Rorate Caeli

You report: American Anglican Ordinariate, anti-Tradition zone


We have received the following report from a reader:

You have previously posted on your blog reports about Msgr. Jeffrey Steenson's animosity towards the Traditional Mass and another contributor, Augustinus, followed up with mention of the Mass being celebrated Friday mornings at Mount Calvary in Baltimore, a church of the Anglican Ordinariate.

You should know that after Mass there last Friday, September 21st, it was announced that, while the celebration of the Mass in the Extraordinary Form is "allowed" [sic] to Ordinariate priests, it cannot be celebrated at Ordinariate premises, "since that form of the Mass is not integral to the Anglican patrimony."


This is less than three months after the termination of another weekday Traditional Mass at an archdiocesan parish due to a priest's reassignment.  That church, St. William of York, with its communion rail and removable low altar, and Mount Calvary were two of the few churches in Baltimore that are well-suited to accommodate the Traditional Mass. 
                                       
Rorate can add that - having confirmed the content above with other sources -, according to our own Roman inquiries on this matter, one man seems to be responsible for the embarrassing and outrageous hatred displayed by the Ordinary of the United States, Msgr. Steenson, regarding the Traditional Mass of the Roman Rite: Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington. Wuerl had been put in place as a sort of liaison between Rome and the Anglicans before the official creation of the Ordinariate, and still acts as the Capo di tutti capi of the Ordinariate, on which he imposes his personal idiosyncrasies and hatreds.

We do not think, though, that this excuses Steenson's unbelievable weakness in his foremost administrative task: defending the rights and prerogatives of his priests and faithful. He may think the rights ascertained by Summorum Pontificum to all priests of the Latin Church, including those of his own Ordinariate, are an easily dismissable "problem" created by "difficult" people, with which he should not waste his scarce "political capital". We say with utmost certainty that this weakness will come back to haunt him and all his priests and faithful in more "serious" matters. We would have thought that his Episcopalian experiences would have warned him to the dangers of ceding territory to the Enemy, but, alas, some lessons are never learned by those constitutionally unable to learn them.

Since the Anglican Ordinariate of the United States has become an explicit and rabid Anti-Traditional area, at least in its highest position, it is unlikely that Rorate will report any of its future developments. We stay with Fisher, More, Byrd, Campion, and Newman, and all the various Traditional rites, forms, and uses of the Latin Church  - they can stay with the "Anglican Patrimony" of Annibale Bugnini. As Vicky Gene Robinson (Steenson's contemporary fellow "bishop" of the Episcopal Church in the early 2000s - Robinson, starting in March 2004, Steenson in October 2004) might say, godspeed on your new "life journey"...

50 comments:

Jan Kowalski said...

it is time to stop avoiding the elephant in the room, it is time for a very honest look at the Sarum Rite. If we are serious about looking for the patrimony of English Christianity that's square one. The Use of Sarum ought to be the 'extraordinary form' of the Ordinarite.

Bernonensis said...

If only we could find an ordinary who would forbid the Novus Ordo in his see because it is not part of his Tridentine patrimony.

Andrew said...

As a former Anglican, now Catholic, I have mixed feelings about the Ordinariate. I support it because usually the Masses said in the Anglican Use are more in keeping with Catholic tradition and reverant than your average Novus Ordo parish Mass. To my mind, anything that can help bring back a sense of the sacred is a good thing and should be supported. At the sametime however, just what is the "Anglican Patrimony"? Anything that is worth keeping in the Anglican tradition has its roots in the Catholic Church. Its a tricky question.

Latinity said...

The elephant in the room to my mind w/bringing in the Anglicans was what were they taught to do regarding birth control and divorce? The Anglican "ordinate" has brought married priests into the church; all articles I read (I have posted here before (esp DC area anglican articles) the anglican pastors made an especial point to declare they were NOT joing Rome because they agreed w/Rome's stance on no women priests and no gay marriage (i.e. moral issues), but because they wanted ONE person in charge (the pope). No-one as far as I know asked them if they and their flock were accepting the moral teachings of the church on birth control. I posted these links before and comment wasn't posted so not going to bother to search for the links since don't expect this comment to be posted either. It would be interesting though if actually the reason Rome brought in the Anglicans was not only so they could smuggle in married priests, divorce and birth control, but also so they could "reform" the Anglican worship to accord w/St. Luther.

Sixupman said...

I am a tad confused concerning members of The Ordinariate. Are they ASB Anglicans or Anglo-Catholics? If the latter, they are likely to be 'at home' with Tridentine Missals in either Latin or the vernacular. Prior to lending the same, I was in possession of an Anglo-Catholic missal in almost all respects identical to my larger "St. Andrew's Missal", but in the vernacular and without imprimatur. It did include the mention of the pope in their Mass.

Athelstane said...

I will just add that there are some Ordinariate clergy and parishioners unahppy about this latest development. And I do not think this is the last that will be heard on this subject.

There's no question that Anglican liturg(ies) should take pride of place in the Ordinariate (even if this is, oddly, not always the case). But if you are going to permit the celebration of the Roman Rite in Ordinariate parishes in the first place, it is inexplicable that *both* forms of the Roman Rite would not be permitted. Unless, of course, there is a peculiar and depressingly familiar agenda at work.

Don't give up on the Ordinariates just yet.

cberry said...

Thank you Rorate for discontinuing coverage of this group. It seems AC was just another attempt to contain and then smother real Tradition. Following on Latinity, even before these reports we should have been wary of this. Were Steenson et al really taught to be Catholics before ordination? I think we know the answer.

Andrew said...

To be fair, most former Anglicans I have met are very orthodox and have a greater appreciation of how important it is to be in union with the Holy Father on Faith, Morals and Church discipline than many cradle Catholics.

Athelstane said...

"It seems AC was just another attempt to contain and then smother real Tradition."

The Holy Father is not a traditionalist, but I think what evidence we have is that this was not his intention at all.

But it's also clear that some senior prelates have different ideas. They range from indifferent to hostile to the Ordinariates (especially in England). And some are extremely hostile to Tradition. But that's no surprise to any of us.

The Ordinariate parishes themselves cover a broad spectrum. In a few, only the novus ordo is celebrated, which I find perplexing - what's the point, really? In others, like Mount Calvary in Baltimore, the English Missal is used, and the TLM has been regularly celebrated. It's a diverse community. But on the whole, a much more traditionally-minded one than prevails in the typical diocesan parish.

I remain confident that this new dictum won't last, and that the Ordinariates will become a welcome place for Catholic Tradition. To me this looks like a desperate rearguard action by the current Cardinal Archbishop of Washington.

Fr. Christopher George Phillips said...

I hope readers of this blog will not paint all Anglican converts with the same brush. Most of us understand that the TLM is very much part of our patrimony, whether or not it is celebrated in our parishes.

My own conversion and entrance into full Catholic communion took place nearly thirty years ago, and the overwhelming impetus for me was in the consideration of moral issues (abortion, artificial contraception, euthanasia, etc.). Moral truth is what led me to the full treasure of the Catholic faith.

When our parish was established a little over twenty-nine years ago, it was the first of the "Anglican Use" parishes. Although we would like to be part of the Ordinariate in this country, we will be waiting until it is more closely conformed to Pope Benedict's vision. Speaking for myself, I'm not interested in returning to a form of Episcopalianism, even if it is in communion with the Holy See.

Ben Vallejo said...

The American Ordinariate of the Chair of St Peter is just one of three ordinariates in existence. The first one Our Lady of Walsingham in England allows the EF and while the second one Our Lady of the Southern Cross allows it too according to Summorum Pontificum. The Tridentine Mass is really not part of the Anglican patrimony it being standardized at the Council of Trent. By then the Church of England was separate from Rome. The Sarum Use has more bearing on the Anglican rites than the Tridentine one.

However the Tridentine Mass has definitely influenced Anglican spirituality to the extent that some High churchmen celebrated the BCP Communion service with Tridentine ceremonial. Also with some Anglicans celebrating according to the English Missal, we can conclude that the Tridentine Mass has a place in Anglicanism.

If the Rt Rev Msgr Steenson does not recognize this then his Ordinariate is less than Catholic and even less Anglican!

New Catholic said...

Thank you, Father Phillips. As a convert myself, I feel with intense pain the confusing evolution of certain things in the American Ordinariate, such as the suspension of the frequent TLM at Mount Calvary, Baltimore, by superior "order" (as Ben said above, the English and Australian Ordinariates seem rather more rational in their liturgical "impositions"). We know the love many converts from Anglicanism have for the Traditional liturgical rites of the Latin Church, that are the liturgical basis of their rightful patrimony, which makes all this even more confusing.

Congratulations on your firmness and on your words, thank you for your readership, and please pray for us.

NC

cberry said...

"Anglican patrimony" was bred in heresy and schism. And if the patrimony referred to is musical, Roman Catholics (Byrd, Tallis) provided the basis for it. The Council of Trent didn't invent a Mass but codified one that had existed in a recognizable form since the time of Gregory the Great. Also, where is the evidence that the Sarum Rite was widely celebrated in England before the reformation?

Torkay said...

I'd say that the bottom line of "The Anglican Patrimony" is that it is really nothing more than the concupiscence of Horny Henry.

dominic1955 said...

In my conversation with former Anglicans/Anglo-Catholics who want to join the Church, they are more "Catholic" in their beliefs on moral issues (i.e. birth control, abortion, gay 'marriage', etc.) than many cradle Catholics. Our local Anglo-Catholic church that will be made part of the Ordinariate soon was more Catholic in its praxis and belief before it wanted to join the Church than some of our actual in-communion Catholic parishes. The people who want to join us are not the same hippy-dippy New Agers you find in much of the Episcopalian/Canterbury Communion world nor are they out and out Evangelical Protestants like you find in the Southern Cone or other areas of the worldwide Anglican group.

I really hope that the Ordinariates find a real use for "Anglican Patrimony". Seems to me that there is some legitimate patrimony that could be salvaged and re-Catholicized, i.e. choral Evensong, distinctive Anglican vesture, use of hieratic English etc. It also seems that a legitimate part of their Anglo-CATHOLIC tradition would be the Sarum Rite and the various distinctive pre-Reformation practices of the Church in England before the break. The Anglo-Catholic parish in our area would do Sarum liturgies once in awhile. I don't see why they couldn't allow occasional celebrations of the Sarum Rite. I can see how it would be very difficult to make it a living liturgy again in that it would almost have to be made the official liturgy of the whole Ordinariate so that ordos could be written up, rubrical questions would have someone to rule on, etc. It would not be properly Catholic to just let anyone take whatever scholarly edition of the Sarum Rite you find and then do it up however you feel like it should have looked. There would need to be some order.

One thing should be clear-if its all about Anglican Patrimony, Bugnini's creation ain't part of it. The Tridentine Missal has the distinction of probably being used by the various priests that were martyred or risked being martyred to preserve the Faith in England though it isn't distinctively English like the Sarum Missal. Granted, there were other local usages as well, but Sarum seems to have gained the common use over much of England at the time.

Andy Milam said...

Fr. Phillips,

Thanks for stating the proper. It isn't obvious to most, but it is proper. When you say, "...I'm not interested in returning to a form of Episcopalianism, even if it is in communion with the Holy See," You're absolutely right.

The patrimony of EVERY SINGLE LATIN RITE CATHOLIC is found in the TLM. This includes the American Anglican Ordinariate.

I find it to be very interesting that the American/English Missal is what the majority of the ACA/TAC parishes used, is essentially the TLM in English, yet the TLM is not part of their patrimony. The logic fails me.

We can go on and on about the Sarum, which is nice, but it was supplanted by the TLM, which was normative during both renaissances in the English Church under later Catholic Monarchs.

I fully support your position, Father. Thank you for stating the proper.

Mlivohi said...

Are the NO masses forbidden in Ordinariate churches?

New Catholic said...

No.

I am not Spartacus said...

Capo di tutti capi

LMAO Well done, New Catholic.

That sly slight was spot on in that it identifies a clerical mafia which treats as "La Cosa Nostra" - Our Thing - the Public Worship of Holy Mother Church

Hilltop said...

So little comment on the viper, Wuerl. He is a supresser and we should welcome and encourage forthright mentions of his machinations against the Holy Father, the TLM, SP, and the faithful, legitimate wishes, pleadings and prayers of his flock.

MJ said...

In form an structure, the 1979 BCP shares much in common with the NO. By forbidding Ordinariate parishes to use the EF, the superiors are pretty much ensuring that what distinguishes the Ordinariate liturgies from regular Catholic liturgies are the externals (ad orientem, hieratic English, nice vestments, smells and bells). While these things are important, by not offering a true alternative to the NO, the Ordinariate should expect to stay small, since many converts will simply opt for the nearest Roman Rite parish instead.

Matt said...

Latinity said, "The elephant in the room to my mind w/bringing in the Anglicans was what were they taught to do regarding birth control and divorce? The Anglican "ordinate" has brought married priests into the church; all articles I read (I have posted here before (esp DC area anglican articles) the anglican pastors made an especial point to declare they were NOT joing Rome because they agreed w/Rome's stance on no women priests and no gay marriage (i.e. moral issues), but because they wanted ONE person in charge (the pope). No-one as far as I know asked them if they and their flock were accepting the moral teachings of the church on birth control. I posted these links before and comment wasn't posted so not going to bother to search for the links since don't expect this comment to be posted either. It would be interesting though if actually the reason Rome brought in the Anglicans was not only so they could smuggle in married priests, divorce and birth control, but also so they could "reform" the Anglican worship to accord w/St. Luther. "

This is so true. The SSPX wrote an article not too long ago stating this very thing, in fact, quoting one of the Ordinariate guys saying they were not asked to give up anything (regarding their beliefs and practices). I have a sinking feeling Rome created (whether willingly or ignorantly) one more Trojan Horse for the Church.

Long-Skirts said...

Rorate Caeli wrote:

"…Steenson's unbelievable weakness in his foremost administrative task: defending the rights and prerogatives of his priests and faithful. He may think the rights ascertained by Summorum Pontificum to all priests of the Latin Church, including those of his own Ordinariate, are an easily dismissable "problem" created by "difficult" people"

PRIESTS'
BLOOD

"We would sign the Credo with our own blood." (You/Tube - Pater Franz Schmidberger, 18. Sept. 2012)

Many a Convent
Where good sisters pray
Because of vocations
The True Mass each day

Many a school
Which we pay for in tears
But a Catholic culture
Allays all our fears

Retreats, Seminaries
For souls to discern
To hear Jesus call
"Come, it's your turn."

And then there's those prelates
Who stop and deter
Yet worse our own kind
Who ignore and defer

Preserving not
The Whole Truth inherited
Believing the liars
Who assert they've not merited

As souls still drown
In their waterless flood
I stick with the Credo
Signed in Priests' blood!

Matt said...

Andy Milam said, "I find it to be very interesting the American/English Missal is what the majority of the ACA/TAC parishes used, is essentially the TLM in English, yet the TLM is not part of their patrimony. The logic fails me."

Yeah, all of us, Andy. Anything liberal/modernist fails logic. This is why liberals are never able to dialogue. All they can do is have conniption fits and call names and further spin their irrational thinking. Case in point. They are now going around saying to promote the gay agenda is a pro-life position. See. Contorted logic stemming from desperation.

Were they to have a real honest discussion about their thinking, they would lose, their foundation built on sand. A full on discussion of evil deeds can't be had without revealing the evil it really is. Consider its source. The Devil does everything with lies!

Knight of Malta said...

"what is Anglican patrimony?

You hit the nail on the head there Latinity!

Not to be mean, but Henry VIII was a be-header of wives, and his daughter Elizabeth a sister-killer!

That is the patrimony of Anglicanism!

Of course in Lutheranism you have an ex-monk who married a nun, and claimed that Angels "danced on the head of a needle every time a Jew farts"

This is why for many years I was an atheist; It's only by God's Grace--and my acceptance thereof--that I am a Catholic.

Fides et Ratio that is what the Church provides, and what is lacking in all other so-called churches.

Richard M. Sawicki said...

Please do not place the Anglican Patrimony (rooted as it is in pre-Reformation English Catholicism) and Annibale Bugnini within the same same point of reference, as if they are somehow connected.

They have about as much in common as Mars and Jupiter.

Gaudete in Domino Semper!

New Catholic said...

Sorry you didn't get the sarcasm, Mr. Sawicki...


NC

Richard M. Sawicki said...

I'm sorry, NC.

I got it. 'Twas intended as a good natured jest.

Gaudete in Domino Semper!

JabbaPapa said...

Nobody is permitted to forbid the Traditional Mass, including no hierarch of any Ordnariate.

His actions are illegal.

dcs said...

Not to be mean, but Henry VIII was a be-header of wives, and his daughter Elizabeth a sister-killer!

Elizabeth had her cousin, Mary Queen of Scots, killed, not her sister Queen Mary.

Simon Platt said...

There's some comment here about the Sarum rite.

I'm an English Catholic with, I think, good knowledge of the history and practice of the Church of England, and in my judgement Sarum has nothing whatsoever to do with the "Anglican Patrimony". Quite the contrary is true, in fact: The Sarum rite, variants of which were in (at least almost) exclusive use throughout England before the disaster of the 16th century, was explicitly rejected by the protestants.

FYI said...

"At a Synod of Bishops dedicated to the new evangelization next month in Rome, Cardinal Donald W. Wuerl of Washington, the synod's recording secretary, will deliver two addresses in Latin, and Gallagher said he hopes other bishops also choose to speak and even hold discussions in the language."

http://ncronline.org/news/vatican-latin-expert-finds-new-uses-ancient-language

New Catholic said...

The "new evangelization" will quite clearly work incredibly well.

dominic1955 said...

Simon Plat-

Where do you think they got the Book of Common Prayer? It was basically the Sarum books excised of all the stuff too offensively Catholic with a few things added to make it properly Protestant. Either way, the true English patrimony of the Church is to be found before the Reformation. Some of it will inevitably be seen through the lense of the last 500 years, and its hard to see it otherwise.

Benedict Carter said...

The only element of the thing spuriously called the "Anglican Patrimony" is also a Catholic element, but one the Anglicans have actually preserved over the centuries, and that's bell-ringing.

Nothing else.

Benedict Carter said...

NC, the "New Evangelization" to me seems like a bad joke. It's spoken of constantly, but no-one seems to know what it is.

I have come to the conclusion that it's designed to stop or at least slow the outflow of Catholics from the Church but not to make any new ones: that would offend against the great Masonic God of Ecumenism.

What think you?

jeff said...

I could understand if he were consistent. Either Ordinariate buildings be exclusively devoted to the AU, or allow all 3 Uses of the Roman Rite. If the EF isn't a part of the "Patrimony" the the NO definitely isn't!

Matt said...

JabbaPapa said, "Nobody is permitted to forbid the Traditional Mass, including no hierarch of any Ordnariate.

His actions are illegal.
"


Yes, but nonetheless, who's going to intervene? To whom do we appeal? The Holy Father?

Matt said...

dcs said, "Elizabeth had her cousin, Mary Queen of Scots, killed, not her sister Queen Mary."

I understand a subtle debate is going on that Queen Mary Tudor (first-born of Henry and Katherine, yes, with a K, not a C) may have been poisoned by trecherous Protestants in her Court. It's noted Queen Mary didn't die very well.

New Catholic said...

Jeff, that is exactly the whole question. We presented it in our linked earlier post.

The Ordinariate is not a Church sui iuris, as the various Eastern Catholic Churches, but a particular Church in the Latin Church.

Let us say, for argument's sake, that only the supposed liturgy part of the "Anglican Patrimony" (though created in our time...) may be celebrated in the Ordinariate churches (even though, as said above, each Ordinariate church is a church of the Latin Church in which at least the Roman Rite, in both its "forms" - the whole legal concept introduced by Summorum, that assures an almost complete equality of the Traditional Mass and the Mass of Paul VI - may be celebrated). Then, obviously, NEITHER form of the Roman Rite could be celebrated in the Ordinariate churches.

This is why the order of the Ordinary of the United States is not only offensive to common sense, but also to the law: IF (which is doubtful) he can limit the use of the Ordinariate's churches (all of which are, let us repeat, churches of the Latin Church) to the "Anglican liturgies" alone, than he must extend this "prohibition" to both forms of the Roman Rite. What he cannot do, under Summorum, is to "allow" the Mass of Paul VI (as if it alone were part of the "Anglican Patrimony") in the churches of the Ordinariate and "forbid" the Traditional Mass in those premises. Summorum and Anglicanorum Coetibus do not allow him to do that, as the Ordinaries of England and Australia understand well.

Distorting the just application of the law for personal dislike is not Catholicism - it is Episcopalianism, as Father Phillips recalls above. The Ordinariate is under the law, including the liturgical law, not guided by personal animosity, as "Bishopess" Jefferts-Schori might do.

Et Expecto said...

I suggest that someone sends a dubium to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, which I believe is responsible for the Ordinariates.

The situation seems better here in England, although there is some evidence that some bishops have tried to discourage Ordinariate priests adopting the EF>

Kyrie Eleison said...

“The "new evangelization" will quite clearly work incredibly well.” I agree - to paraphrase Msgr. Gallagher: "I think the Latin language does communicate in that way where, even if no-one at the synod is able to give a good translation of what is being said by Cardinal Wuerl or even Cardinal Wuerl maybe cannot translate what he is saying at a certain point in his addresses, the stirrings in the heart will already be working because the consonance, the assonance, the rhythm, the meter is captivating and beautiful.” Hey, they did it with Vatican II; why not reverse it the same way?

Tom Ryan said...

Early on this had been compared to the Mariel Boatlift. Remember that debacle? Along with some legitimate refugees were smuggled the people Castro actually wanted to get rid of.

The same High Church Anglicanism that is so much prettier than your typical suburban Novus Ordo "faith community" is riddled with heterodoxy and freemasonry among other things..

Matamoros said...

Richard Sawicki said: "Please do not place the Anglican Patrimony (rooted as it is in pre-Reformation English Catholicism) and Annibale Bugnini within the same same point of reference, as if they are somehow connected.

They have about as much in common as Mars and Jupiter."

The Anglican patrimony couldn't have been rooted in "pre-Reformation English Catholicism" because that was and is Roman, Latin, and the only kind of English Catholicism that exists.

The English destruction of its own religious heritage under Henry, Edward and the bastard Elizabeth eerily recalls the changes in the Roman Rite overseen by Bugnini in their disregard for tradition, and whimsical invention based on theological and liturgical theories. All of this is very untypical of the normal development of any rite of the Church.

One of the main differences is that, for better or worse, Bugnini's changes were enforced by the legitmate authority of the Church, while the whole Anglican patrimony was performed in a legal and ecclesiastical void.

Why say Mars and Jupiter have nothing in comon? They both belong to the innumerable collection of lifeless planets out there beyond our Earth, still, as far as we know, the only planet capable of supporting life.

Anonymous said...

As a former Anglo-Catholic, now Orthodox, I was familiar with the American Missal from the 1950s into the '80s. there is a long 'Anglican tradition', as far as it goes, to amplify the BCP texts with the propers common to the rest of the western Church. Why Msgr. Steenson, who must be familiar with this use, is now against it, I cannot understand. However, if one makes one's bed, one must then lie in it, I suppose.

Rdr. James Morgan

Picard said...

Matarmoros et. al.:

Yes, I have never understood what "Anglican tradition" or "patrimony" means resp. how it can be Catholic.

The analogy to the Eastern Rites and their traditon/patrimony is not valid.

There we have old, pre-schismatic (so Catholic) traditions, patrimony and so Rites - Rites organically develloped out of Apostolic time.

Here we have some schismatical and heretical, not-organic - and as you, matamorosa, correctly observed - not under offical Church authority created "rites" and patchwork tradition, mixed up with Catholic and heretic/schismatic elements.

Yes, there are also this Catholic elements - but why not call them just what they are: Catholic patrimony -- but call them what they not are: Anglican!!?

Aquila said...

It was in the Anglican church that I came to faith, that I learned to love the Scriptures, that I came to desire the sacraments and, eventually, I came ro realize that Our Lord wants a Church that is visibly one. I learned none of that as a Catholic. To dismiss Anglicanism as the result of "Harry's concupiscence" is a smart one liner, but says more about the speaker than about Anglicanism.

As an Anglican, I was very aware of the tainted stall in which my tradition was born, and people spoke openly about God's grace bringing good from such unlikely beginnings. The moral and doctrinal controversies were painful, but those of us who disagreed with them had long ago learned to cope. When I entered the Church, I told people that I was not running from anything; I was running towards something. In saying this, I was in no way holding on to a (non existent) affection for contraception or anything else; rather, I was describing the journey that all converts need to make. Does anyone really think that content Anglicans, who happen to disagree about some moral issues, would make better Catholics than those who want the whole Church?

As for Anglican patrimony, it may be hard to reduce to a few words, but the cultural difference between Anglicanism and Catholicism is very stark to those who have swum the Tiber, and anything to reduce unnecessary barriers to others must be a good thing.

Bruce In Iloilo said...

Today's mass readings was about marriage, about family, and that got me to thinking.

A family is not an intentional community. As the saying goes, you can choose your friends but not your relatives. Relatives you have to put up with. You have to put up with their mistakes no matter how egregious.

Msgr. Steenson is a relative. The Anglican Ordinariate are fellow brethren. We should not turn him into an enemy just because of a grievous error. All fathers makes serious mistakes.

It is interesting to me that of the three Anglican Ordinariates only the American felt the need to issue such a rule. This suggests that there is something unique about the American squabble about the TLM. That the American Catholics are odd, so to speak.

As things change, the American Ordinariate will revert to the mean. When things settle down about TLM as it will eventually as the Holy Spirit does His work, and as the American Ordinariate too becomes settled, if that is His will, I suspect that this decision will change.

Eventually all three (or more) Anglican Ordinariates will have the same postion and I don't see the others changing to agree with the American Ordinariate.

Bruce In Iloilo said...

By the way, one more point. I don't see much support for Msgr. Steenson's position among the American Anglican Ordinariate. Many denounce it outright. Many accept it grudgingly, as a mistake or as a temporary measure that must eventually be changed. None that I have seen outright support it as a right and proper practice for all time.

Please do not judge all Anglican Ordinariates, their priests, religious and laymen from this one decision.

James T.M. Griffin said...

cberry asked: "Also, where is the evidence that the Sarum Rite was widely celebrated in England before the reformation?"

The vast majority of pre-Reformation missals, breviaries, manuals, antiphonals, etc. in England are for the Sarum Use. There were other local uses (York, Hereford, Bangor, Lincoln, etc.) but the surviving copies of Sarum books outnumber all the rest by something like 10-to-1.

I encourage you all to check out my ongoing series on the Sarum Use and a step-by-step comparison: The Use of Sarum: A Brief History, and Why It Matters

The Sarum Low Mass: Mass of the Catechumens

The Sarum Low Mass: Mass of the Faithful