Which Traditional Anglican Communion parishes have joined the Personal Ordinariates?

There have been several questions asked about which  former Traditional Anglican Communion Parishes, Missions and groups have joined the Catholic Church through the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution Apostolicorum Coetibus so I have endeavoured to list them in as up to date a fashion as I am able.

I am aware that some named (specifically in Canada) are not yet formal parishes or missions of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter, but they are due to be. Please feel free to point out any mistakes and send any updates and omissions.

USA - formerly the Anglican Church in America (ACA-TAC)

Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter

Church of the Incarnation, Orlando, Florida (formerly the Cathedral of the Incarnation for the Diocese of the Eastern United States of the Anglican Church in America (ACA-TAC) and then the Pro-Diocese of the Holy Family for those en-route for the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter).

Mission of Holy Cross, Ocala, Florida (received with the Church of the Incarnation)

Parish of Christ the King, Towson, Maryland.

Mission Parish of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, Mount Airy, Maryland, subsequently added as a mission attached to Christ the King, Towson.

St Augustine of Canterbury, Oceanside, California (formerly the Church of the Resurrection Mission Parish in Oceanside).

Blessed John Henry Newman Mission Parish, Orange County, California (made up of former members of the ACA-TAC, TEC and others. Their Priest-in-Charge, Father Bartus, was formerly a priest of the ACA-TAC)

St Joseph of Arimathea Anglican Use Society, Indiana, Indianapolis.

St Michael the Archangel Church, Philidelphia, Pennsylvania.

Former Pro-Diocese of the Holy Family..parishes/missions:
Notre Dame du Mt. Carmel..Margate, Florida

Rye de Gloria Mission..Pinecrest, Florida

Our Lady of the Angels..New Smyrna Beach, Florida

St. Luke's Mission...The Villages, Florida

Our Lady of Good Counsel...Jacksonville, North Carolina

St. Edmund of Canterbury...Fredricksburg, Virginia

Holy Trinity, Payson, Arizona.

Canada - Formerly of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada  (ACCC-TAC) 

Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter

Sodality of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Ottowa, Ontario.

Holy Nativity Sodality, Barrhaven, Ontario (a Mission of the Sodality of the Annunciation of the BVM )

St Barnabas Sodality, Spencerville, Ontario (a Mission of the Sodality of the Annunciation of the BVM)

Sodality of the Good Shepherd, Oshawa, Ontario.

Fellowship of Blessed John Henry Newman, Victoria, British Columbia.

Sodality of St Edmund, King and Martyr, Cambridge, Ontario.

The Apostolate of the Holy Cross, Sydney, Nova Scotia

Tyendinaga Mohawk Territory's Christ the King Parish, Ontario

St Michael's, Fredericton, New Brunswick.

I am aware other communities in Canada may have joined but can't get any details at the moment.

Australia - formerly  Anglican Catholic Church in Australia (ACCA-TAC)

Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of the Southern Cross

St Ninian and St Chad, Maylands, West Australia

Melbourne Ordinariate Group, Victoria (some members formerly from St Mary the Virgin Parish (ACCA-TAC), South Caulfield)


Five ACCA-TAC priests are named as contacts on the website so I assume they will be coming with parish communities (though this could be wrong) but will wait for a formal announcement. Interestingly, Bishop Robarts, initially named as a contact for Tasmania, is no longer listed but it was probably considered 'bad politics' to be on the site whilst still in post in the ACCA.

United Kingdom - formerly The Traditional Anglican Church (TTAC-TAC)

Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham

St Agatha's Church, Landport, Portsmouth, Hampshire

Presteigne Ordinariate Group, Powys, Wales, formerly the TTAC parish community led by Fr Gill.

Coming to a Church near you: the not so subtle threats against religious freedom.

In the midst of all the controversy and debate concerning the coalition government's intention (with the support of the Labour Party leader) to introduce a new law on marriage, we seem to have become lost in a mess of discussion on 'equality' and 'diversity' as if diversity somehow means we all must have the same (which suggests the opposite of diversity to me).
When Lynne Featherstone, the Liberal Democrat Equalities Minister, charged that the Church doesn't "own" marriage she was quite correct, the rituals of the Church came in response to the facts that exist and which had/have always been. The government now claims it has the right to change those facts which suggests that the legislators believe that they do own marriage. This is historically incorrect as the legislation on marriage (which, it is worth mentioning, was based on Canon Law) was introduced to reflect what marriage is; it didn't invent it.
Now, whether you believe that marriage can be changed or not, we can agree that the way in which much of the debate is taking place is rather worrying. Whilst there is clumsy language and scare-mongering on both sides of this debate, it is from the 'liberal' side of politics that some of the more alarming responses appear to be coming. The deputy leader of the Labour Party, Harriet Harman, describes opposition to gay marriage as if it is a piece with homophobia - a quite scandalous and unacceptable claim which could be described as a sort of 'newspeak', forcing change by the subtlety of a threat that, somehow, all those who disagree with the prevailing wisdom of the day are thuggish and unreasonable.
Actually, it seems to be the opposite as far as this particular author is concerned, because threats of protests and disruption (alongside the real threat of legal sanction in the future) are coming from some of those who are arguing in favour of same-sex marriage.
Take the case at the weekend where an activist decided to disrupt a Mass where the Letter on Marriage from the Archbishops of Westminster and Southwark was about to be read. The protester filming the priest made it clear that he would be posting the reading of the Pastoral Letter on Youtube. To avoid disruption, the Priest decided not to read the letter and, after a few more moments of the protester trying to encourage people to walk out of the Church with him (none did, I believe), the protester left. You can watch it yourself here: http://www.youtube.co/watch?v=6em7Yy-MjEc
Now, think this through - a priest is about to read a letter expressing the traditional view on marriage of the Catholic Church and encouraging the faithful to uphold it in the present discussion and he is, by the direct action of the protester, prevented from doing so. Is this religious freedom?
It is made clear that the encounter will be put on Youtube - this stinks of the activities of the secret police who film the Catholic and Anglican priests in Zimbabwe in case they preach against the official line. Is this  freedom of speech?
The priest, who has not given his permission to be filmed, is now on Youtube so he could be open to verbal and physical threat. You only have to look at some of the comments to see the abuse against this blameless priest. Is this freedom from threat to personal safety?
Bear in mind that nobody has been given a chance to express an opinion through the ballot box on an issue fundamental to our society, yet it is being pushed in the hope of enactment before the next General Election, not least by the liberal-minded Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron.
This is all food for thought and really unpleasant.

That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us; that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

I see that the Catholic Herald is reporting that the Traditional Anglican Communion has rejected Rome's offer to join the Ordinariates for former Anglican (http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2012/03/07/breakaway-anglicans-reject-popes-offer/ ). The problem is that this is only true as far as it goes. As it happens, the majority of the TAC in Canada, a large section of the TAC in the USA, a large group in Australia and parts of the TAC here in the UK have already begun preparing to join the Ordinariates in their areas (the Ordinariate of the Southern Cross for Australia is in the pipeline).
The meeting reported as taking place in South Africa met without a number of bishops (particularly those known to be standing by their original decision to join with Rome) and some members of the TAC question its validity. Archbishop Prakash of the Indian section of the TAC has been unanimously elected acting Primate after the unanimous vote (of those attending and with the right to vote - interesting to see how that was decided) to remove Archbishop Hepworth of Australia as Primate. Archbishop Hepworth, who wasn't in South Africa, was resigning soon anyway.
The rest of the TAC not at the South African meeting, but not yet on the way to Rome (or maybe not joining but unhappy with the behaviour of those who met in South Africa) are planning to meet soon according to a statement by Archbishop Hepworth.
What has most depressed me about this whole situation has been the utter predictability of the whole business and the often unkind ways in which fellow Christians have treated each other. I know I will be attacked for this but let me make my opinion clear: personal animus has been allowed to replace civility and the rush to expel reminds me of my early days in politics when some would lay claim to being 'true' socialists and the rest were traitors. Oh, don't get me wrong, there will be lots of remarks about 'more in sorrow than anger' and some will mean it.
So, best of luck to the Traditional Anglican Communion (Prakash), Traditional Anglican Communion (Hepworth) and the warmest of welcomes to those who are joining in union with Rome through the Ordinariates.

So, am I wrong about Archbishop Hepworth?

I have just been directed to a post by an Australian priest, Fr Fleming, who disagrees with a comment I made on the site of Fr Finnegan (http://valleadurni.blogspot.com/) which was copied to the 'English Catholic' ( http://catholicusanglicanus.wordpress.com/2012/02/21/a-critical-comment/#comments ) for comments.

Identifying me, incorrectly, as Paul Donovan, Fr Fleming insists I am wrong when it comes to Archbishop Hepworth (Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion) and that he has not refused to enter the Catholic Church as a layman, given the difficulties of his position as a former Roman Catholic Priest with an irregular marriage situation, but is continuing to consider his decision, commenting:

"Archbishop Hepworth has not rejected Rome’s judgement and nor has he refused to return to the Catholic Church. I do not know where Paul has got this from, but he is quite wrong."

My comment was based upon the remarks made by +Hepworth himself when he wrote that he intended to remain the Bishop of the Anglican Catholic Church in Australia (retaining oversight in Japan) and the Primate of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada. I would assume that was a decision to not return to the Roman Catholic Church.

If I am incorrect, I apologise, but it is difficult to know what else can be meant by Archbishop Hepworth's own statements.

If I may say so, Fr Chadwick's added comment is unfair :

"We need a reaction against the prevailing wisdom that would have Archbishop Hepworth go down in history as a fraud, a madman or whatever. More reactions like that of Fr Fleming would be welcome, to show that some do care."

I have not claimed he is a fraud or a madman, I have simply expressed some upset based upon his own comments. I both care about his situation and pray for him.

Perhaps Fr Fleming could clear up the confusion for those of us who are suffering it?

"When you fast, do not put on a gloomy look.." I'll try Lord, I'll really try.

Tomorrow is Ash Wednesday and the beginning of the Season of Lent; for those of us who take these Seasons seriously, it is a time to take a look at how we live our lives as Christians and how much we have allowed ourselves to become enslaved by our habits, our greed and our self-involvement. We are encouraged to give something up and pray more deeply.

The Gospel reading for Ash Wednesday always seems to stand in contradiction to what we, especially as Catholics, receive - the priest places ashes on our foreheads too remind us that we live a passing life in this world ("Remember man that thou are dust and to dust thou shall return") and to live it wisely ("Turn away from sin and believe in the Gospel") and encourages us not to wipe them off.

Now, as I have heard mentioned many times, surely Jesus urges us not to be like the hypocrites who stand on street corners, looking gloomy and pulling long faces so people know we are fasting. Indeed, He tells us:"...when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that no-one will know that you are fasting except your Father who sees all that is done in secret." So, why do we keep the ashes on our head?

The answer lies in the response of those who see us; in the time of Christ, the 'outwardly' religious would make a big show of their prayers and their fasting, knowing that it would invite compliments and sympathy. The word hypocrite here takes us back to its original meaning of 'actor': those acting in such a way were playing a role or a part and, like actors throughout time, seeking approbation and applause. It has now come to mean someone who is a liar

If we wear ashes on our heads in public, it draws comment of misunderstanding -"you've got something on your head, mate", "have you hurt yourself?" or abuse. Wearing ashes is a sign of contradiction to the world, as much a contradiction as in the times of Christ was that of praying and fasting privately.

More than that, it is an encouragement to others in their own faith - in a world where wearing a crucifix in a care home is considered a 'health and safety issue' or offering a prayer for someone is a reason for being disciplined, a quiet public witness is not a bad thing.

As for the fasting and (on Ash Wednesday and Fridays) abstaining from meat, that should be done in good humour and without drawing attention to ourselves - as far as possible, that is. I will be honest, I am a terrible faster: from the moment I wake up in the morning until I go to bed at night, I am starving - it is ridiculous I know. I can go all day without eating normally but once it is required, it really bothers me. Weird hey? Why do we fast? That brings me back to the beginning of this post: it is a time to take a look at how we live our lives as Christians and how much we have allowed ourselves to become enslaved by our habits, our greed and our self-involvement.


We follow the example of our Saviour who, before He began His mission, fasted for 40 days and nights to face all that the devil could throw at Him in His weakened state, and was thus strengthened. We fast and sacrifice so that we may be strengthened to face the trials and temptations of life.

However, we don't only 'give something up', we also use the time to strengthen our prayer lives and to, as Jesus reminds us in the Gospel, "go into your private room and, when you have shut the door, pray to your Father who is in that secret place..." We need a period of time to refuel, to spiritually reconnect with the deepest parts of our being where only we know ourselves and God knows who we truly are. This is what some call the 'inner tabernacle' which we need to spend time reflecting upon so we might assess our lives and turn to God for His Grace.

So - fasting and prayer are part of Lent. So is undertaking charitable acts - be it by donating what is saved by our fasting to a good cause or by giving of the time we have saved by not watching the telly as much or whatever. We do it quietly, as the gospel reminds us "when you give alms, your left hand must not know what your right is doing" - or, put as my grandma would have said, "giving has no bells."

Lent can seem very tough and without much light, but it needn't be...it has  the joy of Spring flowers growing, one using time more creatively, losing weight (depending on what we may have given up) and, most wonderfully of all, the knowledge that if we do it well, "your Father who sees all that is done in secret will reward you."

Now, that's worth ash on the head.

Dawkins's Darwinistic dumb moment.

Amazing, I have just heard Richard Dawkins stumbling to answer Giles Fraser when he was asked for the full title of Charles Darwin's Origin of the Species. It wouldn't matter if Professor Dawkins hadn't just said "of course I do" to the question and, far more importantly, is claiming that the fact that a large number of self-identifying Christians in an Opinion Poll commissioned by the "Richard Dawkins Foundation" couldn't name the first book of the New Testament was one of the proofs they weren't really Christian. I suppose that means Professor Dawkins isn't really a Darwinist.
Such pompous nonsense.

Second Wave.

I thought those who have been wondering what is happening with the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham might be interested in this blogpost:http://www.tunbridgewells-ordinariate.com/blog/?p=2195#comments