Rorate Caeli

They have no idea of what they are talking about

In his comment filled with platitudes on the meeting today (the "Feria Quarta", or Wednesday-centered, periodical meeting of the full composition of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - which was supposed to deal, among other matters, with the latest responses of the Society of Saint Pius X/SSPX to the Doctrinal Preamble presented to them by Cardinal Levada last September, as we had mentioned some days ago), Paolo Rodari, Vaticanist for Italian daily Il Foglio, had this nugget:

There is a paradox inside the current Pontificate: the Pope who pleads respect for tradition loudly strives to find an agreement with "the extreme right" of the Catholic world. It is easier for him to sort things with the Anglicans, that part of Christianity mostly keeping Liberal positions.

There is no "paradox" at all, because there was no agreement with people keeping "Liberal positions". Quite the opposite, the Personal Ordinariates for former Anglicans were created precisely because Anglo-Catholics are in general so far from the Liberal (doctrinal, ecclesiastical, and liturgical) positions maintained by most in the Anglican Communion. The Pope did not go after simply any Anglicans, but those who wished to become truly Roman, giving them the structure that they needed and for which they had longed for generations. Which is why most Traditional-minded Catholics were and are thrilled with Anglicanorum Coetibus and rejoice in every occasion in which former Anglicans are welcomed into the Church - as we did last Sunday with Mount Calvary, in Maryland. We know most of them are our allies and our friends. They wish us well, and we wish them well.

If only Traditional-minded Catholics were given the canonical structures that they need! Then, Rodari, Tornielli et al. would see clearly that there is much more convergence than "paradox" in all of this. At the moment, it clearly seems they have no idea what they are talking - and writing - about (not a surprise, really).

[Image: Christmas at Our Lady of the Atonement, San Antonio, Texas]

34 comments:

Woody said...

NC, thank you for this posting which is right on the mark, I can assure you, as one who, through the principal church of the Ordinariate, will be going into the Ordinariate as soon as the fine points of the transfers are worked out. As Fr. Steenson, our Ordinary, said at his press conference on January 2, the Ordinariate is NOT going to be "Catholic lite", but is going to be very evangelistic for the Faith.

The liturgy in the Book of Divine Worship comes in for some criticism in Trad circles, and even AU stalwarts like Fr. Christopher Phillips, who was tpresent at the creation, agree it is due for an overhaul (a joint English-US Ordinariates commission is working on this under Msgr Andrew Burnham). Nonetheless, I would focus on some of its really fine aspects, maybe most notably the reinsertion of the older Catholic collects into the post-conciliar liturgical scene. Before he was shut down last year, Fr. John hunwicke had a great series of meditations on the 1662 BCP collects, which are by and large English translations of the TLM ones, and even the BDW collects come from a variety of older Catholic sources such as the Leonine Sacramentary.

P.K.T.P. said...

Dear Woody:

The B.D.W. is far more defective than you say. It includes Bugnini's New Offertory in non-sacral English, which omits all mention of the propitiatory nature of the Sacrifice and is a product of that liberal's sick mind. In addition, the Anglican bits are not from the traditional 1928 American Prayerbook but from the vastly inferior non-traditional one of 1979. It is true that Fr. Phillips realises these problems, and there is hope that they will be dealt with, but Msgr. Burnham says that the commission will not make any decisions for at least three years. In the mean time, it's 'Welcome to the Novus Ordo' for the incomers. While the incomers will disguise the problems with smells and bells, the texts are the real problem.

As for the claims here about the Anglicans, I agree with our moderator in general but would make some distinctions. The ordinariates have been handed over not to Anglican traditionalists but to Anglican neo-cons from Forward-in-Faith and elsewhere in the Canterbury Communion. Anglican traditionalist from the TAC have been largely neglected and cut out. They need our prayers.

Still, the moderator's main point if valid but, then, who would expect wisdom from a journalist?

P.K.T.P.

Torkay said...

"...there was no agreement with people keeping "Liberal positions".

Wouldn't you call the recent approval of the NCW "liturgy" an agreement with a liberal position?

GQ Rep said...

"The ordinariates have been handed over not to Anglican traditionalists but to Anglican neo-cons from Forward-in-Faith and elsewhere in the Canterbury Communion. "

This should come as no surprise. These are people who are not especially traditional in their mindset, and who accept Vatican II as sacrosanct...as do neo-con Catholics. This position is absurd, and a violation of valid judgement because the faults, errors, failures, omissions, fabrications and even heresy present here and there in Vatican II documents makes it an indefensible Council of the Church, not to mention it's bad "fruit"over the last 50 years.

I need only drive 10 miles from my house to see this fruit....a dozen parishes with closed schools and empty convents, an Archdiosecean seminary built for 600 which has barely 100 (and less than 40 for our Archdiocese), 1 closed Augustinian seminary built for 250 seminarians (they have 2 today), and 4 Motherhouses of teahcing nuns, all nearly empty.

These are the fruits of Vatican II. We can multiply it by tens of thousands across the world!

New Catholic said...

The Italian author's point was about Traditional and Conservative former Anglicans, as compared to some Traditional Catholics, not about the NCW.

Nonetheless, as far as we know, "Liberals" and "Progressives" really do not know what to make of the NCW.

NC

Barbara said...

What's more, they are not interested in changing their mind-set and being correctly informed.

Such a lack of intellectual honesty.

At least this is what I have seen reading most Italian vaticanists.

Dan said...

Does anyone know if there is a TAC Catholic Mass offered in the Diocese of Raleigh NC?

Woody said...

Dear Peter,

Given what you say (and I think that we understand the concerns about the offertory, which evidently was crammed down the throats of those present at the time and ceratinly were not even what at least Anglo-papalist clergy had been used to before that), I would still argue that the BDW is better than the usual N.O. fare, especially in the Rite One sections (close to the 1928 US BCP, but with appropriate Catholic emendations), which is all that we use at OL Walsingham.

For whatever reasons, the TAC-type liturgies involving a more or less faithful translation of the 1962 Missal just don't seem to be in the cards for the Ordinariate, so we are left with the BDW for now, which as I say is bettre than the N.O anyway, and the hope and trust that we will get something even more sacral than the BDW once the liturgical process is completed and approved by Rome.

All the best, as ever,
Woody

Jon said...

Woody,

"For whatever reasons, the TAC-type liturgies involving a more or less faithful translation of the 1962 Missal just don't seem to be in the cards for the Ordinariate"

I'm greatly disturbed by this. My hope and presumption has been, since Cardinal Ratzinger's overtures toward conservatives in Dallas in 2003, has been that such a liturgy as the English Missal, and not a re-translated Novus Ordo, would be the real cornerstone of a "reform of a reform." Getting the '28 BCP with the words "sacrifice" and "oblation" sprinkled through it might be preferable to the BDW, but it will do little for the wider Church.

As you attend OL Walsingham, I imagine what you say has come from an authoritative source.

Jeremiah Methuselah said...

You know, so many great, life-changing steps forward have started with the Mass (you know which one) offered in a living room, or a garage, or a Scout Hut, or a family room or gym. I know this. Mass in the desert, or anywhere transcends the physical, wherever it is celebrated properly and with great love for our Dear Lord.

While it is manifest that a beautiful setting enhances the sacramental-ness of the Mass, the intrinsic Holiness and ineffable Beauty of the TLM, properly offered with great reverence, can surge above the physical elements. While saying this, I generally avoid assisting at the TLM where the congregation acts as if it is rather proud of itself for “going to the Old Mass”, elitism is often found there and should be resisted. I have one such Mass near me where the congregation prattle and chat before Mass, the celebrant himself contributes to the noisy atmosphere, I am sad to say - he watches everyone come in, rather like a bouncer at a club or whatever, it is no-good, but we Trads are strange people sometimes.

Dear Catholic Ladies and Gentlemen, modify your critical words, don’t be smart Alecs, thank God for on your bended knees for the chance to go to the Mass of All Time (as Mgr Lefebvre called it) - get your skates on and go worship whenever you can.

The Candlemas is edifying, why not ask the celebrant to give the Blessing of the throat (St Blaise, 3rd Feb. - he can authorise it, on 2nd Feb.) ?

The more often we go to the TLM, especially on special feast days, the more we begin to realise what an incredible thing of beauty is (what always was for me) the ordinary rite (sorry Papa Ratzi).

http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=28

Matthew M said...

You folks need to take a step back, O.K.? Many of your comments besides being rude and offensive to Anglican Use Parishes and people but you are mixing apples and oranges. One statement reflects the English Ordinariate another the American Ordinariate and then back again. They are not the same and to lump them together just shows ignorance.They do not have the same problems.
I don't know who P.K.T.P. (Peter) is but he sounds like a person with a chip on his shoulder and a grudge in his jaw. He posts the same criticisms on every blog he visits that talks about the Anglican Use and Ordinariate. "Peter" if that really is your name, what is your problem? If you don't like it just stay away from us and go to a TLM or a Byzantine Catholic Liturgy. I am sure you will find other things to bemoan. You could try the SSPX but they are probably too impure, so how about SSPV!

Reluctant Pessimist said...

Jeremiah Methuselah: It would require only the dropping of a dozen words or so from your comment to permit a reader innocent of the nature of this website to think that you were giving a negative Zagat-style review of a restaurant or tavern you had recently given your custom.

What is "elitist" about a situation "where the congregation prattle[s] and chat[s] before Mass, the celebrant himself contribut[ing] to the noisy atmosphere"? It is anything but clear whether you are deploring the irreverence or the mere fact that you weren't invited to join in it.

Why, too, do you lay such stress on the beauty of the TLM and the significance of attending it on "special feast days"? Don't you think that the garment of the True Faith—that is what the TLM is, after all—is suitable for wearing at all times and in all places? If you do, why would you choose to don the garment of a falsified religion in its stead?

Beauty has been called "the splendor of the truth." If you relegate it to the position of an ornament for special occasions, you might as well just go to your local nonelitist NO shindig with a sleep mask over your eyes and a nice Andrea Bocelli recording piped in through your noise-canceling headphones.

My central point in writing the foregoing is to say that I find the state of mind that your entire comment manifests unintelligible. I would take it as a kindness if you would explain why you consider it coherent and sensible.

Ralph Roister-Doister said...

"one such Mass near me where the congregation prattle and chat before Mass, the celebrant himself contributes to the noisy atmosphere . . ."

Is the celebrant a diocesan priest? If so, the situation is possibly much like that in my diocese, where the couple of designated TLM priests were chosen because a volume of Latin grammar had fallen off the shelf and bonked their heads while they strolled through an abandoned wing of the seminary library after losing their way looking for the Balthazar floor.

They have no real attachment to the TLM liturgy, and some are hot to let everyone know that they are not volunteers, but conscripts.

For example, in an article written shortly after Pope Benedict's apostolic letter and appearing in the diocesan newspaper, one of these priests was quoted as saying that "it is the awe, reverence and mystery that appeals to some people. Because of that its attractive, but I think we're talking about a small number of people." No problem with that, of course. But his insouciance disappeared when he fretted that "it [increased exposure of the TLM] may lead to polarization," and that, heavens to Mergatroyd, "more people are having some strong feelings about this both ways."

A general question: how widespread do you suppose this kind of attitude might be among TLM priests? Not sure I want to know the answer.

Long-Skirts said...

Ralph Roister-Doister said:

"But his insouciance disappeared when he fretted that 'it [increased exposure of the TLM] may lead to polarization,...more people are having some strong feelings about this both ways.'
A general question: how widespread do you suppose this kind of attitude might be among TLM priests? Not sure I want to know the answer."

Well it's not like that with the SSPX as most of thir priests would lay down their lives for the True Mass and Faith in a heart beat. You can see the fruits of Archbishop Lefebvre's stance in preserving the WHOLE True Roman Catholic Faith and there are plenty of vocations...

WINONA’S WOMB

Up the raging Mississip
And at the St. Paul’s source
South, below the ragged cliffs
There is a fiercer force.

A force which surges
Human blood between her banks each June
Then tears and rents herself for all
She is…Winona’s womb!

And like the raging Mississip
Her channels open wide
And birth the men who are the priests
The source of Mother’s pride.

And from that raging Mississip
And at that St. Paul’s source
South below the ragged cliffs
Push priests from land of Norse.

Who ride the river far and wide
For souls from shore to shore
And bring them home to Mother’s side
To leave Her never more.

And up where current’s all the rage
And sin is sorrow’s source
Still south below the ragged cliffs
Winona stays the course!

Malta said...

@NC: "Liberals" and "Progressives" really do not know what to make of the NCW.

Indeed! Isn't it this mixing of the wheat and the chaff that has gotten us into the trouble we're in?

iota unam, where art thou?

Fair is foul, and foul fair in the new Church milieu.

So who are are to believe between the NCW and FSSPX? They both have a huge following; both are progressing; both have young families with mostly pro-life adherents, and large families.

By way of explanation, let me say that charismatics have entered our Church through "back-door" cultish groups such as the heretical Medjugorjeites.

But this is why Faith and Reason are so important; we have to lift ourselves above the emotionalism and banality of charismatic groups such as the NCW. They are Benny Hinn on speed, but pretend to be under the auspices of the Holy See. What a crock!

Going back to my iota unum and Medjugorje points: the devil will promote 99% orthodoxy if he can get 1% heterodoxy!

Gregorian Mass said...

I don't think the TLM I attend is at all "chatty" or elitist in any way. I can speak for myself. I don't chat, I don't feel superior and don't participate in anything but the Mass. I go for the beauty and silence. I don't feel I am better than any NO attendee and to be truthful don't even think about it. I am just happy to be fortunate to be able to have the TLM available to me. And I grew up NO. I was one who stumbled upon it after hearing about its' being freed out of curiosity and just felt at home with it. I still attend the NO once in a while but prefer the TLM. Perhaps what comes off to some as elitest is simply setting the bar high for oneself and an intense focus on that bar, especially at Mass. What is wrong with that? We are serious about praying and taking in everything about the Mass. It leads to a serious attitude. Maybe it is not the TLM environment that is the problem, but the environment one often sees at the NO Mass. Where there are more people and therefore the ratio of folks attending who are not too serious increases. It is a more relaxed atmosphere in general. This could desensatize a person and lead them to be hypersensative in a TLM environment. I myself have found the TLM Masses full with the appropriate behavior that one should have in Church. Maybe that just seems foreign to many and comes off as something it is not. Having a TLM as part of a regular parish Mass schedulw would help relieve this perception by allowing more people to "drift" between Masses so that all attitudes beging to merge organically.

Woody said...

Jan,

I am not in the inner circle for the liturgical development in the Ordinariate so do not give my own speculations too much credence. From what I have heard, from friends of friends, it sounds like the process is still in the early stage, so let's just wait and see. I have confidence that what is produced will be very good.

All the best,
Woody

Woody said...

Sorry, Jon, not Jan. My old eyes are failing me.

P.K.T.P. said...

Woody:

While I agree with your assessments, you seem to be more comfortable than I am with the outcome in the B.D.W. The Bugnini Offertory is a huge problem because it implies and reflects a theology of the Mass that is incompatible with that declared by the Church at the 22nd Session of the Council of Trent. I can only recommend that--the law be damned--incoming priests will simply use the preconciliar Offertory or else the shorter Sarum one and say it quietly to themselves while motets are sung as a cover.

Yes, the B.D.W. is better than the N.O.M. But that's not saying much. Therein lies the problem.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

Dear Matthew M.

But the two Ordinariates do have some of the same problems. One problem they share is the New Mass. A second is the Bugnini Offertory. A third is the Book of Divine Worship, which was used in England for the reception of Robert Mercer.

The Anglican Use had eight parishes in it by about 1985. One or two were closed or left later on; but one or two were added. Today, it has ... eight parishes. This is not because the Masses offered there are no good. They are considerably better than the N.O., and Fr. Phillips will confirm that they attract many Latins and not just former Anglicans. Really, one problem was simply that the Latin bishops generally discouraged the Anglican Use, all so as not to offend their œcumeical buddies in the heretical Canterbury Commuion. They don't want Anglicans to convert to the One True Church. Heaven forbid! That would be deplorable! It is for the same reason that the Roman bishops are trying to impair the Anglican Use: it is to make it less attractive and thereby discourage conversions.

A sound liturgy for Anglican incomers is one that will marry the best in the Anglican patrimony with what is truly essential from the Traditional Roman Mass, esp. its Offertory and Canon. What is definitely not good is the Offertory of Bugnini, which reflects a Protestant notion of sacrifice of praise alone. That text is so foreign to a Catholic ethos that it could have been composed in a Masonic hall. I wouldn't be in the least surprised if it were.

What is also definitely not good is the dumbed-down 1979 American prayerbook forms, vastly inferior to those of the American prayerbook of 1928. While I am confident that the coming committee will make improvements, in the mean time, the incomers are stuck with a Use that is seriously defective, even if it is considerably better than the Novus Ordo.

The TAC bishops proposed a Mass text to Rome at Pentecost of 2010. It was wonderful. It included the traditional Roman Offertory and Canon in sacral English, instead of the New Offertory in conversational English (where thereby creates linguistic dissonance in the B.D.W.). There is no reason why Cardinals Levada and Canizares Llovera could not have approved it. But they have not done so, and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why.

P.K.T.P.

Knight of Malta said...

@PKTP: ...he Offertory of Bugnini...reflects a Protestant notion of sacrifice of praise alone.

That is readily apparent, ipso facto, so why isn't it recognized by the majority of the Bishops in the world?

Was there really "continuity" after Vatican II?

If you change what was a Sacrifice for almost 2,000 years--which generated the greatest Saints--to a 1960's hand-holding meal, is that continuity?

The problem lies in that most Bishops are Modernist heretics. The praxis of the Church has changed. If you look left and see a heretic, and you look right and see a heretic, you might just think being a heretic yourself is normal.

Woody said...

Peter,

I agree with you about the offertory, and try to pray the old one sub silentio, when the liturgy is at that point (of course I am only a layman, and it would be preferable that the priest do that, but as is usual, if anyone of them is doing that they are not letting on). My view is just as you have said, the BDW is better than the N.O., so I am thankful for small blessings.

I think you are closer to the TAC than I am now, and would know better about their approaches to Rome. As I said in an earlier post, all I know is what i hear from friends of friends, and it suggests that the liturgical commission is studying the issue now, and maybe they will come out with something like what TAC suggested. One element of this is that the English clergy have in some number (I am not sure how large) become habituated even as Anglicans to using the N.O. Because that made them closer to Rome even where they were at the time, thus we may have some hesitation about a TLM version from that source as well. We will just have to wait and see.

Best,
Woody

jeff said...

A committee from both sides of the Atlantic eh? The English Missal loving Yankees will definitely have their say!

Sixupman said...

Pre-Vatican II Anglo-Catholics used a Missal in all respects similar to our own with three exceptions: language; lack of Imprimatur; reference to the pope, in the prayers, as 2first among equals". Some even resorted to Latin and one had to beware one was actually hearing our Mass and not theirs. They operated at both ends of the spectrum ministering both very poor areas and the very rich areas. Benediction, Stations of The Cross and Confession being commonplace.

john-of-hayling said...

PKTP - are you really Dan Brown in disguise? You seem to see conspiracy at every turn, all we need is the sighting of an albino monk from Opus Dei! You ask why the TAC suggestion on 2010 was not instantly snapped up by the CDF. You claim that it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out why this sensible offering was not implemented. I'm not a rocket scientist, but I can think of several reasons, none of which involve mendacity on the part of assorted cardinals. At that time negotiations for the admission of three serving Anglican Bishops were well advanced. Dossiers for the 60 or so priests that would follow them were either with the CDF or would shortly arrive. Dossiers for TAC members had not been submitted. So it is hardly surprising that the views of those who would shortly 'cross the Tiber' were paramount. If the TAC suggestion is as good as you suggest then I feel that the work in its submission will not have been wasted. Patience!

Picard said...

Mathew M., John of hayling,

your comments sound very uncharitable re a man who argued with clear arguments and facts.

You only played the substantial problems down, that P.K.T.P. pointed to, without giving some good arguments youselfe.

Of course the un-catholic, modernistic 60/70-years "offertory" is a problem.

And if the TAC asked for a liturgy that included the old one etc. and it was not approved, then we have another real problem.

That has nothing to do with conspiracy-theories. That only and clearly shows the mind-set of those in charge and that there are real problems, worthy of beeing criticized (like P.K.T.P. did).

Picard said...

"The TAC bishops proposed a Mass text to Rome at Pentecost of 2010. It was wonderful. It included the traditional Roman Offertory and Canon in sacral English, instead of the New Offertory in conversational English (where thereby creates linguistic dissonance in the B.D.W.)."

But why not approved?!!
(Whilst NeoCat quasi-approved!!)

"For whatever reasons, the TAC-type liturgies involving a more or less faithful translation of the 1962 Missal just don't seem to be in the cards for the Ordinariate"

But WHY??!!!

For what reason?!!!

- That [combinde, as I remarked above, with the quasi-approval of the Neocats] shows that there is still a big problem inside the Vatican and even up until the very top - doesn´t it?!?!

Jeremiah Methuselah said...

RP,

Well, I did break my rule of only touching on one topic per post, so it just serves me right to be hauled over the coals. Re-reading shows I wrote too much, for which I offer my apology. I suppose I was a bit cross about some of the near-elitist anmd crass comments, from those who seem to be the fons et origem.

RP, I do not want to trade blows, I hate polemics, specially over the Mass, but I cannot comment on your complaint about what I did not write. So there :)

You have missed the point (s), I regret that, but I will simply say that being able to attend Mass on a feast day is very special for me and often reveals qualities (differences) which I had missed before.

You should know that I far prefer the rite of Low Mass and deliberately choose that form every Sunday, even though plainchant can move me to tears, now and again. My problem.

As my puny brain does not understand the majority of what you are saying: it’s completely above my head, I will have to leave the rest, but thank you for taking the trouble to read my less than brilliant post in any case Sir. Sorry I pressed the wrong button, truly.

Oh yes, I should not have conflated the bit about yakking before Mass and elitism. Listen, we have always had elitism in our Church, I can remember from when I was a lad. The chattering bit should have been separate. I am probably over-sensitive and intolerant of people yakking, but that is the way I am. You see, the main thing which drove out of the NO - and nearly out of the Church into perdition - was the dreadful Kiss of Peace. Verb sap.

I bid you a very Good Night.

Ralph Roister-Doister

You have made some very good points, IMHO, I think I agree with them, but I am weary. Certainly, my own experience of attending the Old Mass (it’s a very big number and in many venues) is that irreverence is very rare, almost non-existent, I speak of our priests. That’s why it comes as a dreadful shock when you meet it of course. You feel helpless.

But I can remember as a stripling a priest, maybe more than one of them, boasting he could “get through three Masses in an hour”. It would be hard find reverence there, thank God it is very rare these days, so far as I can see.

I fear to offer any clue as to the ID of the priest, I will only get into more trouble.

I’m outta this one, getting too hot for me.

Reluctant Pessimist said...

Jeremiah Methuselah: Thank you for your reply. I did not mean to suggest that there was anything amiss in preferring Low Mass—so long as one means the Traditional Low Mass.

As to the NO Kiss of Peace, which the author Thomas Day once aptly renamed the Handshake of Peace, the fact that it drove you away from the NO is no surprise. What is surprising is that it hasn't caused the rest of the nominally Catholic population to react in like wise!

Allow me to suggest that you drop your concern with "elitism," whatever is meant by that term in this land where "equality" and "diversity" are worshiped as ultimate virtues. The True Faith and the sacraments and the True Mass—and access to them—are all that matter.

Pax tibi.

P.K.T.P. said...

This idea of John-of-Hayling that the FiF neo-cons approached Rome first would make a cat laugh. It is time to review the facts. The TAC formed as an international body in 1991. It was the union of several national groups of Anglicans which had separated themselves from the Canterbury Communion over the issue of womanpriest and, to a lesser extent, to avoid an Anglican liturgical barbarism which happens to resemble the N.O. barbarism. The TACers were also Christian on moral issues, unlike, to a growing extent, the Canterbury Conventicle of liberal Heretics.

From the very outset, in 1991, the TAC committed itself to communion with the Pope. It made several overtures to the Holy See, but these were largely ignored. A more responsible Pope would have welcomed them with open arms and would have bent over backwards to bring them into a Catholic structure where their unity and resolve could have been protected and fostered. A uniate church, not an ordinariate for mixed groups of Anglicans, would have worked.

This all happened before the FiF people were even considering leaving the Canterbury Communion. At one point late in the 1990s (could someone tell us the exact date on this, please?), the TAC bishops from around the world (who had little money for aeroplane tickets, by the way) assembled at the Vatican to ask the Pope to bring them in as Catholics. They were literally ignored. Their bishops stood out in the hot Roman sun for several hours before embarrassed officials finally let them in for a glass of water. They were told by a functionary that their request would be forwarded to the appropriate offices in due course, at the appropriate juncture, when conditions were right, never. The bishops' request was then flushed down a toilet somewhere near the Clementine Hall. No, it is probably at the bottom of a pile of paper in some warren deep under Vatican City State.

TO BE CONTINUED, P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P. said...

PART II, P.K.T.P.

Much later on, in the present pontificate, the FiF bishops, in 2006, made their first overture to Rome. Canterbury had shot them down on womanpriest and was in the process of denying them a protected place in the Church of England under a 'code of practice'. The instant these three FiF bishops knocked on Roman wood, the Pope himself opened the door and embraced them. In fact, the Pope opened the door even before they had a chance to knock. These were the sort of pliable Anglicans the Pope wanted to embrace. They were establishment men from the Church of England, the state Church of the British Empire. They were not cranks from some tiny breakaway group, 'unsound' men.

Despite this warm welcome, the FiF bishops continued to negotiate with Rowan the Druid right up to the last minute. This is because the FiF men wanted to remain Anglican; they did not want to be Romans. That is why they were prepared to live with womanpriest. But when bishopettes were to be forced on them, and when they were to be afforded no separation from these ladies in tippets, they reluctantly consigned themselves to bed down with the scarlet woman. Better the scarlet woman than the mitred feminists of the Church of England.

Rome wanted these FiF men because they were 'conservatives' (i.e. compromisers, liberals in slow motion), like Opus Dei, the Neo-catatonical Way, the charismoronics, and the Legionaries of Maciel Marsupial. Say a Novus Ordo in a peachy English voice with a little incense and some chant, and all will be well. Compromisers are acceptable because they bow before the Novus Ordo Missæ of Annibale Bugnini: they do not embarrass Rome by pointing out that that N.O. has been the total disaster that has decimated Holy Church.

In contrast, the TAC men are anathema to Rome because they left Canterbury solely over the issue of womanpriest. They are not men of our time and, like the S.S.P.X, they will not compromise with the secular world ruled by the prince of this world.

Everyone knows that Roman prelates in the West say that only men may be ordained but they do not think it or mean it. It has to be said because the the Latins of Africa and Asia and Latin America--where all Catholic numbers are and growth is--won't have womanpriest.

TACers refuse womanpriest on principle, refuse liturgical reform, and oppose sexual inversion root and branch. Therefore, they are modern heretics. If they be allowed to have structures in the Church, their beautiful Masses might attract large numbers of Latins and former Anglicans alike, making the N.O. look even worse than it does at present. We musn't have that. That would make the ageing Roman prelates look bad. Even worse, they must not have a jurisdiction in the West where they can embarrass the Church on moral and cultural issues. Therefore, Levada will pull out all the stops to decimate and destroy the Traditional Anglican Communion. He means to drive them out just as surely as he drove the good Fr. Eugene Heidt into the S.S.P.X.

P.K.T.P.

john-of-hayling said...

Picard..... you suggest that I am being uncharitable by posting that PKTP sees conspiracies at every turn and that every Vatican official is un-trustworthy. I think that if you examine his two subsequent posts you might see that it PKTP who has got himself into a twist over these matters.
I merely suggested that that there was a simple reason as to why the TAC suggested Order of Mass had not been instantly accepted by the CDF - namely that at that point no TAC priests had submitted their dossiers. PKTP then accuses what he refers to as "FiF " Bishops (in actuality Bishops of the CofE) of bad faith because they were negotiating with (his words) Rowan-the-Druid as well as with the Vatican and therefore they didn't really want to join the Ordinariate. They had to face both ways because their flock faced both ways. They couldn't just jump and abandon everybody left behind. They had a tricky job to try to carry as many people forward as well as leaving as good a situation behind as was possible. That doesn't seem evidence of bad faith to me - but then I'm not a rocket scientist. I tend to distrust people whose explanations rely on the conspiracy view of life.

P.K.T.P. said...

John-of-Hayling:

I see conspiracies at every turn? Hardly. I see only one grand conspiracy of liberals in the Church to persecute tradition wherever they may find it. The only way to avoid clear evidence of this is to bury your head in the sand. Levada is regarded as an enemy of tradition because his actions and policies prove this, whether as Archbishop of Portland, Archbishop of San Francisco or Prefect for doctrine.

Never mind "tricky job[s]". It is a fact that the FiF leaders tried to gain an accommodation in the Church of England right up to the eleventh hour. Do you deny it? They came as wannabe Anglicans and reluctant converts. The TAC people, in stark contrast, have been trying to secure communion with the Pope since the time of their foundation. The door was slammed in their faces because they are too traditional and politically incorrect.

P.K.T.P.

ItIStheorientation said...

When the Anglicans were rec'd in my neck of the woods, it was in our diocesan newspaper that it wasn't gay or women priests (or I presume divorce, birth control, abortion, etc.) or anything "controversial" but just their study of the Catholic faith -don't know why they were studying it though...especially most of them seem to be lapsed Catholics.

"Prayer and study, not any controversies, led the congregation toward unity, Rev. Lewis said, when asked whether Episcopal doctrine on the priesthood or sexual issues had precipitated the move.

"Those issues on the priesthood and sexuality have been around. The real issue that drove us was our study of the Catholic faith," he said. "The more we looked at it and compared it to Anglicanism, we were drawn to the Church of Rome. It was a natural progression.""

http://cathstan.org/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=4617&SectionID=2&SubSectionID=113&S=1