been more respectful of the departing episcopi vaganti. I feel he has enough practical scholarship to have made a much more serious comment - if he had the mind. Thank God he didn't.

Diarmaid's wonderful gift of wit helps us to really put seriousness on this issue (of Flying Bishops) wherre it really belongs - in the pages of 'Punch' - where satire was once appreciated, especially by people of the High Church Party - except when they were the subject of the lampoon.

Good on you Professor MacCulloch, I hope you'll be on hand to give us your comments on the outcome of the upcoming General Synod. If the Covenant goes through, we will need some healing laughter, for there won't be much to celebrate.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Tuesday, 16 November 2010 at 4:09am GMT

We await developments but I gather those clergy who join the Ordinariate will be fast tracked to ordination. Which will be a great attraction. In the past, most clergy going to Rome have had to spend time as a layman in a parish and then do one or two years at a seminary.I think the newly ordained will also be bi-ritual i.e. they will be able to fill in for RC clergy in their parishes when needed and not restricted to the Ordinariate..which will help the english RC Church with its falling number of priests.

Posted by Perry Butler at Tuesday, 16 November 2010 at 9:58am GMT

I sometimes question the sanity of people who post on these blogs, enough to even question my own as to why i bother to contribute to these blogs..

Everyone caught up in the theoretics, each believing that the theory they were taught is right. There is a difference between preferring to follow one path or another anglicans versus catholics papal catholics versus anglo catholics , throw in the free churches and the eclectic mix is most colourful. All have their theory. None of them are right in totality. The Monks and Nuns of all traditions think cut out the worlds distractions and just be them and God and they have got it right. But they haven't. "go and make disciples" proves that you can't make disciples if you don't communicate with any. The theory is meet people where they are at. If a bishop needs to fly to meet God in a way he understands fine, but "do not hinder" those who want to follow Jesus and know God by dictating that they must understand God in the way you understand him, for i wont be able to, i can appreciate the importance of the personal relationship , and i will understand some theory but i wont be able to live the theory, because it is yours and mine is mine. My theory is in God i can be the best i can be for myself and others, without God there is no point. With the hope that all will come to know him and strive for peace, that we may love one another seeking to serve regardless of age Gender or race. For that is to remove all fear in Love. Our blessing is Jesus understands our struggles and keeps inviting us to see it through his eyes and heart. I pray we can all do that, and that when i look in the mirror i see Jesus living through me.

Posted by angela at Tuesday, 16 November 2010 at 3:51pm GMT

Oh dear, in spite of his great learning and the writing of a magnum opus - "A History of Christianity" - the good professor is getting his Ebbsfleets in a twist. Augustine did not land in 597 at the soon to be "windswept railway platform" of Ebbsfleet International on the Thames estuary but further east on the Kentish coast near Pegwell Bay.
I remember going there myself 1,400 years after Augustine in 1997 when we pilgrims from Rome(making the opposite journey to those joining the Ordinariate) followed in the great man's footsteps. There we were met by the 103rd Archbishop of Canterbury who is to Rowan, in retirement, as Fisher was to Ramsey.

Posted by Father David at Wednesday, 17 November 2010 at 6:04am GMT

"The Monks and Nuns of all traditions think cut out the worlds distractions and just be them and God and they have got it right."

I'm not sure that's QUITE correct! Have you heard of the Rule of Benedict? (More to the point, have you read it?)

Posted by david rowett at Wednesday, 17 November 2010 at 12:44pm GMT

That's very helpful Angela. Very much so.

Posted by Laurence Roberts at Wednesday, 17 November 2010 at 2:31pm GMT

Both the distinguished writer and many of the respondents here wantonly misrepresent the position of those of us who have benefited from the provisions of the Act of Synod 1993. Maybe GS made a mistake in making provision for dissent and acknowledging that two EQUALLY valid positions could be held within the Church of England and that we had a PERMANENT valued position within the Church. Synod is intent on not making any concessions this time and, indeed, will remove the protections provided by the Act of Synod and Resolutions A and B under the Measure which allowed the ordination of women in the first place. Fundamentally, the question is not about women at all but about decision making in the Church. A 2/3 majority can change ANYTHING within the Church of England now and impose its will on any dissenting minority. I hope that those who believe that they have won a great victory in "modernising" the Church of England realise that now everything is "up for grabs". For example, what happens when the Evangelicals command a 2/3 majority? The question will not be about women priests or women bishops but whether we have priests and bishops at all!

Posted by Christopher Smith at Friday, 19 November 2010 at 6:40pm GMT
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.