Rorate Caeli

U.S. Ordinariate: Traditional Mass "not integral to the Anglican Patrimony", "not properly used in our communities"

Editorial Note: The whole matter, in fact, revolves around the tastes of the U.S. Ordinary, Msgr. Steenson, and what he views as the Anglican Patrimony. 

Why "tastes"? Because unless one interprets such "Patrimony" exclusively as one limited to a period that began, in the official books, around two decades after the separation of the majority of English episcopate from Rome - and excludes the whole history of Latin Christianity in England before the schism, the period of Queen Mary I, the sacrifice of thousands and thousands of men and women who believed one could be English and worship along with the Bishop of Rome, the countless converts who knew only the Traditional Mass, and the also countless Anglicans who, not having the courage or the will to take the final step, still reintroduced almost all elements of traditional Latin worship in the Anglican services - then the words of the American Ordinary do not make sense. Which they do not. 

It is obvious that the purpose of the Ordinariate is also to protect some kind of "Anglican Patrimony", but it is wrong and historically inaccurate to say that the "Extraordinary Form is not an integral part of the Anglican Patrimony". On the contrary, the Extraordinary Form, or rather, the Latin Mass understood in its, to use his words, "integral" sense, which includes all manners of traditional worship in Latin (not only of the post-1570 Roman variety, but almost identical to it, and identical in the Canon) that spread throughout Europe, and that Saint Augustine established firmly in England, and that English missionaries, such as Boniface and Willibrord, spread even more widely in Europe - this traditional  Latin Mass, in its several traditional rites and forms, including in the vernacular forms introduced in  Anglican settings in the 19th Century, is much more an integral part of the Anglican Patrimony than a Missal approved in 1970, and the Book of Divine Worship approved following all the general lines of the 1979 American Book of Common Prayer, and the guidelines of the Congregation for Divine Worship in the strong Bugninist composition of the early 1980s. 

Since the U.S. Ordinariate is also a part of the Latin Church, it is also absurd, and offensive, for its Ordinary to claim that the "Roman Missal [of Paul VI] 3rd edition could be used", while the Traditional Mass, that under Summorum Pontificum can be celebrated by any priest in the Latin Church freely, is "not properly used in our communities". Its history, as said above, makes it clear that it is proper in all senses of the word, and that it is proper to Ordinariate Catholics as it is to all Catholics of the Latin Church. 

Therefore, of both main points mentioned by the U.S. Ordinary, one is simply untrue (that the Latin Mass is not "integral to the Anglican Patrimony"), the other (that it is not "properly used" in "our communities") is an overstretching of his powers. Both are offensive to history, justice, and common sense. In either case, what is clearly shown is the Ordinary's personal antipathy towards the Latin Mass and to those people, traditional Catholics. Perhaps that is also part of the "Anglican patrimony": personal vicissitudes become law, it was like this with Henry VIII, right?

__________________________________

The Liturgy of the Ordinariate and the Latin Mass

In response to certain questions that have been asked about the use of the Latin Mass in its Extraordinary Form in the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, Monsignor Jeffrey N. Steenson, Ordinary, issued this statement:

"We rejoice in the liturgical richness of the Catholic Church. We in the Anglican tradition certainly welcome the Holy Father's concern that the Mass be understood as a living, continuous tradition. The communio sanctorum compels us to read and engage with the Church's tradition with a hermeneutic of continuity.

"The particular mission of the Ordinariate is to bring into the fuller life of the Catholic Church those enduring elements of the Anglican liturgical patrimony which are oriented to Catholic truth. This liturgical identity seeks to balance two historic principles -- that Christian prayer and proclamation should be offered in the vernacular and that the language of worship should be sacral. This is what Anglicans understand when they speak of the prayer book tradition.

"The liturgy of the Ordinariate is superintended by an inter-dicasterial working group (of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW)). At the time the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter was established, the CDW provided important guidance for our liturgical use: The Book of Divine Worship Rite I should be amended to bring it into conformity with the Roman Missal 3rd edition, particularly the words of Consecration. For those congregations that prefer a contemporary idiom, the Roman Missal 3rd edition could be used.

"We have therefore asked that the congregations of the Ordinariate follow this direction. Some of our clergy want to learn also how to celebrate according to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. They are certainly encouraged to do so, under the provisions ofSummorum Pontificum and under the supervision of the local bishop, to assist in those stable communities that use the Extraordinary Form. But as the Extrordinary Form is not integral to the Anglican patrimony, it is not properly used in our communities. The Ordinariate will remain focused on bringing Christians in the Anglican tradition into full communion with the Catholic Church. We also are pleased that the Church has provided for the continuing use of the Extraordinary Form, particularly as a pastoral response to traditional Catholics, and regard all of this as a well-ordered symphony of praise to the Blessed Trinity." 

[Source: U.S. Ordinariate; tip: New Liturgical Movement (sidebar)]

__________________________________

From the very moderate and most trustworthy blogger on the Ordinariates, Christian Campbell at The Anglo-Catholic, we also have the following:

I have it on unimpeachable authority that there is on ongoing crackdown on those AU/Ordinariate priests who would dare to learn or celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite on the part of Steenson, Hurd, and Chalmers. The affected priests are naturally frightened, and unwilling to go on record, but make no mistake, the leadership of the U.S. Ordinariate at present has set itself against both Summorum Pontificum and Anglicanorum coetibus. I have it on good authority that this intimidation, an abuse of power, is being report[ed] directly to the Roman Authorities. And the contention that the traditional Latin Mass has no bearing on the Anglican Patrimony — this simply has me flabbergasted. Is there just a shortsightedness on the part of the Ordinary, or is he ignorant of the history of English Catholicism?

We love very much our brothers and sisters in the Ordinariate, or who wish to join the Ordinariate, and, curiously enough, we believe many of them disagree with the personal inclinations of their Ordinary. They should make their position and disagreement, and their grievances, known to him, as provided by Canon Law, and publicly, if necessary.

P.S. Final notes, by contributor Augustinus:

(1) One of the flagship parishes of the American Ordinariate has a scheduled Traditional Mass: Mount Calvary, in Baltimore, has it at least every Friday (officially), and reportedly more often than that.

(2) Celebrating the Traditional Mass -- even in Latin, -- has not been unknown in Anglo-Catholic circles. It was also often the norm as a translation in the ancient English commonly used in worship.

"High Mass" in Saint-Jude-on-the-Hill, parish church of the Church of England
(Hampstead Garden Suburb, Greater London), 1939
(3) The history of the Anglo-Catholic movement simply cannot be understood without the pivotal position of the Traditional Mass.

70 comments:

C. said...

As someone baptized and raised in the Episcopal Church, I have to say that this decision makes me feel personally unwelcome in the Ordinariate.

I wonder what my current Anglican friends who celebrate the Tridentine Mass will think of this decision.

NIANTIC said...

At the time of the establishment of the Anglican Ordinariate I had high hopes they would be a solid and strong partner for Traditional Catholics. Alas, reading the language of this statement of Mgr.Steenson it is obviously not to be.
Since the Ordinariate is "supervised" by the CDF and CDW it should be no surprise that the Traditional Mass is to be accorded indifference and benign neglect.The Ordinariate has been well trained by Rome. Great pity.

vivailpapa said...

eh, anglicans. what did we need them for?

James Ignatius McAuley said...

A few points that are not speculation:
1.) Jeffery Hurd -- protege of "Wuerl the girl," a Bishop known to be antagonistic to the TLM and a "phoney conservative."
2.) Father Christopher Phillips who helped to craft the Book of Divine Worship and the use of the RSV Lectionary (for all their faults), a man who helped others come into the Ordinariate, who listened and counseled those who came in -- thrown under the bus.

What would Msgr Steenson think of the Sarum rite? All Anglican roots go back to this as a variant of the Roman Rite, one that predates Trent by over 200 years. Based on Msgr.'s words and actions, you can speculate negatively . . .

Fr. Ryan Humphries said...

I have to respectfully disagree with the author. The good Bishop is simply saying that the Ordinariate exists for those former Anglicans who want to continue to practice their Anglican liturgy within the Roman Church. That's all well and good. Those former Anglicans who want to practice the Catholic Faith in the Ordinary or Extraordinary forms don't need to be part of the Ordinariate, they ought to simply be part of the larger Church. There's nothing offensive about that. If someone approached a Dominican about offering the Ambrosian rite, he would rightly point you to Milan... No one ought to be upset about that. This is not a liberal, anti-traditional or anti-Roman statement - it's a perfectly logical statement of the purpose of the Ordinariate.

NoRancor said...

Should the Anglican Ordinariate not be encouraged then to foster devotion to the Sarum Rite and seek to tone down the vernacular "bias" and preference for the 1928 or 1978 BCPs, since the employment of the vernacular was part and parcel of the Reformation that banned the Latin tongue under Cramner and was part of the process that culminated in them invalidating their Orders in the 1550s?

New Catholic said...

Fr. Humphries,

That would make sense if the Ordinary did not himself create two different kinds of approach to the non-Anglican Mass: the New Missal "could be used", the Traditional Missal "is not properly used".

The Anglican liturgy is to be "amended to bring it into conformity with the Roman Missal 3rd edition", not to the pre-1970 Latin liturgy.

He has, quite clearly, two different views: the Missal of Paul VI is perfectly acceptable and proper, and the benchmark for the reform of the Anglican-Catholic worship, the Missal of Saint Gregory the Great, codified by Saint Pius V, is "improper".

And it is historically untrue to say that the Traditional Latin Mass, in its various forms, is not part of the Anglican liturgical tradition. The statement is, therefore, certainly anti-traditional. As, as Christian Campbell reported, is the whole attitude of Msgr. Steenson. Quite expected, really...

NC

Knight of Malta said...

It's a mess; I guess one bird in the hand is better than two in the bush. So, of course, I'm glad Anglicans are coming back into the fold. But, this history of Anglicanism in the UK, which spilled into the US as Episcopalianism is one of pure evil, in my opinion. Henry the VIII (who, ironically, was once very Catholic), a thrice-wife killing evil man, passed his anti-clerical hatred to his daughter, Elizabeth. I could talk for hours about this. But I will only suggest reading Edmund Campion by Evelyn Waugh; an incredibly moving book.

Matthew Rose said...

New Catholic wrote:

"we believe many of them disagree with the personal inclinations of their Ordinary. They should make their position and disagreement, and their grievances, known to him, and publicly, if necessary. "

I think this is spot-on and I hope Msgr Steenson is respectfully but loudly corrected for this ridiculous statement. Really, the whole Book of Divine Worship should be put away in the circular filing cabinet and the Sarum Use should be the sole use of the Ordinariates.

Thank you for the keen observations, New Catholic.

Joseph Shaw said...

If the 'Patrimony' of the Ordinariate means anything, it must include the use of the old Roman liturgical books by many, many Catholic-minded Anglican clergy, often in the face of opposition, and even persecution, by Anglican bishops. The great Catholic converts Mgr Ronald Knox and Hugh Ross-Williamson are examples. This tradition was strongest before Vatican II, but it has continued up to the present: just think of Fr John Hunwicke. But I think this strand of Anglicanism is stronger in England than the USA.

Andrew said...

I disagree with using the Sarum Rite. Hardly any Anglican has experience with the Sarum Rite and it does not reflect the unique heritage with which most Anglicans are familiar. The adoption of the Sarum rite would defeat the purpose of the Ordinariate, which is to allow Anglicans to come into union with Rome whilst retaining the orthodox aspects of their spirituality and liturgy. The Sarum Rite is as foreign as the TLM to most former Anglicans. Its been an all but defunct rite in the Catholic Church since the Reformation (only select Anglo-Catholic communities use it on occassion and the rare Catholic group for special occassions). Its adoption would make the Ordinariate an odd musuem piece and a liturgical oddity. "Come become a member of the Ordinariate, here is a liturgy you have never seen, never used and don't understand, but its your liturgical heritage don't ya know." Please. No thanks on Sarum.

Sid said...

As a quick follow up to my just-concluded comment, what should be the reaction of traditionalists to a hypothetical where an Eastern Catholic bishop makes a similar statement about the TLM vis-a-vis the Divine Liturgy - celebrating the TLM is not proper for any Melkite congregation, for example?

New Catholic said...

We will not allow any further comment that views this one-sidedly. That is, you cannot defend the position of the Ordinary on the TLM without making it clear that his position on the New Missal contradicts this. The Ordinariate can be a TLM-free zone?... Fine, but also explain why it can be at the same time a New Missal-abiding zone. If you wish to defend his argument, defend the whole, the "integral", argument: that the "Anglican Patrimony" he wishes to foster absolutely includes the New Missal, even as the absolute benchmark of the new Book of Divine Worship, but absolutely excludes, as improper, the Traditional Latin Mass (and all its Anglican derivatives, including its vernacular Anglican derivatives, all from before the Council).

Thank you.

Jason C. said...

...[T]his traditional Latin Mass, in its several traditional rites and forms, including in the vernacular forms introduced in Anglican settings in the 19th Century, is much more an integral part of the Anglican Patrimony than a Missal approved in 1970, and the Book of Divine Worship.....

This is correct.

Monsignor Steenson's not just saying that it's Anglican patrimony- or Anglican Use (or whatever it's called now) only--which I could half-heartedly get behind--because he opens the possibility of the Novus Ordo.

(Also, Father's an Ordinary, but not a bishop; he's a monsignor.)

New Catholic said...

Sid, simply because the Ordinariates are parts of the Latin Church, in which both the Extraordinary Form and the Ordinary Forum can be rightly used by any priest - they are not Eastern Churches... Which is made clear by the fact that the Ordinary says the New Missal "could be used", while the Traditional Latin Mass "is not proper". An Eastern Eparch would never say that the New Missal could be used in Divine Liturgy, because it cannot.

Independent said...

The old English Missal, the Mass of Pius V in Tudor Emglish with Book of Common Prayer additions was the rite most used by Anglo-Catholics before 1970.

med said...

I believe the reason that the statement allows for the use of the OF is that originally the BDW allowed for Anglican Use communities to use either Rite 1 (traditional language) or Rite 2 (modern language). After the creation of the Ordinariate, and after the reform of the OF, the congregation responsible for approving liturgies informed the Ordinariate communities that since the new OF liturgy is very similar to the Rite 2 liturgy in the BDW, that communities should use the new OF liturgy instead. Msgr. Steenson's statement takes into account the Congregation's specific direction that the OF can be used in Ordinariate communities as a replacement for Rite 2 of the BDW. Thus what seems like an inconsistancy is Msgr. Steenson acting in accord with their direction.

New Catholic said...

Summorum Pontificum made everything clear about the rights of priests of the Latin Church in 2007 regarding the Traditional Mass. Since the Ordinary himself mentioned Summorum Pontificum, it is quite obvious he knows its contents, that apply to all jurisdictions within the Latin Church.

NC

Sid said...

New Catholic,

Thanks for the clarification on the Eastern Churches.

I'm sorry you chose to not post my first comment; in regards to this, "you cannot defend the position of the Ordinary on the TLM without making it clear that his position on the New Missal contradicts this" - that is exactly what I did. I made it clear that both the TLM and NO contradict the whole point of the Ordinariate; in fact, I called Steenson's allowance of the NO a "huge gaffe."

The fact remains that the Ordinariate exists to allow Anglicans to convert to Rome and still use a liturgy with which they're familiar - one version of which may be from 1970, but whose core language has existed for 500 years. If there are Anglicans who prefer the TLM or, yes, the NO - I'll repeat my criticism of Steenson for nonsensically allowing it - then they should go to their local Roman-rite parish and submit to the Holy Father, not enter the Ordinariate. And I believe this was a criticism of the whole idea of the Ordinariate in the first place, that there was something disconsonant about Anglicans wishing to convert who, by definition, must already accept in their hearts all that the Church teaches and defines, yet would not act on that because of the form of their liturgy.

Louis said...

The topic at hand was address a couple of days ago on Father Zulhsdorf's blog. The following may be dismissed as a "neo-con" smokescreen, but several posters to Father Zulhsdorf's blog insisted that the story about Father Steenson was "hearsay" that should be dismissed.

Rorate described Christian Campbell as a "very moderate and most trustworthy blogger on the Ordinariates".

But one poster to Father Zulhsdorf's blog described Christian Campbell as having "a history of posting unsubstantiated allegations against Fr. Steenson and the US Ordinariate in The Anglo Catholic site. At least one of those, announcing the utter failure (!?) of the Ordinariate have been deleted form the site. Therefore, I do not consider him personally a trustworthy source on issues regarding Fr. Steenson. There seem to be some personal issues at play there."

Again, the may be posters to this blog who dismiss posters to Father Zulhsdorf's blog as neo-cons. But perhaps "neo-cons" are correct in regard to the topic at hand.

New Catholic said...

Msgr. Steenson's statement basically confirmed the hostility to the Traditional Latin Mass allied to devotion to the Missal of Paul VI first, and courageously, revealed by Campbell. Naturally, it confirms it in a "symphonic" way, but it does confirm it nevertheless.

Sid, that is a nonstarter. Of course priests in the ordinariate will not be celebrating the TLM exclusively, it would never and will never be a "threat" to the Anglican Patrimony, whatever it may be, the whole point of this post is precisely the revelation of Steenson's contradiction: while claiming to protect the "Anglican Patrimony", he is both untrue about its history and incorrect about the rights of all priests in the Latin Church, including his jurisdiction, and he is contradictory in his simultaneous opposition to the Traditional Mass and devotion to the New Mass.

NC

Fr Richard Cipolla said...

As a former Episcopal priest and a Catholic priest for 28 years, I am perplexed and saddened by Msgr. Steenson's statement. As an Anglo-Catholic priest I always used the Anglican Missal, which is mostly the Extraordinary Form in English. That Missal is an important part of the Catholic revival within Anglicanism and is certainly part of its patrimony, even if it never had the official approbation of the various Anglican churches. I am also disappointed that those priests like me who have had much experience in the transition from Anglican to Catholic have been not even asked for input into the practical side of the Ordinariate. I am especially saddened that my friend Fr. Christopher Phillips, who has accomplished something almost heroic in San Antonio in keeping the Anglican tradition alive within the Catholic Church these many years, is not part of the leadership of the Ordinariate. Much more needs to be said about what constitutes the "Anglican tradition". Father Richard Cipolla

Ben Vallejo said...

Question: "I wonder what my current Anglican friends who celebrate the Tridentine Mass will think of this decision"

Answer: The good Monsignor has proven his Roman credentials!

Seriously too much politics has been read into the Ordinary's words to the extent it can divide the former Anglicans from the traditional Catholics and the Catholics who find spiritual benefit in the OF. The Tridentine Mass and the Sarum Use are not integral to Anglicanism's rites as an established church but indeed they have influenced the Anglican rites to a large degree. I think Msgr Steenson recognises this.

As for the English translations of the Tridentine Mass used by Anglo Catholics, let us remember that they were used by and large in defiance of the Anglican bishops, something Rome will find quite Anglican (in the ecclesial cultural sense) but never amusing.

And let us not drag the OF into this question, let we become like the Rt Rev Chartres of London. After all we have to accept that OF will be allowed by the Ordinary since the vast majority of American Roman Catholics worship according to this form. I think that is the crux of the matter. Only a minority worship in the EF. The Ordinary is well aware of this. I honestly believe that he will allow the EF in his diocese but expect that only a minority of the former Anglicans will prefer to worship in that form.

New Catholic said...

Thank you, Father Cipolla. That is what we have also been hearing from a number of Anglican and former Anglican priests regarding this matter.

JabbaPapa said...

Well, that declaration certainly is a mixed bag containing a mixed message !!!

On the one hand, the Extraordinary Form is all light and wonder -- but on the other hand it's "not proper" for priests to give the Mass in that Form ...

hmmmmm

It is true that the High Anglican liturgy *is* rather beautiful, when given properly anyway, so It's understanding that the Anglo-Catholic brigade could have some trouble over the next few years settling down in their new liturgical environment where they have to juggle three separate Forms of the Latin Rite ... and to that extent I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Clearly though, the proper disciplinary attitude will need to be learned a little more quickly -- which, incidentally, the SSPX should be looking at rather carefully, in the event of a regularisation, in order to avoid repeating any of these mistakes.

Oh, and :

the Latin Church, in which both the Extraordinary Form and the Ordinary Forum can be rightly used by any priest

technically, that's by any congregation, not by any priest --- but at least Summorum Pontificum has been clarified so that individual parishes may celebrate EF Masses without having to beg permission from the Ordinary... :-)

Et Expecto said...

There is another aspect to this debate. In England and Wales, there is strong evidence that pressure has been applied to the newly ordained Ordinariate clergy, preventing them from adopting the Extraordinary Form.

One Ordinariate priest had booked in to a course organised by the Latin Mass Society to learn the the older form of the Mass, but mysteriously cancelled "for reasons that he was unable to go into". Then there was the case of the delayed ordination of Fr Hunwicke, whose predeliction towards the usus antiquior is well known. Other evidence exists.

The views of the Ordinary, Mgr Newton, on this subject are not know to me, as I do not think he has spoken publicly on the issue. However, he seems a reasonable bloke and I would doubt that the difficulty originates with him.

It is far more likely that the opposition to Ordinariate clergy using or being trained in the usus antiquior eminates from the Catholic bishops of England and Wales. In most cases the Ordinariate clergy are dependent on these bishops for their income, whether it be allocation as hospital chaplains or payment for work in parishes.

The difficult financial state of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, and the consequential lack of autonomy, gives the bishops a great deal of power. I suspect that some of them are exercising it to further their opposition to the Latin Mass.

My conclusion is that it is the bishops' conferences on both sides of the Atlantic that are driving this matter and not the Ordinaries, who are powerless to act decisively.

Christian Clay Columba Campbell said...

To Louis above:

I have never declared the Ordinariate to be an utter failure, nor I have I deleted any post by myself or any other Contributor describing any of the Personal Ordinates thusly.

As New Catholic so kindly characterised my blogging and Moderation of The Anglo-Catholic, it has been generally quite conservative. There are hundreds of stories about which we do not blog in order to give those involved the benefit of the doubt or time to repair their mistakes.

This current story, at this critical time in the formation of the American Ordinariate, is an important one on which to report. Such reporting is not immoderate or an "attack" on anyone, it's just reporting the sorry facts of a distressing situation.

I believe that Louis owes me an apology.

Confused in California said...

It seems the Anglican Patrimony consists primarily of Cramer and the Novus Ordo.

And some still wonder why the SSPX suspects their "dialog partners" might be acting in bad faith?

Why, just look at all the SSPX has to look forward to from a hand-selected leader from Rome!

Jeff Culbreath said...

Given the present bizarre set of circumstances, of course it makes no sense for the Anglican Ordinariate to discourage the EF while welcoming the OF.

However, if we're going to have an Anglican rite, let's have an Anglican rite. Msgr. Steenson is not wrong to say that the Anglican patrimony's unique contribution is sacral worship in the vernacular, and to note that the EF is not celebrated in the vernacular. What he fails to note is that OF vernacular hardly qualifies as *sacral*.

The common-sense solution to all of this is the inclusion of the great Anglican Missal alongside the BDW (if you must) - and the exclusion of everything else. Now you have an Anglican rite.

Matt said...

It sure sounds like the AO's got their own Obama in their midst carrying on with his own revisionist, deconstructionist agenda, not to mention the way they go after people who dare to defy them.

Wuerl! No wonder he was so recommending of this character.

Matt said...

Confused in California said, "It seems the Anglican Patrimony consists primarily of Cramer and the Novus Ordo, and some still wonder why the SSPX suspects their "dialog partners" might be acting in bad faith? Why, just look at all the SSPX has to look forward to from a hand-selected leader from Rome!"

Watch. Rome is going to do nothing regarding this crisis in the Anglican Ordinariate because it deal with Tradition. Let them say something like Vatican II is a crock (or begin forbidding the Novus Ordo) and in an instant they sure will be howling like souls in torment!

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

Msgr. Steenson's statements about the supervisory rôle of the local bishops is quite mistaken. He is no doubt referring to §4 of Canon 838: "Within the limits of his competence, it belongs to the diocesan bishop to lay down for the Church entrusted to his care, liturgical regulations which are binding on all". (This is now subordinated to the P.C.E.D. in regard to the Traditional Latin Mass, under Arts. 9-11 of U.E., but the ordinary still has immediate jurisdiction.)

However, under "Anglanorum Cœtibus", Art. V, The power of the personal ordinary is ordinary and "is exercised jointly with that of the local diocesan bishop, *in those cases provided for* [emphasis added] in the Complementary Norms". Since the Complementary Norms nowhere mention this matter, and since, under Article III of A.C. the Ordinariate "has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist ... Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite", it clearly falls to Msgr. Steenson to fulfil the supervisory functions mentioned in Canon 838 over his own priests. The local bishops would appear not to enjoy such functions, at least not in any superordinate way over the personal ordinary, Msgr. Steenson. So one wonders why Msgr. Steenson mentions them. One also wonders why Msgr. Steenson is taking time away from his busy schedule to obstruct his priests in their free right to offer Mass according to the 1962 Missal. They have the same rights as other Latin priests under "Summorum Pontificum". Given Article 1 of S.P. and Canon 837, this means that an ordinariate priest may offer the T.L.M. even publicly without even informing his ordinary--whether local, proper, personal or whatever variety.

Note that Art. 5 of S.P. is frequently misread. It lacks any adverb "only". It gives leave for a Parish Priest to offer the T.L.M. publicly for petitioners but not ONLY if they lodge petitions. He may proceed sheerly at his own initiative, and some Parish Priests have done so. Parish priests may also invite other priests, where active or retired, to offer such Masses.

Ordinariate priests, therefore, have every right to offer the T.L.M. without even informing the personal ordinary. The personal ordinary has immediate supervisory functions in order to ensure that the liturgy is offered in a fitting way. That is all. This supervisory power is subordinated to the P.C.E.D.


I note that, in the case of Canada, former TAC communities, for example, could apply to the Australian Ordinariate for membership instead of the American one. Outside a territory proper to a personal ordinariate, any person or group of persons can apply to any personal ordinariate. Msgr. Entwistle the Australian p.o., is a former TAC bishop and might prove more welcoming. Such communities might also opt in particular cases to be personal parishes or chaplaincies under the respective local bishop. I cannot understand why any fellow Canadian would want to go to a Texan in a Stetson in the first place. Let's keep it in the Commonwealth, if you don't mind.

This is all very troubling. It looks as if liberal AmChurch has intruded their man into the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter. I hope that this is all wrong and is only a false alarmism. But I wonder why Msgr. Steenson feels the need to comment on the matter.

P.K.T.P.

Jeremiah Methuselah said...

This phenomenon of the “Ordinariate” and its remarkably rapid acceptance/approval by Rome has puzzled me for quite some time : it all seemed to happen very quickly and quite a few derogations were granted. To me it was an unbecoming haste to get them “on board”. I could well be wrong, but my instincts vis-à-vis Rome and personal experience convinced me to “wait and see”.

While I had considered the whole Anglo-Rome movement to be a sort of “Half-way House”, this percipient analysis by NC tends to confirm my earliest reservations that not everything about this new “section” of the Roman Catholic Church was or is as it seemed to be.

It looks as if Monsignor Steenson has not thought out his statement very carefully, that was unwise. I wonder just how much he knows about the history of the TLM ? He says : ”We also are pleased that the Church has provided for the continuing use of the Extraordinary Form”. That is not correct Monsignor Steenson. The Church defo did not “provide for”, that is playing with words. Does he still not know that Rome eventually backed off and confirmed, after 40 years of “mistruths” what so many had known with certainty for years that the TLM was never, I say again, NEVER banned ?

When he says : “"The particular mission of the Ordinariate is to bring into the fuller life of the Catholic Church those enduring elements of the Anglican liturgical patrimony which are oriented to Catholic truth”, he surely implies something is lacking in the Roman Catholic Church ? If these “elements” endured, it was only since the Reformation, which made it criminal offence to attend the TLM. Surely he knows the history of the Reformation ? What are his plans ?

BTW : TLM - Traditional Latin Mass is a phrase I prefer as it is understood by everyone. It was never extraordinary for our family, it was the complete norm. I try to avoid all these expressions, Usus antiquior etc as they only cloud the glass.

Sid Cundiff said...

For the record, I am not the "Sid" at 14:23. From this point on, on this blog I will post as

-- Sid Cundiff

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

Et Expecto is correct. Even the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches, independent of the Latin Church on paper, rely on Latin-dominated episcopal conferences for essential income. It makes them wondrously co-operative at times.

The magic circle in England saw to it than only three or four of the 24 TAC applicants priests in England became ordinariate priests. The other 80 or so ordianriate priests are all FiF men, and FiF are Novus Ordo 'conservative' Anglicans and definitely not traditionalists, Fr. Hunwicke being an unusual exception.

The liberal bishops seem to have gained control of the British and American ordinariates. That leaves the Australian one, headed by a former TAC bishop. But his following is very small.

P.K.T.P.

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

Fr. Ryan Humphries misses the point entirely. There is nothing incompatible between the Anglican Use Mass and the Traditional Latin Mass, and Article III of "Anglicanorum Cœtibus" makes it crystal clear that any ordinariate priest may offer the T.L.M. It is not a question of having one or the other. After saying his Anglican Use Mass, why should a parish priest of the ordinariate not have a right to offer the T.L.M. publicly? There is no restriction in law, and the supervisory function for this belongs NOT to the local Roman bishop but to Msgr. Steenson for his subjects.

News from Rome these days just gets worse and worse and worse. Bishop Fellay: take note of this before you accept a personal prelature structure which will cut the throat of your Society.

P.K.T.P.

Matt said...

Well said, P.K.T.P. Sadly, however, the false alarm has been realized as true. One doesn't come barreling out with such a statement unless its meant. If it wasn't, then he'd look like a total fool with a lot of embarassing back-tracking and contorted re-explaining to do.

Gerard said...

Another convert, Fr Anthony Symondson SJ, was Roman to his fingertips before he became a Catholic yet I gather that he is not at all enthusiastic about the Ordinariates, as are many other convert clergy of an earlier generation. They had to put up with much than the Ordinariate crowd and are better for it.

Joe said...

This hostility to the Latin Mass astounds me.

... I'd like to report in on my experiences with the Latin Mass since my post here four weeks ago after my first attendence at a Latin Mass (the only one available in my diocese).

I had some hesitation about going, at first, but now, after four weeks, it has me. The Latin Mass is the place for me.

I'm amazed at this hostility toward it.

I can't even understand why there's this hostility.

The Latin Mass is beautiful, reverent, silent - and helps me participate interiorly so much more than the New Mass.

That doesn't make me against the New Mass. Heck, the New Mass is what I've always known and grown up with ... But I honestly can't say I'm going to miss the New Mass and its beauty ... not after experiencing the Latin Mass, which really has me excited now! After four weeks, I'm starting to see how great the Latin Mass is.

I encourage anyone who has only known the New Mass to give the Latin Mass a try. And stick with it for a few weeks.

I also say that having my grandmother's old 1961 St. Joseph's missal along with me is a big help. (I know it should be 1962, but the differences are so tiny, I can't see them ... You use what you have, right?)

I can see how someone going without a missal might be utterly at sea. But I suggest that anyone reading this who hasn't been to a Latin Mass, should try. Maybe the Extraordinary Form is for you, too.

The mass is a banquet, and there is legitimate variety.

These comments from the leader of the Ordinariate are astounding.

NoRancor said...

In light of the comments thus far, I reiterate that I believe the Ordinariate priests should acquaint themselves with the Sarum Missal as a legitimate expression of their Liturgical Patrimony even if it is 500 years removed from common usage (not by choice as we all know). I did not mention exclusive use precisely because the Sarum is not common amongst converting Anglicans, as has been mentioned. It is simply a common sense idea not to use the 1962 Roman Missal where you muck up the works so to speak by having the Roman Rite encroach upon the Anglican Use.

I don't know Msgr. Steenson's motivation and attitude in the statement, but his comments could very well have been meant that at this early early stage of life of the AU, the admixture of the traditional Roman Rite may not be a proper choice, and that in and of itself would not be an inappropriate or hostile comment.

If A.U. priests are interested in their own usus antiquor, that would be the Sarum, and not the 1962 Roman Missal.

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

NoRancour:

The Sarum Use, it could be argued, has lapsed owing to desuetude. It may not be said in the vernacular and there is no Low Mass form for it. In fact, it requires seven or more servers. When tried a few years ago at Perth, W.A., Australia, there were more people in the sanctuary than in the pews.

I realise that Sarum Use Masses have been said on occasion but not on any regular basis, and so any right to it has likely lapsed. A right from immemorial custom must be maintained on a reasonable basis. The Sarum lapsed with the death of the last Marian priests.

P.K.T.P.

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

Dear Joe:

Welcome to tradition. I too came from the Novus Ordo world (well, it was in place by the time I was young). At my first T.L.M. out here, I was too overwhelmed by the reverence to know what to think, except that I wanted to go back. At my second one, I knew that it was for me, and I didn't want to return to the New Mass ever again. And that Mass was a Low Mass with no chant and just one server. When our T.L.M. was cancelled for a time, I decided to go to the Ukrainian Byzantine Rite rather than the N.O.

The reason for the hostility is ideological. The T.L.M. serves as a constant reminder to liberals that their revolutionary agenda has been a total failure. Instead of a new springtime, we got a nuclear winter, and the radiation is emanating from secularism.

I suspect that the traditional Anglicans have had a similar experience. They had the Sixties Revolution too, and their books of alternative services (great for alternative 'lifestyles') went with the revolution.

P.K.T.P.

NIANTIC said...

I think Msgr Steenson must have had a good talking to from various "powers that be" who hate the TLM and want to make sure the AO is not going to use it. It all goes to show how powerless the Pope has become since "collegiality", that he can be openly opposed by bishops and cardinals. A disgusting spectacle to see the most august and exalted office of Vicar of Christ reduced to impotency. Lord have mercy.

John Fisher said...

Yes but why isn't the Ordinariate in the Uk the norm others follow? If not what is the patrimony those in the USA and Australia are following?

Alan Aversa said...

@Fr. Ryan Humphries: Your comparison doesn't hold. The Holy Father doesn't consider the Extraordinary and Ordinary forms different rites.

JA said...

I'm not sure where the individual of the PS, in the article's first item got his information; but I am a parishioner of Mt. Calvary in Baltimore. Mt. Calvary has only one Latin Mass. It is held on Friday. There are no others. It is only attended by a couple of parishioners from the parish. The other folks that attend come from elsewhere. The parish did not clamor for this service. If there are other Latin Masses planned they will come as a surprise to the parish.

My personal feelings on all of this moaning is that we appear to have lost the focus to "go and make disciples" for the Kingdom of God. If bringing the unchurched to a relationship with God is what we are suppose to be about, then it is much easier to do that in a language people understand. If the Church is about our personal preferences then we all we will do is fight to protect our perceived turf. God have mercy on us.

New Catholic said...

"If bringing the unchurched to a relationship with God is what we are suppose to be about ..."

We are "supposed to be about" saving our souls, and the souls of those for whom we are particularly responsible. People in hell have some kind of "relationship with God" as well, even if one of complete rejection - but it is a "relationship" nonetheless.

NC

Alsaticus said...

to New Catholic

Msgr Steenson's statement is historically preposterous there is no doubt about it : it's crystal clear that the Sarum rite is/was the root of the Cranmer Prayer Book and its further editions, apart from the 1552 Calvinist one under Edward VI.
However the US Ordinary is using one of the loopholes crafted by Universae Ecclesiae in 2011 with the Motu proprio. I had at that time underlined this Instruction brought some negative elements restricting S.P.

One of the restriction of U.E. is to limit the use of Extraordinary Forms others than the Roman rite to religious orders particular rites, excluding the local Latin rites like the Ambrosian, the Lyonese, the Braga Use.
Msgr Steenson can easily dwell on the U.E. crafted loophole to say the Ordinariate is not a religious order and close to a diocese and so is OUT of the juridiction of S.P. as Universae ecclesiae is unfairly stating (when S.P. gave no precision).

We can bet that Bp Roche will back him and who here is thinking Bp Müller is going to be supportive of the Sarum rite ?

Alsaticus

New Catholic said...

Sarum is very important, but it does not matter much at the moment, dear Alsaticus, and I regret the other comments on it here, because they might send a confusing message. All priests in the Latin Church (including those in the Archdioceses of Milan, Braga, Toledo) can freely celebrate according to the Roman Missal of 1962 - likewise for the priests of the Ordinariates. The matter of their own ancient rites is a different one, and does not affect their rights to celebrate at least the ancient Roman Mass.

NC

Ryan Ellis said...

Given that ordinariate communities are pretty much on their own (and not at all beholden financially to the shoestring ordinariate), what incentive does an EF-inclined AO priest have to even listen to this?

Seems like the half-baked opinions of a toothless figurehead to me.

It's possible, of course, that ordinariate communities might be dependent on a diocese, but not everybody is as hostile as the evil Cardinal Wuerl.

Tom said...

You see, if they use the Tridentine (EF) form then they will appear as too Catholic. A novus ordo mentality.

Jordanes551 said...

"Extraordinary" in this context is mainly descriptive, not prescriptive.

The "Extraordinary Form" or "Extraordinary Use" of the Roman Rite should be just as rare as "Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion" are in practice. And in time, it will be.

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

Since the New Roman Mass was concocted in committee by liberals on the advice of six heretics, and since this innovation was made long after the Anglican Schism of 1534 or the one in 1558, we can say that the New Roman Mass cannot be part of the Anglican patrimony, is not integral to that patrimony, and is not appropriate for use in Anglican Use parishes.

P.K.T.P.

Long-Skirts said...

JA said:

"...then it is much easier to do that in a language people understand"

Right on, JA, and I for one am sick of the already outdated vernacular they're using in the Novus Ordo. I think it needs updating so to attract,especially,the young!!

Snoop Ggod
(dogG spelled backwards)

In the name of the Dude
And of the Dogg
And the rizzle dizzle for shizzle bizzle.
(In the name of the Father, Son, Holy Spirit)

Fo shizzle
Welcome to my
Hizzle.
(...the Table of the Lord)

Fo sheezy
No more on
Your neezy
(The people stand)

Hell to the nizzle.
(No hell)
You da bomb fo shizzle
(Amen)
You’ll find it all in you gangsta’s Mizzle.
(Missalette)

Jehovah, he da man
All clap
Aka H.O.V.A. he rap
(Self explanatory)

So H to the O, V to the A
Wat up dude?
Dat’s all I got to say!
(Go…the Mass has ended)

(My apologies to Snoop Dogg)

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

Msgr. Steenson writes:

"The particular mission of the Ordinariate is to bring into the fuller life of the Catholic Church those enduring elements of the Anglican liturgical patrimony which are oriented to Catholic truth. This liturgical identity seeks to balance two historic principles -- that Christian prayer and proclamation should be offered in the vernacular and that the language of worship should be sacral. This is what Anglicans understand when they speak of the prayer book tradition."

Really? Then why, I wonder, does the same Msgr. Steenson write this one paragraph later?:

"For those congregations that prefer a contemporary idiom, the Roman Missal 3rd edition could be used." How does this contemporary idiom balance the need for vernacular language and sacral wording? It doesn't. So-called 'contemporary language' (a misnomer, since sacral language is just as contemporary but in a specialised usage) is not sacral. Since he's now removed the sacral side of the equation, he should be fair and remove the ban on the vernacular, also welcoming Mass in Latin.

I wonder also why, then, Msgr. Steenson and his people are now ditching the King James Bible for the lections at Mass and replacing it with a 2nd edn. R.S.V. Ignatius Press lectionary WHICH HAS DITCHED SACRAL WORDKING. How does this act present an Anglican patrimony in a vernacular sacral form? It only presents it in a vernacular form. What does this remind me of? It reminds me of the conversational hey-you English of the Novus Ordo. It reminds me of the abolition of sacral English in Catholic handmissals, breviaries, devotionals and diurnals in the period 1955-1965. It reminds me of baby-steps to the New World Order.

Let's see now. The King James Bible, the cultural gold standard of the Anglican patrimony, is abolished for a non-sacral translation of the Scriptures. He doesn't say why the Douay-Rheims was not even considered as a substitute. Believe it or not, the D.-R. is not written in Latin. Then Msgr. Burnhan, the wannabe Anglican FiFer from England, whose group tried to stay in the Church of England under a special provision until the eleventh hour, turns into a budding Bugnini and begins 'editing' and 'arranging' different prayerbooks to make a Customary. Despite my sarcasm here, I really do intend to give him the benefit of the doubt, and I will pray that the result will preserve the Anglican patrimony. But emendations is not preservation. I am beginning to wonder what will be left of their patrimony after they disconnect their liturgy from its roots in the Traditional Roman Rite, ditch the King James Bible and sacral English in their lections, and begin tinkering with the prayerbooks to produce something for everyone. What does that leave? Bunfights and tea?

This is beginning to look less and less like an exercise in oonservation and preservation, and more and more like an accommodation to the Novus Disordo disaster of 1970. He who pays the piper makes the rules, and that would be the Novus Ordo bishops.

P.K.T.P.

Barbara said...

JA said:
"If bringing the unchurched to a relationship with God is what we are suppose to be about, then it is much easier to do that in a language people understand. If the Church is about our personal preferences then we all we will do is fight to protect our perceived turf. God have mercy on us."

Here we go again with "the language that people can understand"reason for the elimination of the Catholic Church's sacred language. People are not so dumb nowadays that they can't read a translation - besides the august Traditional Latin Mass is a "heart participation". Who really "understands" Holy Mass anyway? It is such a great mystery which the Church was wise to cloak in non-everyday language. There is time to "speak in the vernacular" about the faith at and on other occasions. With all those words and words and words which are so much a "normal" part of the New Mass there is so much DIN that the supernatural reality can be lost to the people. And let's not get into the abuses which pertain more to the New Mass and are more common than not...

You are right about the preference thing, though - Holy Mass is about Our Lord's Holy Sacrifice and HIM giving HIMSELF to us - and the TLM allows one to sense this great mystery more than in the form of the New Mass - where Our Lord - always so gracious - comes down from Heaven anyway, when the Mass is offered up correctly. (???)

Great testimony Joe - and very similar to my experience. I remember at the publication of Summorum Pontificum that I even experienced awe just looking at photos of the TLM - and this - before actually attending one - about a year later.

I don't understand the hostility toward the Traditional Latin Mass either. With that Mass one, in a greater way,begins to absorb the objective and absolute reality of the Faith and Christ's Sacrifice to save us all.

And those prayers are so heart-rendingly beautiful..

...it's like being hostile to Our Lord Himself...if you think about it...

Barbara

JabbaPapa said...

Jeremiah Methuselah :

When he says : “"The particular mission of the Ordinariate is to bring into the fuller life of the Catholic Church those enduring elements of the Anglican liturgical patrimony which are oriented to Catholic truth”, he surely implies something is lacking in the Roman Catholic Church ?

hmmmmmm, no, I think in this particular interpretation, you're being a smidgeon uncharitable --- passive voice in English is certainly always slightly confusing, and should usually be avoided, but he's actually saying that some elements of the Anglican tradition (but, implicitly, NOT some others) are in harmony with Catholic truth, and that it's therefore justified to protect them.

Which is probably his entire motivation in a nutshell.

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

Just a quick note:

The Braga and Lyonnais and Sarum Masses are only local Uses; the Mozarabic and Ambrosian Masses are considered to be separate Rites. All are proper to the Latin Church. There are also 'proper Uses'--those proper to various religious orders. A Use is only a variation of a Rite. The Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites are far more distinct and have quite a few Eastern elements.

Incidentally, the Braga Use, which seem to be the only local Use left, is close to Sarum in some ways.

P.K.T.P.

jeff said...

I recall Bp Peter Elliot saying that the new BDW would contain elements from the BCP, TLM and the Sarum Rite. Also, notice that he specifies how the BDW will be brought into conformity with the new Missal--in the consecration. So AU and Ordinariate priests are consecrating the precious Blood with the phrase "for many". This is a good thing.

Remember, the AU isn't just so that former Anglicans can worship with a liturgy familiar to them (although that is part of it). It's about what they bring to the Catholic Church. When viewed from that perspective there is no reason why even relatively obcsure or disused aspects of Anglican liturgy cannot (or, perhaps, even should not) form part of the AU.

William Tighe said...

"Alsaticus" wrote:

"there is no doubt about it : it's crystal clear that the Sarum rite is/was the root of the Cranmer Prayer Book and its further editions, apart from the 1552 Calvinist one under Edward VI."

This is not only "far from crystal clear," but wholly mistaken. Read, for example, the chapter on "The Reformation and the Anglican Liturgy" (Chapter XVI) in Dom Gregory Dix's *The Shape of the liturgy* (1945) -- a book about which I wrote the following article some tome ago:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=21-09-022-f

or, since some of that controversial Anglican Benedictine monk's views in that book are controversial and disputed, an article by the Anglo-Catholic English clergyman-professor E. C. Ratcliff, "The Liturgcal Work of Archbishop Cranmer," originally published in October 1956 in the *Journal of Ecclesiastical History* and later reprinted in the posthumous *E. C. Ratcliff: Liturgical Studies* (1976) which demonstrate that although the Sarum Rite forms a kind of backdrop to Cranmer's liturgical productions, the theology of the 1549 Cranmerian rite is a repudiation rather than an adaptation of Sarum. (Ratcliff's studies "convinced him," as the editor of the book cited above writes, "that the traditional Anglo-Catholic case was indefensible," so much so that he was preparing to leave the Church of England and become Orthodox at the time of his death in 1967.

JabbaPapa said...

PKTP :

I wonder also why, then, Msgr. Steenson and his people are now ditching the King James Bible for the lections at Mass

As far as I know, the Ordinariates are not permitted to use the King James Version, but they may only use such translations as have been authorised by the Holy See. The Holy See has authorised the use of the RSV.

Individual Catholics who prefer to use the KJV for their own private purposes may of course do so, but the Anglo-Catholic Ordinariates are clearly unable to use any such Protestant Bible as the KJV during the Service of the Mass, nor for Evangelisation, nor for any other Catholic purposes.

Dymphna said...

Fr. Humphries said, "the Ordinariate exists for those former Anglicans who want to continue to practice their Anglican liturgy within the Roman Church. That's all well and good."

But is it? I don't want to make anybody mad but I don't get the whole Ordinariate thing. It seems like Anglicans being Anglicans but calling themselves Catholic.

William Tighe said...

Dymphna,

What Fr. Humphries wrote: "the Ordinariate exists for those former Anglicans who want to continue to practice their Anglican liturgy within the Roman Church. That's all well and good"

is not entirely accurate. These former Anglicans cannot continue to "practice their Anglican liturgy within the Roman Church;" rather, the Vatican approved a Mass for them in 1983 that incorporates into the general format and outline of the 1979 USA Episcopalian rites (which are very similar in format and outline to the Novus Ordo Mass) some elements from those rites, but replaces others with Catholic elements (e.g., all the 1979 Episcopalian Eucharistic Prayers are replaced by Catholic ones), in order to make the rite wholly compatible with Catholic doctrine. At the moment, a much more conservative Eucharistic liturgy for these Anglican groups is under consideration by the Vatican, I'm not certain as a replacement for that of 1983, or as an alternative.

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

JabbaPapa:

It was they who proposed the Second Edition of the R.S.V. in non-sacral English. Rome merely approved what they had proposed. Man proposes, Archbishop Di Noia disposes. They could have proposed the Douay-Rheims Bible in the Confraternity Edition, which is approved by Rome for reading the lections from the pulpit (where this is done) at the Traditional Latin Mass. Why has this not been done? It instantly robs them of the Bible in sacral English. So why, then does Msgr. Steenson say that the idiom for the ordinariates is not Latin on the one side or conversational English on the other but a special sacral English. Where is this special sacral English at the very heart of the Mass, in Holy Writ?

Moreover, the editor of the King James Bible was Catholic and there are no overt Protestant parts in it, only some Protestant 'colourings'. These can easily be fixed. The likely reason a non-sacral idiom is being introduced for the lections is that the leaders of the Ordinariate in England are Novus Ordo Anglicans who use the new translation of the Novus Ordo. So the question is this: if Msgr. Steenson insists on a balance to result in sacral vernacular (let's call it 'sacvernac'), why have he and others in the ordinariates not proposed the Douay-Rheims for use while the King James is being 'fixed'? Why is it that Fr. Christopher Phillips has been quickly snatching up all the Ignatius Press 2nd edn. R.S.V. Bibles for use in the U.S.A.? Unlike the first edition, they REMOVE sacral English. Let's put it honestly: they remove the Anglican patrimony from the Scriptures themselves.

On the King James issue, ages ago, some Catholics went through all the passages one by one to mark those which had some Protestant colourings. It would be a simple matter to emend them with reference to the Douay-Rheims. Outside England, at least, copyright laws would not prevent this. The King James Bible, from a cultural point of view, is the Great Chaconne of the English language. It is the font from which the Anglican patrimony flows. To remove it and replace it with a non-sacral modern edn. is like keeping the branch but cutting down the tree. Any excuse for doing that is lame.

If the lections at Mass do not come from the King James Bible or, at least for an interim period, from the Douay-Rheims, I see no reason for even having separate Anglican ordinariates. They could have an Anglican Use (like the Braga Use) within the Latin Church and personal parishes and chaplaincies for it.

What seems to be emerging here is a pretext for exclusing the Roman Mass, which is the source from which Anglicanism came liturgically and historically. Oh, our Masses should be in sacral English. But then those in the English Ordinariate are almost always using the Novus Ordo in the most recent edition, and those in the American Ordinariate may be using the Novus Ordo or an Anglican Use which has non-sacral lections and throws into the trashbin the single greatest literary monument in the English tongue. What a complete disaster.

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

Part II to follow, P.K.T.P.

It leaves us with bunfights and tea as the Anglican patrimony, plus some lovely prayerbook passages. How far those prayerbook passages will go is hard to say. Msgr. Burnham has been busy in his cmte. combining and amending national prayerbooks, thereby losing precious phrases from the tradition (e.g. "in the face of this congregation", now lost from the marriage ceremony in their new Customary). We only have three ordinariates so far. So why not just use the 1662 English one, the 1928 (NOT 1979) American one, and the Australian one? In Canada, by special permission, they could use the 1962 for the prayerbook bits. This need for one text across the ordinariates creates the old problem: in seeking to please everyone, you get neither fish nor foul; and it gives the new Bugninis of the Anglican Use the excuse they need to tinker and play. Note that the English 1662 won't be used much anyway, as all the former FiFers use the N.O., and ONLY THREE (or it might be four) TAC priests have been admitted there.

I note that the 1983 Book of Divine Worship, which is the book for the Anglican Use, follows an American Prayerbook. However, it is not the classic version of 1928 but the modernistic one of 1979. I pray that Msgr. Steenson will seek to fix this for America and return to the 1928 one.

This project is starting to look more and more like the Novus Ordo conversion of the Anglican patrimony instead of its preservation. In such a context, Msgr. Steenson wants to ban the Traditional Latin Mass. Does that, by the way, include a ban in the future on the T.L.M. in sacral English, which some Anglo-Catholics have used IN THEIR PATRIMONY since the time of the Oxford Movement?

P.K.T.P.

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

Jeff:

You misheard him. He did not mention Sarum at all. Bishop Peter Elliott said that the liturgy would consist of prayerbook bits combined with some bits from the T.L.M. and--get this--some from the NEW ROMAN MASS. Welcome to the Novus Ordo!

This man should be removed from that committee. He is nothing more than a plant from the Novus Ordo establishment.

P.K.T.P.

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

Dear Mr. Tighe:

Alsaticus was no doubt referring to liturgical order rather than to doctrinal content. Yes, it is clear that the 1549 Prayerbook was meant to be a departure from the entire conception of the Mass as Sacrifice. However, in the ordering of prayers and in some of the ordering of clauses in each one, one can certainly see a Sarum influence. I note, however, that the notion of a Sarum victory over the other uses by 1530 is false. In fact, what was making enormous inroads in England in the early 16th century was ... the Roman form of the Rite.

P.K.T.P.

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

I wonder if Msgr. Steenson could take some time out of his busy schedule to propose to Rome an interim use of the Confraternity edn. of the Douay-Rheims (in sacral English) for the lections at the Book of Divine Worship. I'm holding my breath.

P.K.T.P

Anonymous said...

He needs to be still: I am strongly in favor of undoing four hundred plus years of Protestantism in the C of E--which gleefully oppressed both my Irish Catholic and my English Puritan ancestors--but he need not be throwing stones at those interested in an authentically Catholic liturgy rather than a Protestant one in which some Catholic elements were inadvertently retained.

Jennifer

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

I hope that this note, on the closed thread of Msgr. Steenson, will go through.

It occurred to me while writing on another blog that, while Msgr. Steenson attempts illegally to restrict his priests' right to offer the Traditional Latin Mass under his own supervision, he makes no such restriction in the case of the New Mass when offered in Latin.

Question: Can Msgr. Steenson's ordinariate priests offer the New Mass in Latin whenever they choose, facing versus solem orientem and with Gregorian Chant? They answer is a complete *yes* because Art. III of A.C. and the general law of the Church allows it.

So, if his priests have an unrestricted right to say the New Mass in Latin, why does he attempt to restrict their right to say the Traditional Mass in Latin?

There is a simple answer for ordinariate priest who wish to offer the T.L.M. in public: just go ahead and do it. If he orders you to cease and desist, let him take canonical action against you.

P.K.T.P.