Adam
1. A parish can use the new Ordinariate rite if the priest is a member of the Ordinariate or perhaps if the parish is an Ordinariate parish.

2. He could ask his bishop / or the Ordinary of the local Ordinariate.

3. YES!

4. A modification of the new Roman Calendar to make it more like the Traditional Roman Calendar. i.e. Septuagesima / Ember days / counting time after Epiphany / Trinity
Below is the Ordo for the Ordinariate in England, which I believe is more Traditionally minded than the U.S. version.

http://www.ordinariate.org.uk/document.doc?id=80

• 1. Could a "regular" parish ever use the new Anglican Use?
An Anglican use priest could say an Anglican use Mass at a ‘regular’ parish (in my diocese the small AU community uses a regular parish for their services) but a regular parish can’t just decide it’s going to start using it.
• 2. Could a "regular" priest celebrate a Mass in the Anglican Use?
No, I don’t think so, it may be possible for one to do it for an AU community uncertain about that.
3. Could a "regular" Catholic lay person attend an Anglican Use Mass regularly as their usual Sunday obligation?
YES absolutly- but they cannt become official 'members' of the ordinariate
4. What calendar do the Ordinariates follow?
their own- http://frstephensmuts.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/calendar-and-sanctorale-for-ordinariate-of-the-chair-of-st-peter-published/

I'm really just idly curious. (Or day dreaming, I guess). I don't see any practical application for this.

1. Could a "regular" parish ever use the new Anglican Use?
a) On a special occasion. YES, BUT FOR A DISTINCT REASON, NOT JUST GENERAL INTEREST
b) As a reularly scheduled Sunday Mass. NO. THESE LITURGIES ARE INTENDED FOR SEPARATELY ORGANIZED CONGREGATIONS. SOME OF THESE MAY HOLD THEIR LITURGIES IN ANOTHER PARISH'S BUILDING, BUT IT WOULD NOT BE A REGULAR PARISH MASS OF THE HOST

2. Could a "regular" priest celebrate a Mass in the Anglican Use?
a) On a special occasion. IF GIVEN FACULTIES. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE FOR A STRONG REASON, PROBABLY ONLY TO ASSIST FOR A SPECIAL OCCASION AT AN AU PARISH
b) On a regular schedule. THIS WOULD BE RARE. THE ORDINARIATE HAS MORE PRIESTS THAN CONGREGATIONS. IF AN AU CONGREGATION WAS WITHOUT A PRIEST, A DIOCESAN PRIEST MIGHT CELEBRATE AS AN INTERIM. IN MOST PLACES, THE LINES BETWEEN ORDINARIATE CLERGY, DIOCESAN CLERGY, AND THE TWO ENGLISH VERNACULAR USES ARE KEPT QUITE DISTINCT AT EVERY LEVEL.

3. Could a "regular" Catholic lay person attend an Anglican Use Mass regularly as their usual Sunday obligation? YES. CATHOLICS CAN ATTEND ANY LICIT MASS ON ANY DAY.

4. What calendar do the Ordinariates follow? THE ORDINARIATES' CALENDARS ARE MODELED ON THE PAULINE MISSAL, WITH ADDITIONS TO THE SANCTORALE OF SAINTS TRADITIONALLY VENERATED IN BRITAIN

I also wonder about kids growing up in an Ordinariate parish. Would a boy baptized into the Catholic Church, in the Anglican Use, and formed in the Anglican Use, be eligible to become a priest in that Rite? Could he be married?
What if a married Anglican man converted and became a member of the Ordinariate. Could he become a priest?

And is anyone officially thinking about all this?

"Regular" priests sub in for our pastor on occasion, yes, singing the AU Mass.

No, not all of the Anglican Use parishes (pastoral provision/Book of Divine Worship) parishes are within the Ordinariate, most notably Our Lady of the Atonement (San Antonio) and Saint Athanasius (Boston). This is only a US issue: there were no Anglican Use congregations in Britain or Australia before Anglicanorum Coetibus and the announcement of the Ordinariates.

Since we are on a music forum, I will also interject that the new AU parishes are going to need organists and conductors, so be on the lookout for these opportunities, since not all musicians from the former Anglican communities choose to become Catholic and part of the new Catholic parishes formed from them. At Our Lady of the Atonement, which has been going for 30 years now (an archdiocesan, not Ordinariate parish), we just hired a new assistant organist at the parish and choral music teacher at the school last spring. I know from reading the forums that many Catholics conduct and/or play the organ at Anglican (proper)/Episcopalian parishes; I invite you on behalf of our fellow Catholics and co-religionists in the AU parishes to consider us first, for we share the same Catholic faith as you.

"Faith of our fathers, holy Faith! We will be true to thee till death."

I would like to make a claim into the ordinariate since my family was mostly Anglican (and some Methodist) until about 1955. One of my ancestors worked for the Royal Family.

Ben is really right! We can only say Holy Ghost whenever we please. There was, in fact, one of those 'local custom' clauses attached.

What if a married Anglican man converted and became a member of the Ordinariate. Could he become a priest?

Yes. Our parish priest is a member of the ordinariate, although he celebrates Mass according to the Latin Rite. He is also married with children. Our diocese has more than one such priest. I can't speak for others, but IMO it's been wonderful for our parish. In more than terms of music (although that is steadily improving). The reverence with which he celebrates the Mass is extremely consoling.

Adam -
The answer is 'no'.
Already married as an Episcopal priest is the only way to become a married Catholic priest. Other ordinariate members who wish to enter holy orders will be celibate. And, we do have an appreciable number of celibate priests who were celibate as Episcopalians.

Oh sorry...I misunderstood your question. I thought you were referring to a married Anglican priest who converted. My bad.

I cannot tell if you are joking or serious...

Since the start of the pontificate of Pope Pius XII (1939–1958), exceptions may be allowed for married Protestant ministers or Anglican clergy who convert to Catholicism and wish to become priests in the Catholic Church, provided their wives consent.

I know one such married priest who converted from the LCMS.

>>A very significant number of us in the Ordinariates would not have anything to do with a jurisdiction that allowed this.
I'm curious why, if married priests are acceptable, the chronological order is of such importance.

Precisely because of the pattern CharlesW outlines. Also, the exceptions for married Anglican clergy are temporary expedients. The flow of these men will become a trickle in the next few years, for many and good reasons.

It has never been done because it reflects teachings of the Church and Desert Fathers. Tradition is a gift of the Holy Ghost to be treasured and preserved. If it doesn't fit within Tradition, it is problematic. If the tradition doesn't fit, you must desist. ;-)

CW, and whoever down-voted my comment above, misunderstand the nature of my question.

"It's never been done" is a perfectly good reason for not suddenly deciding to do something. But it doesn't explain why it has never been done. The elaboration offered is akin to, "it's illegal because there's a law against it."

I am curious what the reason or justification is behind the tradition that a married man may get ordained, but that an ordained man may not get married.

I think we can all think of some problems and scandals that could arise with bachelor-dating-clerics.

Now you've got me curious as well Adam. I understand the commonsense reason that a "dating priest" could cause problem and scandal, but are there deeper reasons as well?

This is nutty, to say the least, to suggest that a cleric (or anyone) who is unable to control his sexual urges for women will automatically go after children.

I usually respect your postings, Frogman. This one I disagree with vehemently. Seminarians are trained in spiritual mastery when in the seminary. Unfortunately, our liberal and anti-Catholic media has spread the lie that because most candidates for sacred priesthood cannot marry, they are by that nature prone to abuse children. They do not understand that the Church understands that men (and women) are more capable of disciplining themselves and striving for good things; the media and society think of people as nothing other than sex toys unable to control their urges (just think about how often condoms are proposed as a means to stop HIV/AIDS). The Church, however, sees people as being made in the image and likeness of God, that they are capable of sexual mastery. This does not imply sex is evil; no, celibacy is a loving sacrifice to God precisely because of the goodness of what is sacrificed.

While I do not know the reason why the rule developed that clerics (priests and deacons) may not marry after ordination, I can see that there is wisdom in that rule. Imagine you are a woman in a parish. Would you like your pastor hitting on you? Also, a person who is romantically involved with her pastor may not receive sound counsel if she comes to him for help by reason that the priest may not be able to think objectively, and maybe not see a sin a woman is struggling with as such. In like fashion, a patient who is involved with a physician may not receive proper help.

Adam, the priest is given over in an act of consecration to become an icon of Christ, for the salvation of all mankind; having done that, it's inappropriate for him to take himself back up and dispose himself into a less universal form of self-giving.

If the subject interests you from a historical point of view, you might want to read Fr. Cochini's "Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy" (Ignatius).

In canon law, professor Ed Peters has shown that the norm for Latin clergy, even deacons, is continence: i.e., abstinence from marital relations, although this norm is widely unknown, and not taught, and disregarded. (But don't panic, married clergy: married clergy who were not taught about this obligation are by that fact exempted from it, so it seems.)

This norm is why the consent of a deacon candidate's wife is required for ordination: it implies that she is being asked to relinquish her marital rights.

The principle of abstinence from marital relations even appears in the East, where married priests engage in temporary abstinence.

Fascinating....
I have such mixed feelings about married clergy. Probably the same mixed feelings the Church has, I sometimes think.

(Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow was actually briefly married and then divorced.)

is outrage?