Rorate Caeli

No leaving the Church of England?

While some Catholic commentators continue to await the hoped-for deluge of Anglo-Catholic conversions in the wake of the Church of England's vote to consecrate women bishops, Forward in Faith, perhaps the largest Anglo-Catholic group in England has announced its intention to continue seeking separate dioceses for those opposed to the ordination of women. These dioceses will, of course, remain part of the Church of England.

A Resolution just agreed by the FiF Council:

The Council of Forward in Faith, meeting at Canterbury on 21st July, was appalled at the outcome of the recent General Synod debate of 7th July. The Council remains determined to respond to the needs of its members by securing a structural solution comprising discrete dioceses for those in conscience opposed to the ordination of women as bishops.

Stephen Parkinson
Director

39 comments:

Anonymous said...

Translated, FIF says:

Tis better to rule - even a discrete diocese - in hell than to serve in heaven.

Anonymous said...

The policy of the Vatican is inexplicable in this matter, I will leave it at that. The Anglican Communion has deliberately broken with yet another Apostolic tradition by ordaining women, and any further "dialogue" should be for purposes other than some kind of corporate union. The Anglican Communion, being an amalgom of Christians, deists, feminists and traditionalists, is not a united body. They can say so, but it's not true-the Archbishop of Canterbury supports ordaining women as bishops, meaning a women would one day become Archbishop. At such a time, would 'dialogue' be suspended? JBrown

Anonymous said...

Typical faithless, illogical Anglican heretics. They could start to condone beastiality and the "Anglican Communion" would find a way to rationalize it with their disbelief in objective truth. Atheists make more sense than Anglicans.

B.A. Kemple said...

Suspension of dialogue strikes me as being rather out of line with charity. The offer to dialogue is always extended for the belief that reason, followed in its course, inevitably leads one to the Truth.

Jay said...

I live and work among Anglicans for almost twenty years in the heart of England, and I am quite skeptic about conversions. Catholicism presents too many 'drawbacks' to their religious mentality and those in High Church already think they are Catholics.

motuproprio said...

They are asking for what the General Synod has already refused. There seems to be a good deal of wishful thinking going on here.

Anonymous said...

BA Kemple, since dialogue formally began in the 1960's, the Anglican Communion has virtually ceased to be identifiably Christian in its leadership, embracing open homosexuality, women clergy, abortion, gay unions, etc. At what point, precisely, is this dialogue to bear fruit? Their move away from the Truth has actually accelerated since that time, which is remarkable. JBrown

Anonymous said...

May St. Micheal pray for the Anglo-Catholics and free them from the spirit that desires to keep them bound and seperated from Rome. The Church of England has demonstrated itself to be cut off from the Apostolic Tradition, it is time to recognize the fruits of schism and heresy for what they are.

Fratellino said...

It seems that Forward in Faith, and perhaps others, are possessed by their parish churches, not the othere way around. Unfortunately, however charming and/or historic the physical trappings are, the faith is not defined by buildings. Unless one is willing to leave the building, one cannot be counted on to leave the heresy. It's about ideas folks. It's about the truty, and taking the humbler part.

Really it's a microcosm as well of the kind of pre-war isolationism that both England and America engaged in, and which landed them in such hot water. They just don't want to materially engage. Ah, well. For my part, I'd rather have mass under a canopy suspended from a tree, as Junipero Serra did under Vizcaino's Oak at Monterrey, than to have my identity owned lock, stock and barrell by mere masonry (with a small "m"). It's about ideas, dear folk. It's about the truth.

Ad Orientem said...

This is not terribly surprising. The Anglo-Catholics are not all of one mind on just about anything. However i do anticipate that some are going to move to Rome. The TAC is already heading in that direction. And there are at least two AC bishops that have had enough of the silly season at Canterbury. I think they will provide a powerful example to others.

That said many others will stay for all of the reasons mentioned elsewhere. And some will go into the so called continuum because they can not stand the Pope and a few will migrate into Orthodoxy.

ICXC
John

Anonymous said...

I'm not surprised. The Forward in Faith gang has ever been a group of pusillanimous dreamers. They deserve the treatment they are getting from the Bolshevik majority in the Church of England. When the Church of England has inverts kissing each other on the lips at fake marriages, these fools will react by looking the other way and admiring the beauty of the stained glass window on the north wall of the nave.

But we should not worry about this. Their problem is that they cannot secure the loyalty of their followers.

The answer, yet again, is for the Pope to reconcile the TAC. Then the Anglican Bishop of Ebbsfleet and a few other bishops--those who have some backbone--can simply transfer from Anglican to Anglican-Catholic uniate church.

All the other routes are a joke. One idea is to put these fellows under a special prelature headed by a far-left bishop from our hierarchy in England. He would then subject the lot of them to clown Masses in conversational English.

Another route would be to foist on them the defective Angican Use Mass from the U.S.A., which includes that pathetic Novus Ordo Offertory, that scandalous and revolting Freemasonic 'Blessed are You Lord God of all Creation' thingy.

The TAC is very small in England but it does have a structure there (and about 15 parishes). It doesn't even have it's own bishop for England. No matter: soon, it may have about ten.

I tire of repeating the obvious solution. What is happening, yet again, is that the liberals in the Catholic Church are conspiring with the liberals in the Church of England to nail the Anglican traditionalists.

The Pope would like to help them but he is being obstructed by the heretics in his own curia, such as Kasper the Friendly Œcumenist, not to mention that miscreant, Bishop Conry of Arundel and Brighton. The Pope should assign Conry to become missionary to the Taliban. He could land in Kabul with nothing but his wits (such as they are) and a copy of the Dutch Catechism to defend him.

The TAC leadership is sitting there impotently and letting this all happen. They are such suckers. Being Anglican weaklings, they will never take action. What they should do is to MAKE THEMSELVES FULLY CATHOLIC in advance of any deal with Rome, and then re-submit their application.

To do that, they need a theological correction, a sacramental correction, and a disciplinary correction. In other words, they could become equivalent to an Eastern Church and then demand unity with the Pope. How could he possibly reject that?

More later.

Peter Karl T. Perkins

New Catholic said...

Thank you, Mr Perkins.

The Bolshevik/Menshevik comparison is quite appropriate...

Anonymous said...

What the TAC should do:

As we all know by now, the Traditional Anglican Communion, which broke from the Canterburian Anglicans way back in 1991, submitted their proposal for "full corporate and sacramental union" with Rome in October of last year. And nothing has happened since then, because Cardinal Kasper and his company are blocking it.

Unfortunately, like typical Anglicans, the TAC is now sitting on its hands, waiting for Godot. At the rate Rome moves, they'll all die of old age before anything is done. I suggest that they simply make themselves de facto Catholic and then re-apply. Here is the plan

STEP A: THEOLOGICAL CORRECTION.

These TAC people have agreed to the quasi-Catholic Affirmation of St. Louis of 1977, which is tainted, however, by some omissions, although they did affirm the seven Sacraments. They also signed on to the first seven œcumenical councils at that time. Recently, they swore their submission to Rome on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That's nice but more is needed, as follows:

1. 7 x 3 = 21. It's time to affirm adherence to all 21 (or 22, depending on how they're counted) councils, as interpreted by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church. They need to add that they accept as canonical the Vulgate Bible with its so-called 'apocralphal books' (e.g. Baruch) and all the teachings of the Catholic Church.

2. They need to specify also their adherence to the Pope's teaching authority, his primacy, and his infallibility, all as defined at Vatican I.

3. King St. Charles I, 'Charles the Martyr' will have to go. He dies for the faith, but, unfortunately, it was the wrong one. They can keep King St. Henry VI for the time being, although must submit to Rome's judgement on the matter after union.

B. SACRAMENTAL CORRECTION.

I hear rumours that their clergy are all validly ordained. Perhaps so but they need to ordain sub conditione anyone whose ordination might be suspect *in the eyes of Rome*. I suggest they use the Sarum Ordinal for this and fly in Polish National or Old Catholic bishops to make it all happen, with invited Catholic priests as witnesses. They would start with their Primate and 24 bishops and then these bishops would 'do' the priests, also using the Sarum Ordinal. They must not used some supposedly 'fixed' modern ordinal because Rome has not approved it. It must be the Sarum Ordinal or the Roman one. They should probably do it in Latin for the bishops.

2. Next step: While the pewsters may continue using the Anglican prayerbooks pending a mending which is now too expensive, their priests must choose between three and only three optinons: the English Missal (i.e. the Roman Mass of 1884 rendered in beautfiful liturgical English), the Anglican Missal, or the Sarum Missal, the last of which must be preserved at least for special occasions. Each parish would be allowed to choose a Missal, and their incumbents could use other Masses from this list as extra Masses.

The pewsters could use inserts pending a financing of the change. They may continue following along in their prayerbooks if they wish. What matters is the text being used at the Altar.

3. As regards Marriage, those who are divorced and re-married are to be debarred from Holy Communion forthwith. And those among their clergy who fall into this category would not be ordained conditionally and would have to return to the ranks of the laity.

4. For absolution in the confessional, and for Extreme Unction, the traditional Roman or Sarum formulas, in liturgical English, should be mandated (unless this has already been done). Ditto for Confirmation. They should use the Sarum forms rather than the Roman. Sarum stuff is more flowery and we need a real contrast to what the Bolsheviks are doing in the Anglican Communion.

C DISCIPLINARY CORRECTION

1. From now on, all TACers must confess their sins at least once a year, and as soon as reasonable after committing mortal sin.

2. At present, they allow 'Morning Prayer' to fulfil their Sunday obligation. There needs to be a new rule that only a Mass may fulfil the obligation. When attendance at a TAC Mass is impossible, they can fulfil it at a Roman Catholic Church, but must not approach for Holy Communion there.

3. They should admit their present married men to the episcopate and also consider admitting other Anglican married 'bishops' who transfer from the Canterbury Communion or independent Anglican bodies or from Lutheran bodies. The same goes for married priests. However, no simple priests in the future would be allowed to be admitted to the episcopate if they are married and, I'd even go one step further and bar, in future, married deacons from proceeding to the sacred priesthood. After all, celibacy in the Western Church IS A GIFT.

But by allowing their current crop of married men to be ordained with unquestionably valid orders, they would remove from Cardinal Kasper his primary argument for holding up the process. Rome might insist that these married bishops may not *function* as bishops, but she could not deny that they are bishops.

While I don't like this outcome of even some married bishops and only for the present, I think that it is best in the circumstances. The antipode is a twenty year delay which might cost us tens of millions of converts. Salus animarum lex suprema est.

4. They can keep their Evensong and Morning Prayer and other traditions. There's no problem with that. Subsequent to union, Rome might establish a commission to review all their texts and make any necessary changes, which would be few and minor. As long as their sacramental formulæ are fixed, there's not a problem.

If the Pope won't admit them for several decades, while the blather goes on interminably, they can make themselves Catholic and then practically demand admission. Then even Kasper the Clown can't stop them.

Once they're in, these more pusillanimous Anglicans from Canterbury can simply join a uniate TAC as individual converts and, in some cases, by whole parishes. One poster spoke about reticence among these people. True enough. They won't act on their own but they will act if the table is set. THeir problem is that they can't get their fingers out of their, um, well, forget it.

Once that lot's in, their Primate, Archbishop Hepworth, can approach GAFCON and bring the entire thing in, with about one-third to one-half of their members worldwide. Let's smash their conventicle of witches. Why not? It has no future anyway.

Peter Karl T. Perkins
Victoria, B.C., Canada

Woody Jones said...

Mr Perkins is repeating one of the oft-heard (more so in the past, though, I thought) criticisms of the Anglican Usage liturgy, that of its Novus Ordo elements. Suffice to say, that is the way Rome granted it to the Pastoral provision when it came into being in the 1980s, and perhaps one could not have expected otherwise at the time.

I also have heard it said that the Book of Divine Worship, which evidently is now out of print in its first edition, will probably not be reprinted until revisions are made to conform the Rite Two texts to the new N.O. translations. Perhaps if the TAC can get in sooner rather than later, they can help lead Rome into a better revision, even maybe eliminating some of the Mr Perkins' complaints.

Anonymous said...

We know what they are. Each chooses to indulge their own vices and each calls this failure to challenge each other "unity". High Anglicans whose clergy play "dress up" and have their boyfriends and even divorce and remarry. They tickle the ears and vanity of eachother while saying they are "catholic". All done in the best most possible taste.

Anonymous said...

This is not a surprising development. Anglo-Catholicism in Britain has long lost its coherence and cannot any longer be be seen as a united movement. It lives in a dream world of its own making. The reality is that individuals will leave and seek reception into the Church, the rest will limp on and it will be extinct within fifty years. Playboys cannot cope with reality. At best they are apists not papists.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"At present, they allow 'Morning Prayer' to fulfil their Sunday obligation"

I believe that Byzantine Catholics have a similar law: attendance in Vespers or Matins already fulfils Sunday Obligation.

bryandunne said...

Re: New Film on St Philip HOWARD

This message is slightly off topic but may be of interest to those contributing to this discussion thread.

If you visit Father Tim Finigan's blog - there is a link on the right. But note Fr Finigan is the priest with one "N" not two "N's" you will find a link to a Catholic Film Production Company called Mary's Dowry Productions.

Mary's Dowry Productions have recently produced a film on one of the English Martryrs who died of starvation in the Tower of London under Queen Elizabeth the First - St Philip Howard.

Sounds like a very interesting film. I also love the name the company have chosen.

In caritate Xp.,

Bryan Dunne
itemissa@hotmail.com

Jordanes said...

pathetic Novus Ordo Offertory, that scandalous and revolting Freemasonic 'Blessed are You Lord God of all Creation' thingy.

Yes, the Offertory prayers of the reformed rite are pretty weak -- but they're not "Freemasonic" (unless you're referring to the rumor that Bugnini was a Freemason) Rather, they're modeled on the address of the traditional Jewish prayers over bread and wine: "Barukh ata Adonai Elohaynu Melekh ha-Olam," Blessed art Thou Lord God, King of the Universe. I suspect the Didache's prayers also provided an excuse/inspiration in the composition of these new prayers.

Antonio said...

Well, something is for sure:
The Pastoral Provision is going to be expanded in USA:

http://www.thebulletin.us/site/index.cfm?newsid=19864344&BRD=2737&PAG=461&dept_id=576361&rfi=8

Anonymous said...

Of all schismatics from the Catholic Church the Anglicans are the most spurious. By the way I bet that Benedict XVI will appoint Piero Marini cardinal.

Anonymous said...

What is an anglo-catholic? Is it Roman catholic? Is schismatic?

Thanks in advance.

H.

Long-Skirts said...

"The Council of Forward in Faith, meeting at Canterbury on 21st July, was appalled at the outcome of the recent General Synod debate of 7th July. The Council remains determined to respond to the needs of its members by securing a structural solution comprising discrete dioceses for those in conscience opposed to the ordination of women as bishops."

"Outrage as Church backs calls for severely disabled babies to be killed at birth...The Church of England has broken with tradition"

at least
they
HAVE
faces

The church of England
With tradition, broke?
Well, what did you expect
From their bishops, ya bloke?

That IS their tradition,
To break the vows,
Their founder, King Henry,
Herded women like cows.

And when Rome, eternal,
Stepped in and said, "No!"
King Henry threw hissies,
Lined girls in a row.

"Disproportionate treatment..."
To save a life?
That's like asking the Royals
To stay married for life!

King Henry the Eighth
Merely, made some bad "choices",
And "lethal" acts (murder)
Now spews from church voices.

"Severely disabled babies,"
At birth,
Must be killed so that others
Can accumulate worth

And buy hats like the Royals,
Mimic couples from Wales,
Even though they have faces…
From Poe's horror tales!

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Palad:

First of all, I want to thank you deeply for your work to record the progress of the implementation of S.P. in the Philippines. I have been trying to gather information for this so as to repeat a report on world statistics for the Gregorian Mass. My problem was gathering information for the Philippines and I found listings by you on-line. Thank you so much. I really love you and what you have done. I intend to give you credit on the weblist I belong to. Of course, I know that such information changes all the time, but, a least, your information gives us a good picture of the situation.

Yes, I had heard about the rule in the Byzantine Rite. I'm not sure if that is quite correct. I'd have to consult their new Eastern Code of Canons. It might be true in their general ecclesiastical law and yet overrided by their Code.

However, Anglicans are schismatics from a Western tradition. I think that they should follow the Western norms on this, even though it is theologically possible for legitimate authority to allow attendance at the Divine Office to fulfil the obligation.

Sincerely,

Peter Karl T. Perkins

Thank you again!

Anonymous said...

Someone asked here what is meant by 'Anglo-Catholics'. It's a good question which points to the confusion in Anglicanims. Usually, the term refers to the party in the Anglican Church which is most ritualistic and, therefore (given the origins of Anglicanism), closest to the ritual traditions of the Latin Church. They are more ritualistic than the High Churchers who, in turn, are more ritualistic than the Low Churchers, who are more ritualistic than the evangelicals.

Anglo-Catholics are typically but not necessarily conservative in moral issues. Evangelicals are nearly always conservative in moral issues. So we can see real division here. We have people who are moral conservatives and seem to be pre-conciliar Catholics, and people who are moral conservatives and fall down on the ground and speak in tongues or bark like dogs.

To add to the confusion, there are Anglo-Catholic ritualists who are liberal in moral issues, and some of them (a small minority) would support a lesbian bishopette, provided that she had her mitre screwed on properly and agreed to chant in Latin or liturgical English and to disappear into a huge cloud of incense.

I know about this because I ran into a colleague at my university who was an Anglo-Catholic Anglican but liberal in moral views. I was surprised. However, most of them are conservative in moral views, against sexual inversion, and against priestesses and bishopettes.

I have heard that Anglo-Catholics, like evangelicals, had their greatest appeal among the poor. The formal but more restrained High Churchers are the party of the rich. A High Churcher wants beauty in ritual but not excess. When a bishopette or a fruit shows up in the sanctuary, he simply ignores him/her/it and admires the stained glass in the transept.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On the A.U. Mass already approved by Rome, and the TAC:

Fortunately, the TAC has made it clear that it does not want the A.U. Mass. I can't see Rome forcing it on them, especially since the Anglican parts of the A.U. Mass are specifically from the *American* Anglican prayerbook, whereas the TAC is an international body which does not want that.

Archbishop Myers is trying to interfere so as to foist his defective liturgy on Anglican converts. Let's pray hard that he may fail,.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...

Mr. Perkins, do we know he is trying to “interfere”? Could it not be that he has been asked by someone higher up to work on “expanding the mandate of the Pastoral Provision to include those clergy and faithful of ‘continuing Anglican communities.’” Also, since the Pastoral Provision is distinct from Anglican Use, and because Anglican Use was created long before Archbishop Myers was given oversight of the Pastoral Provision, one cannot accurately call the Anglican Use “his.”

Anonymous said...

On Jordanes comments:

Do we know absolutely that Kasper, the enemy of tradition, is trying to interfere? Nope. What we do know is that he has made a comment on the matter. He said that there were numerous problems to be resolved in regard to the TAC application. I was expressing an opinion about what that means. Knowing where he's coming from, I think that he will move Heaven and earth to slow down or even stop the process. He won't be able to stop it, though, because he is now past the age of 75 . . . .

The TAC knew that he was an obstacle. I have read a statement from one of their spokesmen on this. He didn't mention Kasper but he did say that the TAC made its submission directly to the C.D.F. so as to assure a positive reception.

Since Kasper is chief of 'Christian Unity', it would seem that the normal process would be to submit their proposal to him. But the TAC didn't do that. It would be like extending a hand to a crocodile.

Of course, the TAC knew that Kasper would elbow his way in this door, since he can claim jurisdiction, given his office. They probabaly felt that a direct submission to the C.D.F. would at least assure that Kasper is not the only prelate who gets to vet this.

On Myers: Of course I know that the A.U. is not his in its foundation, but it is his in the sense that he currently has oversight in the matter. The liberal prelates would just love the TAC people to be forced to swallow that Freemasonic Offertory. They live to make us suffer. And, yes, I know where that Offertory comes form and I was indeed referring to Bugnini. While he refused to admit that he was a Freemason, it is clear that Pope Paul VI thought him to be one in 1974. Hence his exile to Iran as nuncio there.

I think that Myers might be worried about a reverse process: the abandonment of the A.U. liturgy in favour of a better one brought in by a uniate TAC. Were the TAC to become a uniate church, why would the A.U. parishes keep their defective liturgy when they can get a better one by joining the uniate TAC? Food for thought.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Palad:

I know that this is off topic, but I wonder if you could answer two brief questions for me about S.S.P.X Masses in the Philippines. I am trying to find out in what archdioceses or dioceses the following two S.S.P.X Masses are offered:

1. Our Lady of Victories, 2 Cannon Rd., New Manilla, Quezon City 1112.

2. Barangay, Santa Barbara, Iloilo.

They also have one at Jaro, which must be in the Archdiocese of Jaro. Is the one at Sta. Barbara also in the territory of the Archdiocese of Jaro?

I know the identities of the sees in which all the regularised Masses lie--thanks to you!

Peter Karl T. Perkins

Jacob said...

"...which includes that pathetic Novus Ordo Offertory, that scandalous and revolting Freemasonic 'Blessed are You Lord God of all Creation' thingy."

Just an observation, but I find it remarkable that you manage to work in a comment on the offertory in just about every thread at this blog. Am I wrong?

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

Dear Mr. Perkins:


Our Lady of Victories, 2 Cannon Rd., New Manila, Quezon City 1112 -- DIOCESE OF CUBAO (Suffragan of Manila)



2. Barangay, Santa Barbara, Iloilo. -- ARCHDIOCESE OF JARO

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"Dear Mr. Perkins:


Our Lady of Victories, 2 Cannon Rd., New Manila, Quezon City 1112 -- DIOCESE OF CUBAO (Suffragan of Manila)"


-- You might be interested to know that this SSPX church is just a short walk away from the Cubao Cathedral.

LeonG said...

"Buan" was a freemason and his reward was to score a decisive victory over The Catholic Church, as he so aptly put it, through the protestantised NO service which fulfilled the Lutherian "prophecy" of destroying The Holy Sacrifice of The Mass in order to reduce the church, by the "razing of bastions", to what it is today. In reality it is but a faithful remnant who hold fast to sacred tradition. And it is this form which we are supposed to swallow as belonging to the same rite as The Holy Mass in Latin. There are so many problems with it it is astounding the post-conciliar church should want to hang on to it but this is systematic of the novel unorthodox approach to the Catholic religion it has synthesised. The judaic Cain-type offertory being intensely symbolic of its un-Catholic ecumenical interreligious objectives.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Palad:

Thank you so much for your assistance on this. I really appreciate it.

I wonder if you might do just a bit more but when you have the time for it. I work with Mr. Carl Schwalm of the Mater Dei website. He has an first-rate site which lists all the T.L.M.s in the U.S.A. and Canada. There is also a superb French website on line for the Masses of France, Walloonia, Luxembourg, and Suisse Romande. It's in French, which is no problem for me. Another one, updated very frequently by Mrs. Rheinschmitt of Pro Missa Tridentina, does the same for Germany. I have had to learn some German to understand it but this is well worth the effort. Mrs. Rheinschmitt deserves a medal for her work. There is also one for Italy, fairly accessible to me because Italian is close enough to Latin and French. There is also one for Australia, one for New Zealand, one for Ireland, one for Scotland, and one for England and Wales.

I would just love it if you would do a listing for the Philippines. I have been to Filippino sites supporting our Mass but they usually list only those Masses in the Metro Manila area. I suggest a simple link to a list for Masses throughout the Islands.

If you decide to do this, I advise you to include an update time at the top; otherwise, visitors have no idea how old the information is. The entries should include full address and contact information to the best of your knowledge; and it is important that they include the name of the diocese so that those wanting to request Masses can see if there is already one in their diocese.

It shouldn't be that hard because the list for the Philippines is fairly short. The U.S.A. and France have HUGE lists. which take people much time to update.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On Jacob's question:

The main reason I keep mentioning the N.O. Offertory is that it is, by far, the most prominent item which mars the A.U. Liturgy. I might also mention the N.O. Confiteor, but it is a much shorter item and not nearly as offensive in content. In addition, they kept that Offertory in its original non-liturgical English, whereas the rest of their Mass is in liturgical English. I've heard that many people have complained about this. God is a Thee, a Thy, a Thine, and a Thou over over and over and then, suddenly, He becomes a You (Blessed are You, Lord God of all creation) just for the Offertory. Then He becomes a Thou again. It is completely incongruous.

But the main problem is the content, the tone (clauses constructed as if they are *instructing* a stupid God, telling Him what He might not already know) and the Jewish and Freemasonic sources (the first as a text; the second, in the alterations of Bugnini and pals).

Michael Davies once commented on the tone throughout the N.O., saying what I had noted years before: many of the N.O. clauses carry the sort of didactic tone a schoolmaster would use to instruct a slow student. For example (this is not from the Offertory though), 'God, you have created the entire world', which sounds as if we are informing God of something he didn't realise, in place of 'O God, who has created the entire world'. But I could write extensively about this. Not here. It was more liberals trying to insult God and religion.

P.K.T.P.

Jordanes said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jordanes said...

On Myers: Of course I know that the A.U. is not his in its foundation, but it is his in the sense that he currently has oversight in the matter.

I was unclear in my own understanding of that point. I should have just popped over to www.pastoralprovision.org.

And, yes, I know where that Offertory comes from and I was indeed referring to Bugnini. While he refused to admit that he was a Freemason, it is clear that Pope Paul VI thought him to be one in 1974. Hence his exile to Iran as nuncio there.

I understand that Paul VI had come to believe Bugnini was secretly a Freemason, but I’m not aware of any actual evidence that he was. (Yes, I’m aware that it is alleged his Masonic codename was “Buan,” but again there is no actual evidence “Buan” was Bugnini.) He didn’t just refuse to admit he was a Freemason, he adamantly denied it. As such, I regard the question as unresolved, indeed unresolvable. Anyway, I think Bugnini’s reforms can and should be criticised apart from the question of whether or not he had secretly abandoned the Faith.

I think that Myers might be worried about a reverse process: the abandonment of the A.U. liturgy in favour of a better one brought in by a uniate TAC.

Perhaps. Or he might genuinely be trying to help open more pathways to conversion for Anglicans. He may not be sufficiently familiar with the different liturgical concerns of groups like the TAC, as my impression is that his own experience has been with chiefly if not exclusively with American Episcopalian converts.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

Dear Mr. Perkins:

Posting a complete list of TLM's in the Philippines has been in my mind for quite some time. The main difficulty I am facing lies in the fact that the many of the reported Masses are located in provincial areas, in rural or semi-rural parishes and congregations that are not exactly easy to contact. Furthermore, some priests still resist the idea of publicizing their Masses. While I do get a lot of reports, it is very difficult to pin down the exact details (Mass times, celebrants, etc.)

Well, if I can't upload a complete list, I'll just set up a partial list

rev'd up said...

http://www.themessenger.com.au/news.htm