Invitation!

via Peregrinus Toronto

Ontario Ordination to Priesthood for the Ordinariate

By the grace of God
and at the request of
Monsignor Jeffrey Steenson
Personal Ordinariate of The Chair of St. Peter
 
The Most Rev. Terrence Prendergast
Archbishop of Ottawa
will celebrate the Ordination
of
KIPLING COOPER
DOUGLAS HAYMAN
JOHN HODGINS
JAMES TILLEY
to the Ministerial Priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
 
Saturday, Dec. 14, A.D. 2013 at 9:30 A.M.
The Feast of St. John of the Cross 
 The Heavenly Birthday of The Servant of God, 
Catherine Doherty of Madonna House, Combermere
 
The Basilica of Notre Dame
385 Sussex Drive (by the National Gallery of Canada) 
Ottawa, Ontario CANADA
                       
                    Your prayers and, if possible, your presence are requested.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Invitation!

  1. P.K.T.P. says:

    Great news. And notice that, according to the announcements, they will be ordained as ‘ministerial priests’ and not as ‘presbyters’.

    P.K.T.P.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      P. K. T. P.,

      You wrote: And notice that, according to the announcements, they will be ordained as ‘ministerial priests’ and not as ‘presbyters’.

      Ah, no, the announcement does NOT say that they are being ordained as “ministerial priests.” In fact, that term does not appear anywhere in the announcement. Rather, it says that they are being ordained “to the ministerial priesthood.” You really need to be more careful.

      Since the “ministerial priesthood” consists of both “presbyters” and “bishops,” either “to the order or presbyter” or “to the ministerial priesthood” is theologically correct. I would choose “to the order of presbyter” because it is more precise, but the wording in the actual announcement is equally acceptable.

      Norm.

      • P.K.T.P. says:

        You are wrong as usual, Mr. Norm. Presbyter is just the Greek word for Priest and Priest is the common word used in English to refer to the sacerdotal order. After the moronic changes in the 1960s, a new vocabulary was invented to effect a revolution. Revolutionaries always do that. They need to change the terminology so as to break the connexion with the past. The word in English is Priest, as every good Catholic knows. Anglicans know this too, and they even make a verb of it.

        There are not many people about today who call priests ‘presbyters’ unless they happen to be speaking Greek at the time. I conclude that you are a nostalgic: nostalgic for the bad old 1970s.

        P.K.T.P.

      • P.K.T.P. says:

        The notice in the link has this: “Ontario Ordination to Priesthood for the Ordinariate” and not this ‘Ontario Ordination to “Presbyterate” for the Ordinariate’.

        P.K.T.P.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        P. K. T. P.,

        You wrote: Presbyter is just the Greek word for Priest…

        No. Literally translated, the Greek word prebyteroi literally means “elder,” but “presbyter” (the transliteration) is equivalent. This Greek word carries no implications whatsoever of sacerdotal priesthood. In reference to ordained Christian ministers, it appears in Acts 15 and subsequent chapters, then in I Timothy 4:14, I Timothy 5:17-20, Titus 1:5-6, James 5:14, I Peter 5:1,5 2 John 1:1, and 3 John 1:1 — but the same word appears in several other passages in the original text of the new testament referring (1) simply to people of advanced age or (2) to Jewish leaders who were NOT priests (i. e. “the priests and elders”). The Douay-Rheims Translation is the only translation that renders this word as “priest” — but it was NOT from translated from the original text, and thus is not reliable.

        Norm.

  2. Pingback: Invitation! | Catholic Canada

    • Rev22:17 says:

      William,

      The “ministerial priesthood” consists of “presbyters” and “bishops,” with both offices conferred by the sacrament of holy orders. Note that the office of “deacon” is NOT part of the “ministerial priesthood” even though also conferred by the sacrament of holy orders. In common parlance, many people say “priest” when they mean “presbyter,” but this use is actually imprecise because a bishop is also a member of the “ministerial priesthood.”

      Theologically, we all are incorporated into the three offices of Christ — that is, the offices of priest, prophet, and king — by the sacrament of baptism. This priesthood, shared by all who are baptized, is sometimes called the “priesthood of believers.” In recovering this theological reality, the Second Vatican Council employed the terms “priesthood of believers” and “ministerial priesthood” in the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium to distinguish between the two functions.

      Norm.

      • P.K.T.P. says:

        Since all bishops are previously ordained as so-called ‘presbyters’, they also remain so-called ‘presbyters’.

        Vatican II recovered nothing at all. The priesthood of all believers has never been used to refer to its members as ‘priests’. The episcopate is the fullness of the priesthood but what is primary is Holy Orders because it is these which orient a soul to the special service of God.

        What matters is the usage of constant tradition. Happily, nobody follows Mr. Norm on this and nobody ever will. We refer to them as bishops, priests and deacons. Priests forever according to the order of Melchisedech. ‘Presbyter’ is just the Greek word for priest. Attempts by the Council to change that have utterly failed, thank God. Alleluia!

        P.K.T.P.

      • P.K.T.P. says:

        If this is coming from Vatican II, that’s all the more reason to oppose it. Thank God not one new teaching in that Council is infallible. Thank God not one new word in it is binding teaching by divine and Catholic faith. I just ignore it. I see more value in the Council of Constance.

        P.K.T.P.

      • grahame says:

        I just read Lumen Gentium again. The expression ‘priesthood of all believers’ doesn’t seem to be used. It is not in the New Testament either. The people of God are called ‘a royal priesthood’ and ‘a kingdom of priests’ but this is quite different from ‘priesthood of believers’ The problem with the concept ‘priesthood of all believers’ is that many itnterpret it as ‘everyone is their own priest’. This is foreign to Catholic sacramental theology. We need sacramental priests, whether bishops or presbyters, to act in persona Christi on our behalf in offering the Holy Sacrifice, granting Absolution etc.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        P. K. T. P.,

        You wrote: Since all bishops are previously ordained as so-called ‘presbyters’, they also remain so-called ‘presbyters’.

        No. The church consists of five orders.

        >> The Order of Bishops

        >> The Order of Presbyters

        >> The Order of Deacons

        >> The Order of Laity

        >> The Order of Catechumens

        By baptism, one ceased to be a catechumen and becomes a member of the laity.

        By ordination to the deaconate, one ceases to be a lay man and becomes a deacon.

        By ordination to the presbyterate, one ceased to be a deacon and becomes a presbyter.

        And by ordination to the episcopacy, one ceases to be a presbyter and becomes a bishop.

        The term “ministerial priesthood” refers collectively to presbyters and bishops. Thus, ordination to the presbyterate does also, de facto, make a man part of the ministerial priesthood.

        Norm.

    • P.K.T.P. says:

      It is what the Novus Ordo priests each is:

      A presbyter forever according to the Order of Bugnini.

      When a liberal tells you that he’s “recovering” something (other than a stray tennis ball from a court), he means that he’s inventing it.

      P.K.T.P.

      • grahame says:

        Holy Orders consist of bishops, priests (presbyters) and deacons. The Laity are not an Order per se. The Laity are the People of God to which all the Faithful belong whether lay or clergy. It is important to be precise as with priesthood of the Church in Christ as opposed to the novel idea of priesthood of all believers.

  3. Mark F. says:

    What joyful news! I’m very much looking forward to this celebration.

    • Last night in St. Stephens Cathedral Brisbane QLD.Australia, our Stephen Gronow a former Anglican Catholic priest here in AUSTRALIA was Ordained to the Presbyerate within the Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross, by Most Rev Mark Coleridge, Archbishop of Brisbane. Fr. Stephen now joins several others into the Australian Ordinariate from the A C C A (TAC). Fr. Bill H.

      • Foolishness says:

        GReat news! Does anyone have pictures or a link?

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Fr. Bill,

        You wrote: Last night in St. Stephens Cathedral Brisbane QLD.Australia, our Stephen Gronow a former Anglican Catholic priest here in AUSTRALIA was Ordained to the Presbyerate within the Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross, by Most Rev Mark Coleridge, Archbishop of Brisbane.

        That’s fantastic news! Thank you for passing it along. It’s always good to hear what’s happening in the personal ordinariate “down under” — news thereof seems to be rather sparse, but always good.

        Norm.

      • P.K.T.P. says:

        Even better: he was ordained Catholic Priest and not just some NewChurch pressssbyter. How many priests are serving the Australian Ordinariate now, by the way?

        P.K.T.P.

  4. Scott says:

    Be nice to PKTP; he has the flu.

    • Foolishness says:

      LOL. I will make him a virtual hot lemon drink with honey

    • Benedict Marshall says:

      Get well soon, PKTP!

      Don’t let the Modernists get you down! 😀

      • P.K.T.P. says:

        On top of the flu, I have gout. It is extremely unpleasant. At its worst, it feels like knitting needles being inserted into one’s foot. But we are supposed to offer it all up and not complain. Not easy for me, baby that I am. I hate pain. As Lucy once told Charlie Brown: “Pain hurts”.

        P.K.T.P.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Peter,

        You wrote: On top of the flu, I have gout. It is extremely unpleasant. At its worst, it feels like knitting needles being inserted into one’s foot. But we are supposed to offer it all up and not complain. Not easy for me, baby that I am. I hate pain. As Lucy once told Charlie Brown: “Pain hurts”.

        Yes, I know gout attacks only too well — days when one cannot put on a pair of shoes — but be thankful that the uric acid is crystalizing in the joints in a form of arthritis called gout, because the alternative would be far worse. The alternative is that it crystalizes in the kidneys as kidney stones. Given that alternative, I refuse to complain about a gout attack!

        That said, a “low purine” diet is very effective in controlling gout, and it is not at all difficult.

        >> Proteins: Most animal proteins are okay, so long as they are lean, but limit meats to two servings per day. Red meats are no worse than fish or fowl, but avoid fatty proteins because the purine, which goes to uric acid in the blood stream, is in the fat. Do NOT eat clams, organ meats, and sweetbreads.

        >> Sauces and Gravies: Do NOT eat anything any sauce or gravy made with the drippings or scrapings from the pan from cooking proteins.

        >> Fruits and Vegetables: Fruits are pretty much okay, but other types of vegetables are a mixed bag — and you really have to get the diet and learn them because there are no simple rules. By way of example, just among green vegetables, lettuce (any kind), cucumber, green beans, zucchini, peppers (all types), and broccoli are okay, but peas, lima beans, asparagus, and spinach are not. Also, artichokes, beets, cauliflower, and vegetarian proteins (mushrooms of any kind, eggplant, dried legumes, etc.) are forbidden.

        >> Dairy: Milk products and eggs are no problem, but limit butter and other dairy fats to modest amounts.

        >> Soups: Cream-based soups and soups made from the permitted vegetables are okay. Soups containing proteins of any kind, forbidden vegetables, or broth or stock made therefrom are not okay.

        >> Alcohol: Limit consumption of alcoholic bevrages

        On the whole, it’s pretty manageable. I seldom have difficulty finding selections that conform when I’m eating in a restaurant — and I eat in restaurants several times per week.

        Norm.

  5. P.K.T.P. says:

    Mr. Norm:

    You are full of it. The episcopate is not a separate order but only the fullness of the priesthood. There are three orders:

    Priest;
    Deacon;
    Subdeacon.

    And then the minor orders. The laity is not an order of the *same* priesthood. My, you really should bone up on Lumen Gentium, almost the only thing you’ve ever read, other than the GIRM: Try No. 10, para. 2:

    “[T]he common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchical priesthood . . . differ from one another in essence and not only in degree”. Now you’ve made me quote a Vatican II document. Now I feel dirty all over.

    So you are mixing apples and oranges. Your list of five orders are orders in differing categories, not in one and the same category. Holy Orders, hierarchical orders, are arguably those of priest and deacon. Some add bishop to them now. Some theologians of old included the subdiaconate as the third holy order and this was never definitively resolved. But, at any rate, the subdiaconate is of subapostolic, not apostolic, origin (which does not, in itself, mean that it could not be a holy order, as there is no magic rule on this). The priesthood of all the faithful is not divided into five orders. It simply includes all faithful as one.

    In Church law, one may not proceed to the priesthood without having been ordained deacon, or to the episcopate without having been ordained priest (even though it is valid to receive a higher order without having received a lower one). Every order leaves an indelible mark on the soul, so that even Mr. Norm cannot remove it. So a priest (not a ‘presbyter’ because that violates good usage in English) remains a priest once he’s consecrated bishop; a deacon remains a deacon once he’s ordained priest. The orders are therefore cumulative. Every bishop in the church is also a priest and a deacon; every priest is also a deacon; all the deacons ordained before 1972 remain subdeacons too. That is why, in the Mass of all ages, priests can take the position of ‘deacon’ and ‘subdeacon’ (the term for which is preserved in the 1983 Code even though the order was suppressed in 1972).

    Mr. Norm is just making it up as he goes along. Yes, episcopus means, in Greek, an ‘overseer’; presbyter means an elder; deacon means an assistant. But the term priest (taken from paganism and other religions) is, in traditional and constant usage, coterminus with the Greek term. I mean that they traditionally have the same field of reference. Presbyter is not (or rarely) used for priest in English, just as sacerdos is not. Were we speaking Greek, that would be different. We do have some English words which are taken from the Greek one, such as presbyterium, a synonym for sanctuary: the place of the priests. A priest in the Catholic sense is more than just an elder: the term refers to more than its etymology in any language grants. Our priests make sacrifice but it is a fundamentally different sort of Sacrifice than the one had in the old Jewish Temple and certainly different in character than that of pagan priests.

    It sounds stupid to refer to Fr. Smith as a ‘presbyter’ or a ‘sacerdos’, which is why this is just perfect for liberals, as they are ridiculous. Each ordained man is a Priest forever according to the Order of Melchisedech, not a Presbyter forever according to the Order of Bugnini.

    P.K.T.P.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      P. K. T. P.,

      You wrote: There are three orders:

      Priest;
      Deacon;
      Subdeacon.

      And then the minor orders.

      No. The Pope Paul VI completely suppressed the former “major order” of subdeacon and the former “minor orders” of porter and exorcist. Only the former “minor orders” of lector and acolyte survive, but are now canonically constituted as “ministries” rather than “minor orders.”

      Also, from a sacramental perspective, the “order” of subdeacon was never regarded as a sacrament. Rather, the three tiers of the sacrament of holy orders are, and always have been, deacon, presbyter, and bishop. The relevant section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church is very clear about this (though the translation on the Vatican’s web site does use the term “priest” in lieu of the more precise “presbyter”).

      Norm.

      • P.K.T.P. says:

        Actually, you’re wrong again. In 1972, he suppressed all the minor orders. The two you mention are now only considered to be ministries. But while he suppressed the orders themselves, this only meant that there would be no new ordinations for them. Those already ordained in them remain ordained in them. Hence there remain subdeacons and clerks in minor orders.

        Your point on the major orders has not been settled definitively despite your quotation from that low-grade non-infallible Catechism. There is a school of theologians who always maintained that the three orders (not ‘tiers’) were priest, deacon and subdeacon, the episcopate being not a separate order but only the fullness of the priesthood. Another school took the view that the three orders were bishop, priest and deacon. At any rate, there was agreement that the subdiaconate was not of apostolic origin. However, again, there is no magic rule that the Church cannot create new orders after the apostolic age. Direct revelation was ended then but that’s all.

        P.K.T.P.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        P.K.T.P.,

        You wrote: In 1972, he suppressed all the minor orders. The two you mention are now only considered to be ministries.

        Whether he “suppressed” them and established ministries with the same names or “reconstituted” them as ministries is a technicality of not much import.

        You wrote: Those already ordained in them remain ordained in them. Hence there remain subdeacons and clerks in minor orders.

        Yes, there may be a few seminary drop-outs still living who received, and thus technically still possess, the former so-called “minor orders” or the former order of subdeacon. Such individuals, however, typically were either canonically laicized when they dropped out of (or were expelled from) the seminary or canonically suspended when they abandoned the seminary, rendering the fact of the former orders basically moot. They have no faculties for the exercise of those former orders in any case.

        Note, also, that the former major order of subdeacon was conferred relatively late in the seminary process, when it was pretty clear that the seminarian would complete formation and subsequently receive ordination as a deacon and then as a presbyter. One is far more likely to encounter a gent who departed from the seminary after receiving the former minor orders of porter and exorcist, which were conferred relatively early in the course of seminary formation.

        Norm.

  6. NORM, You ask for news from Australia, I suggest that you GOOGLE The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of the SOUTHERN CROSS, Details of news of progress of the Aussie Ordinariate is at that site. Hope you find it of interest. Kind regards. Fr. Bill H.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      Fr. Bill,

      You wrote: You ask for news from Australia, I suggest that you GOOGLE The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of the SOUTHERN CROSS, Details of news of progress of the Aussie Ordinariate is at that site. Hope you find it of interest.

      I actually have that ordinariate’s web site bookmarked, and I check it periodically for the latest news. The news posts, however, have been very sparse and often well after the fact.

      Norm.

  7. P.K.T.P. says:

    Dear Mr. Norm:

    Thank you for the advice about diet. I am aware of the general rules and try to follow them but need to be more rigorous about it. There is something in my diet that is causing this. It might be corn syrup, which is a major cause of gout, I’m now told. Red wine is said to be bad for gout but this is now thought to be exaggerated. Beer is definitely bad for it but I mostly drink wine, not beer. I’ll have to be more careful. A bad bout of gout can cripple you. In extreme case, one cannot walk on it at all. The medication works well but one always needs a back-up supply on hand.

    P.K.T.P.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      Peter,

      You wrote: I am aware of the general rules and try to follow them but need to be more rigorous about it. There is something in my diet that is causing this.

      Yes, one does have to be very strict with the low purine diet — and sometimes there are problems that you don’t expect. Here are two that have caused me problems in the past.

      >> A restaurant where I had eaten lunch several times per week for a few years changed the “salad greens” in its “house salad” to a mix that included spinach. The result was a low level attack that lasted a couple weeks, and that went away shortly after I figured it out.

      >> And on one cruise line, I discovered only after having a couple gout attacks that the pasta bar, where I often got my lunch, was heating the pasta in chicken stock to give it some flavor before putting it into the dish. I started asking them to use water instead for my pasta when I learned this, and never had the problem again.

      Anyway, good luck dealing with the problem!

      Norm.

  8. Rev22:17 says:

    Deborah,

    I just noticed something very interesting in the longer article on the Peregrinations blog, dated 11 November 2013, pertaining to the imminent ordinations of deacons Kipling Cooper (Ottawa), Douglas Hayman (Spencerville) John Hodgins (Toronto) and James Tilley (Oshawa) to the order of presbyter pertaining to the imminent ordinations of deacons Kipling Cooper (Ottawa), Douglas Hayman (Spencerville) John Hodgins (Toronto) and James Tilley (Oshawa) to the order of presbyter. The article contains the following paragraph (boldface added)

    This is the second Ordinariate programme for candidates for the Catholic priesthood in North America. Over 40 men have previously been trained and ordained for CSP North America. The latest course included men from around North America and the Caribbean.

    I had not noticed the boldfaced words previously, but they are indeed very interesting! The Diocese of St. Thomas, which encompasses the U. S. Virgin Islands (USVI), is part of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), but I have not heard of any former Anglican communities in the USVI requesting to come into the Catholic Church. There was a request from parishes of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) in Puerto Rico to form an ordinariate there, but I have not heard any further mention of it — and Puerto Rico its own episcopal conference, separate from the USCCB, in any case. All of the other English, French, and Dutch island nations except Haiti belong to the Antilles Episcopal Conference (AEC), also separate from the USCCB, which also encompasses Bermuda, the Bahamas, and the Turks and Caicos.

    So who are the former Anglican clergy from the Caribbean, and where are they?

    And will extraterritorial congregations move into the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter upon their ordinations?

    Norm.

    • Foolishness says:

      I hesitated to post this. I don’t know the answer, but this might be one area where it is best not to speculate too much.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Deborah,

        You wrote: I hesitated to post this. I don’t know the answer, but this might be one area where it is best not to speculate too much.

        Yes, I understand.

        Of course, the best way to stop speculation is to publish information as soon as practicable. It might be worth asking your new deacons, who are/were part of this class, if they know anything that can be disclosed in a public forum, whenever you get a chance. Of course I’m sure that they, and your whole sodality, are quite busy with preparations for their ordinations as presbyters on this coming weekend. I wish that I could make the event, but I’m in a tournament this weekend.

        Norm.

    • P.K.T.P. says:

      Incredible. I never knew until now that the Dominican Republic was part of the Antilles Episcopal Conference. Same for Cuba! And I had thought that the British Virgin Islands was part of the Antilles Conference of Bishops. Thank goodness Mr. Norm is here to misinform everyone.

      What I did know is that most of the Caribbean is considered to be part of North America, as is Mexico and Central America. Only Trinidad & Tobabo, Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles (or at least Curacao and Bonaire) are part of South America.

      P.K.T.P.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        P. K. T. P.,

        You wrote: Incredible. I never knew until now that the Dominican Republic was part of the Antilles Episcopal Conference. Same for Cuba! And I had thought that the British Virgin Islands was part of the Antilles Conference of Bishops. Thank goodness Mr. Norm is here to misinform everyone.

        It appears that you did not read the post by “Mr. Norm” very carefully. Here’s the relevant sentence from that post (boldface added, but boldfaced words present in original).

        All of the other English, French, and Dutch island nations except Haiti belong to the Antilles Episcopal Conference (AEC), also separate from the USCCB, which also encompasses Bermuda, the Bahamas, and the Turks and Caicos.

        I’m not aware of the Dominican Republic or Cuba being English, French, or Dutch.

        For the record, the Dominican Republic and Cuba each have their own episcopal conferences. Conversely, however, Belize, located to the south of Mexico in central America, and Guyana, French Guiana, and Suriname, all located to the east of Venezuela on the north coast of South America, are part of the Antilles Episcopal Conference.

        You wrote: What I did know is that most of the Caribbean is considered to be part of North America, as is Mexico and Central America.

        That actually varies. Many references treat the Caribbean as a separate region from North America.

        Only Trinidad & Tobago, Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles (or at least Curacao and Bonaire) are part of South America.

        Again, that varies. Under the U. S. laws known as the Jones Act and the Passenger Services Act, which respectively ban cabotage in marine transport of goods and persons, for example, treat Trinidad and Tobago as “near” (that is, part of North America) and the ABC Islands as “distant” (part of South America). Also, sources that treat the Caribbean as a separate region typically include the ABC Islands (Aruba, Bonaire, and Curaçao) and Trinidad and Tobago in that region.

        Politically, the Kingdom of the Netherlands formally disbanded the internal state previously known as the Netherlands Antilles in 2010. At that time, Curaçao and Sint Maarten became a separate internal states, like Holland and Aruba, within the Kingdom of the Netherlands and Bonaire, Saba, and Sint Eustatius became “special municipalities” thereof.

        Norm.

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 )

Connecting to %s