Rorate Caeli

"On the Gathering of Anglicans"

Archbishop John Hepworth, primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, has released an important pastoral letter, "On the Gathering of Anglicans," dated 20 Jan. 2010 and addressed to the bishops, clergy and lay faithful of the TAC, regarding the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus and the TAC's request for full, corporate communion with the Catholic Church. The pastoral letter is published in its entirety at The Angl0-Catholic, and includes the petition the TAC had sent to the Holy See, requesting the Pope's fatherly guidance in bringing the members of the TAC into unambiguous unity with the Catholic Church in a way that would preserve that which is good in Anglican tradition. Below are just a few excerpts, including reflections of Archbishop Hepworth in which he gently calls on the TAC's bishops, priests, and deacons to submit to re-ordination, since that is what Rome will requires:

Our Petition

. . . It is fundamental to the life of the church that its bishops and the churches they lead be in Eucharistic Communion with the See of Rome to which bishops of the ancient church looked as the instrument of unity and Catholic authenticity.

. . . The fullest statement of contemporary Christian belief, the bishops [of the TAC] believe, is to be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It is deeply biblical and patristic, and addresses matters that puzzle and confront Christians at the present moment. The bishops understand that not everything in the Catechism is of equal authority, and also understand that the faith must be proclaimed to every generation in language that accurately portrays what the Church has received. Therefore they acknowledge that the Catechism is the most complete and authentic expression and application of the Catholic faith in this moment of time, and that they signed a copy on the altar as attesting to the faith they aspire to teach and hold. None of the bishops would claim to understand every aspect of the faith with perfection, and none would claim to teach perfectly at all times. But they do claim to aspire to teach and to hold the faith that is set forth in the Catechism. . . .

The Standard of Belief

. . . Many members of our community have been using the Catechism as a reference and a sourcebook for years. Its language is contemporary and its methodology, based on the Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, and the liturgical Creeds, is already familiar to Anglicans.

Many of the things being denied at this moment in the world have been taken for granted for centuries. The nature of God, the revelation of God in Christ, the nature of holy scripture, the authority of Christian moral teaching about life and sexuality, the attack on the nature of marriage, and the widespread abandonment of holiness of life (especially among some of those consecrated to religious and priestly life), have all posed enormous problems for those who seek to teach and understand the Christian faith. The Catechism is a contemporary document addressing contemporary problems of contemporary unbelief.

What of the re-ordination of clergy?

. . . Not only the ordination of women to all three sacred orders, but the redefining of the Anglican understanding of itself as part of the “Church Catholic” that the ordination of women has necessitated, has introduced more than grave doubt about the validity of any Anglican Communion ordinations. It is now difficult to determine whether any particular Anglican Bishop has any intention to do as the Church has always done, when he (or she) specifically intends to do that which the Church has never done. The almost complete elimination of what was once a dominant Anglo-Catholicism from many provinces of the Anglican Communion has removed the clearest statement of Catholic belief about Holy Orders from the Anglican consciousness.

. . . It is my wish, and I believe the wishes of my fellow bishops, that every deacon and priest in our Communion has a certainty of validity that rests, not on the winning of a theological argument, not on the best that was available at the time, but on the indisputable certainty of Catholic practice. I have said to a number of priests that when they are saying Mass in the crypt of St Peter’s on the tombs of the Apostles, I want them to be able to look to one side and the other and to know with absolute certainty that their priesthood has the same objective reality as the priesthood of those on either side.

Finally, I commend this development to your prayers and the deepest parts of your conscience. I believe with all my heart that this is a work of God and an act of great generosity by Pope Benedict. The Anglican tradition that we treasure will only survive, I believe, across the generations yet to come if it discovers the protection of apostolic authority. It is my cherished wish that each of us can stand at the altar with our fellow Christians and receive the same Eucharistic Christ. That is the ultimate test of unity. In the centuries since the church in the West became fractured there has been no offer such as the one that is now before us. For Anglicans, Unity has been a dream beyond reach. Now it is a dream that can be fulfilled. I understood when I became a member of the Traditional Anglican Communion (in a dark period of my life when it became impossible to practice my priesthood in a diocese about to ordain women) that this was a Communion heading towards a goal. It had separated from the Anglican Communion. Instead of drifting at the whim of wave and wind, it had chosen to head towards the only realistic destination, that from which Anglicans had separated centuries before. I was grasped by that vision of those who founded this Communion. We are now in the waves just beyond the harbour entrance. Pray God that we have the courage to enter and make our homes there.

47 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hepworth has still not dealt adequately with the liturgical matter in Article III of A.C. It would appear, at least, as if Cardinal Levada has led the TAC down the garden path. Under Article III, they have three options: the T.L.M., the N.O.M., and the Book of Divine Worship (B.D.W.) of 1983. A Latin Mass will be foreign to them, and it does not convey the Anglican patrimony. So it will not 'sell' there.

That leaves the N.O.M. and B.D.W. It turns out that BOTH of these have the N.O. Offertory in non-sacral wording AND

BOTH of them have the N.O. Eucharistic Prayers. True, E.P. 1 is the Roman Canon EXCEPT that it has the butchered Words of Institution plus that unfortunate Memorial Acclamation which every bozo with a guitar has put to song.

It's hard to see how any of this conveys an Anglican liturgical patrimony--or any patrimony, for that matter. What it conveys is the Bugnini New World Service.

It is true that Article III provides justification for a fix of this but

1. There is no guarantee that Rome will approve any particular liturgy. In 1983, the Anglican Use people asked for the Traditional Roman Offertory and had the N.O. Offertory shoved down their throats.

2. Even if Rome is more amenable to something good these days, there is not enough time between now and July to approve, publish, print, fund, and distribute a new Anglicatholic Liturgy.

My advice? The incoming TACers do not apply for ordinariates until AFTER Rome has approved a liturgical text worthy of the name.

What is the point of corporate reunion? The Mass is the point. Were it not, why not convert as individuals? Individuals can convert for the same theological reasons, be free of wymnynpriest, be free of sodomarriage, and attend the T.L.M. or Eastern Rite Divine and Holy Liturgy.

If they want to bring across the Anglican patrimony, surely it is the liturgical patrimony that counts. Why come across to embrace Annibale?

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

" in a way that would preserve that which is good in Anglican tradition."

Is there any? Seriously. Compared to all the tradition of the Roman Catholic Faith and the Holy Mass the Council of Trent? Don't think so.

Jordanes said...

Of course there is. Your question is a sign that you really don't know anything about Anglican religious culture and liturgical tradition. If you did, you wouldn't suggest that there is absolutely nothing good in Anglican tradition.

Anonymous said...

I didn't have to read very far to konw that comment #1 was from P.K.T.P, the only obcessively "pro-Anglican" member of those who offer comments.

As far as liturgically, TDB if Hepworth etc., or PKTP) find the options offered by Cardinal Levada (and therefore the Pope), unacceptable.

They're becoming Catholics, not remaining Anglicans, therefore they should welcome the chance to become emersed in Catholic culture and religious tradition and start celebrating the TLM.
If the N.O. is celebrated reverently (as it is claimed these people celebrate their own services), then that should not be a problemm, though the NO is supremely inferior to the TLM. Another quote from PKTP below,


"My advice? The incoming TACers do not apply for ordinariates until AFTER Rome has approved a liturgical text worthy of the name."

is an insult an disrespectful to Roman Catholics. These TAC people are in no position to make demands, because it is they who begged for this allowance by the Pope. Catholics were not eager to welcome Anglicans into the Church, unless they became true Catholics....like most people do who convert.

PKTP, and these Anglicans sound so angry, so contentious, so ungrateful to the Pope that if I were Benedict XVI or Cardinal Levada, I'd say to them:

"Look, it's you who came to us....either accept our tradition and our generous offers WITHOUT whining and demands....or the deal's off and go your own way.....go down with the Anglican ship."

Steve Cavanaugh said...

"2. Even if Rome is more amenable to something good these days, there is not enough time between now and July to approve, publish, print, fund, and distribute a new Anglicatholic Liturgy."

Dear PTKP,

There's a flawed assumption behind this particular comment: that anything beyond approval would be needed at the beginning. The Anglican Use parishes were using the liturgy of the BDW for 20 years before the actual book was published. Each parish made up booklets; I know that in our parish, the altar missal was a large looseleaf binder. We now have a printed book, and a member of the congregation here in Boston took it upon himself to create an Altar Missal that would work better than the BDW (I'm talking about the physical dimensions, of course, not the content). With self-publishing services such as Lulu.com, it is pretty easy to quickly get text out into the world (like all the publications done in the past two years by the Church Music Assoc. at www.musicasacra.com).

Anonymous said...

"It would appear, at least, as if Cardinal Levada has led the TAC down the garden path."

Isn't Pope Benedict XVI in charge of dealing with the TAC?

How could Cardinal Levada lead the TAC down a path of his choosing?

I thought that Pope Benedict XVI has determined the path down which the TAC will walk?

Let's leave the Rome-TAC situation to Pope Benedict XVI. Believe it or not, the Pope, not certain posters, has the inside scoop on Rome-TAC dealings.

Anonymous said...

If the "Latin Mass" is "foreign" to TACers, then they are adverse to Latin Church liturgical tradition.

If TAC parishes (once inside the Church) promote vernacularism, then what does that do to the Church's teaching that the Ordinary of the Mass is to be prayed in Latin (not to mention the promotion of Gregorian chant)?

Anonymous said...

1. Do Traditional Catholics believe that only the return to the TLM can renew the Latin Church?

2. Do Traditional Catholics believe that a Pope Benedict XVI-type Novus Ordo Mass, a "reform-of-the-reform" Mass, can renew the Latin Church?

3. Do Traditional Catholics believe that all-vernacular TAC liturgies can renew the Latin Church?

4. Do Traditional Catholics believe that a "reform-of-the-reform" Mass (Latin, Gregorian chant, EP1 type Mass)is superior to an all-vernacular TAC liturgy?

5. Do Traditional Catholics believe that an all-vernacular TAC liturgy is superior to a "reform-of-the-reform" Mass?

Anonymous said...

We should all be "pro-Anglican" when it comes to these people seeking to reunite with the Church. Shame on any who are not, and shame on anyone who thinks they should be stripped of their own catholic traditions and hazed for the amusement of the TLM-only partisans. You all sound like the elder brother in the parable.

As for the TAC, they have thrown themselves at the mercy of Benedict and have, thus far, been blessed with a generous response. They are not the ones doing the griping or making the demands.

On the contrary, that seems to be coming primarily from factions attempting to use the Anglicans as pawns in their own intra-Catholic disputes. If this attitude keeps up, they could end up like the "uniate" churches who were once driven back into Eastern Orthodoxy by the harshness and bias they received at the hand of their fellow Catholics in the Latin church.

Jordanes said...

If the "Latin Mass" is "foreign" to TACers, then they are adverse to Latin Church liturgical tradition.

Non sequitur. It is foreign to them because they are Anglicans, but it doesn't follow that they are "adverse" (or did you mean "averse"?) to Latin liturgy. The Catholic Church has responded favorably to their request that they be allowed to preserve some of their cherished traditions, including elements of their liturgy. It would defeat the purpose of preserving their liturgical traditions if they were required to abandon their liturgy and adopt another tradition.

If TAC parishes (once inside the Church) promote vernacularism, then what does that do to the Church's teaching that the Ordinary of the Mass is to be prayed in Latin . . . ?

There is no such teaching, and church law has formally allowed the Ordinary of the Mass to be prayed in the vernacular for almost 50 years. You're probably thinking of Trent's condemnation of the heresy that the liturgy must always be in the vernacular spoken by the majority of faithful present and not in Latin.

these Anglicans sound so angry, so contentious, so ungrateful to the Pope

Did you even read Hepworth's pastoral letter? If you did, you must not have the ability to tell the difference between anger, contention, and ingratitude and joy, concord, and gratitude.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes is absolutely correct on this matter. The 1549 and 1662 Books of Common Prayer convey some of the finest literature in the English tongue, as does the King James Bible. It is on a par with the Canterbury Tales, Paradise Lost, and the plays of Shakespeeare. It is an artistic treasure no less than is sacred polyphony or the finer retables in Italian Renaissance churches. It belongs in the Catholic Church, which welcomes, nay, embraces, all that is great. Beauty reflects God's glory and the Church is God's Mystical Body. They belong together. It is a fairly simple matter to remove the Protestant suggestions of Cranmer from the Anglican patrimony. The reason is that he was forced to hide it, only to hint at it, in the first place. The traditionalist Anglicans have mostly removed this and, while the job is not entirely finished, the Anglican Missal of 1921 is far closer in spirit to the T.L.M. than is the N.O.M.--not a little closer but far closer.

So I don't see the problem there.

I do worry, however, that William Cardinal Levada is trying to force the N.O. Offertory and Words of Institution on them.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 15.18 is way off track. Look, the chap who is 'demanding' that the Anglican patrimony be preserved is not I (who am a traditionalist Roman having little understanding of Anglican liturgical issues); nor is it the incoming Anglicans or their Primate. IT IS POPE BENEDICT XVI HIMSELF!!! You don't believe me? READ THE PREAMBLE OF ANGLICANORUM CŒTIBUS!

If there is a confict here (and I pray there is not), it is not between the incomers and the Pope; it is between the Pope and his own Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith; it is apparently between the Pope and Cardinal Levada, that old liberal. The C.D.F. is so far not approving their patrimony in any significant way while, at the same time, the Pope is asking that it do so.

Lastly, Archbishop Hepworth and the incomers are NOT bitching about Article III of A.C. They are humbly accepting what is being offered. I am the one who is bitching on their behalf, because I realise that these pusillanimous Englishmen are far too polite to stand up for what the Pope is asking they be given.

Furthermore, I am not asking that they be given much exclusively Anglican other than what they have already received. I am asking that they be given the T.L.M. Offertory and Canon rather than the N.O.M. Offertory and Canon. The former is not distinctively Anglican at all but it is part of their patrimony (since they had it at the time of the Reformation and also in their Missas of 1912 and 1921). The latter is completely foreign to their patrimony, just as it is mostly foreign to the Roman patrimony!

P.K.T.P.

P.S. I'm not suggesting that they be barred from using the N.O.M., which A.C., Article III, already grants them. I am suggesting that they be allowed to use the Traditional Roman Offertory and Canon not only in the T.L.M. itself but also in approved Anglican servicebooks. In other words, I am asking that Rome either approve the Anglican Missal of 1921 or something akin to it, or both.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 17.39 writes:

"Let's leave the Rome-TAC situation to Pope Benedict XVI. Believe it or not, the Pope, not certain posters, has the inside scoop on Rome-TAC dealings."

I certainly hope that this poster is right! If he is, I shall jump for joy and also for a bottle of Dom Perignon! But we all know from past experience that prelates do not always follow popes.

What is my assessment of the C.D.F. based on? Try the clear words of Article III of A.C. You take that Article and then you add to it something called logic. Ever heard of that? When you combine the two, out pops the following:

The T.L.M., the N.O.M., and the Book of Divine Worship of 1983. Period. Full stop.

It is true that more items might follow from Article III in the future. Perhaps. Perhaps not. One never knows.

Yes, I'll graciously leave the outcome to the Pope, since I have no choice anyway. But it can't hurt to make these concerns known. Isn't there something about the faithful having the *right* to make their concerns known to their pastors? my word! It rings a bell. I think that that must might be in Canon ... 212. Well, how unexpected! It is there indeed! We are at least to yell 'ouch' as liberal prelates take away our rights.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Steven Cavanaugh makes an excellent point. However, I am not sure if this will work in the Holy Catholic Church. Perhpas it will.

My understanding is that priests are required by law to use published Altar Missals marked by the old imprimatur. As far as I know, photocopied sheets on the Altar are not welcome. I know that, after 1961, paste-ins were used to add the Name of St. Joesph to the Canon in pre-1962 Missals. But this is only adding something that is not forbidden (and where the thing added is also short enough to be memorised and not added materially). I'm not sure that a Catholic priest may toss his Altar Missal into the sacristy and say Mass from photocopies.

Comments on this, anyone?

At any rate, given how Rome operates traditionally, and given the care that must be accorded to liturgical matters, I would assume that it will take some time for the C.D.W. to peruse the 1921 Anglican Missal, for instance, before agreeing to approve it. Yes, I realise that there is nothing in it other than the alternate canons which is not already paralleled in the approved B.D.W. of 1983. Yes, the C.D.W. could say 'approved provided the Roman Canon is used when saying this Mass'. (The Roman Canon is in the Anglican Missal, both in Latin and in sacral English.)

I think that this liturgical problem should be resolved now. Why? It is because leaving it uncertain could undermine efforts to bring the entire TAC across the Tiber. Other 'continuer' Anglicans might also be attracted to the ordinariates if this matter were resolved.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Craig gives us two very good paragraphs but then follows them with this:

"On the contrary, that seems to be coming primarily from factions attempting to use the Anglicans as pawns in their own intra-Catholic disputes. If this attitude keeps up, they could end up like the "uniate" churches who were once driven back into Eastern Orthodoxy by the harshness and bias they received at the hand of their fellow Catholics in the Latin church."

No, this is not to further my own inter-Latin Church polemics. My motivation is to protect these incomers from the liberal wolves who have persecuted Latin traditionalists for so long. There is the Belgian wolf who has departed last week; there is a communist wolf from Brazil heading a dicastery (and this quiet man is the very worst of all of them); there is a wolf in California who will soon have a shiny new coadjutor as a post-Chrismas gift from the Pope; and so forth. These wolves want to freight the ordinariates with the New Roman Liturgy in order to limit conversions from Anglicanism as much as possible.

These incoming TACers naturally expect what the Pope has offered them: a wedding of their patrimony and the Roman Tradition out of which it arose. Some want to saddle them with the Mass of the New World Order. I'm trying to protect them. If my interest were selfish, I'd ignore their problems, since A.C. also gives them the right to celebrate unadultered Traditional Latin Masses. If I wanted to use them, I'd be crowing about how their ordinariates can help us 'get around' the local Latin bishops, as they can.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"There is no such teaching, and church law has formally allowed the Ordinary of the Mass to be prayed in the vernacular for almost 50 years."

Holy Tradition compels that the Mass be prayed in Latin. The normative Mass is in Latin and features Gregorian chant.

"Steps should be taken enabling the faithful to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass belonging to them."

Without Latin and Gregorian chant incorporated within "their" Masses, how can the TACers remain loyal to and promote Latin Church Liturgical Tradition?

Certain Traditional Catholics argued that the influx of TACers into the Church would instill among "Novus Ordo Catholics" a strong sense of Latin Church Liturgical Tradition.

How is that possible when TACers promote all-vernacular liturgies?

The lack of Latin and Gregorian chant impoverishes Latin Church Liturgical Tradition.

Anonymous said...

The future appearance of the Latin Church is clear.

1. The TLM will, for all practical purposes, remain foreign to all but a few Catholics.

At best, each diocese will permit one TLM-only parish to exist.

Perhaps an additional parish or two will offer TLMs.

2. The Novus Ordo will be spruced up a bit — the "reform-of-the-reform." But all-vernacular Masses will remain the norm.

3. TACers will not elevate Latin Church Liturgical Tradition, certainly not among "Novus Ordo Catholics" as they, the TACers are few in number and celebrate all-vernacular liturgies.

4. Protestants who enter into the Church will be permitted by Rome to retain non-heretical liturgical "traditions."

5. Therefore, the Latin Church will remain balkanized.

The majority, what...97 percent?...will consist Nouvs Ordo Catholics with the somewhat spruced up, basically all-vernacular Novus Ordo Mass.

The Mass will continue to be offered in this and that fashion according to a parish's personality.

Traditionalists will have their one-TLM-only-parish per diocese.

Incoming Protestants will bring with them TAC, Episcopalian, Lutheran, etc., liturgies.

The "Latin" Latin Church is long gone.

Jordanes said...

Holy Tradition compels that the Mass be prayed in Latin. The normative Mass is in Latin and features Gregorian chant.

And yet the fact remains that church law permits vernacular Masses.

There is no Apostolic Tradition that requires the Eucharist to be celebrated only in Latin, nor that the Latin Church pray only in Latin.

Without Latin and Gregorian chant incorporated within "their" Masses, how can the TACers remain loyal to and promote Latin Church Liturgical Tradition?

Please stop uttering opinions about TAC liturgy when you clearly haven't endeavored to familiarise yourself even slightly with their liturgical traditions. One is more likely to hear Latin chant at a TAC liturgy than at most modern Catholic Masses.

Anonymous said...

PKTP, I deliberately did not call you out by name. For my part, I believe the Holy Father has taken the Anglicans on as a personal cause and will not abandon them to the tender mercies of the liberals. I respect your position, but see the landscape as different than it was in 1983.

But this is not the only blog where this is discussed nor are you the only commenter. There are some vocal commenters, including some that show up here, who have voiced the attitude that "we don't want their kind here". They have been wrongly accused of trying to smuggle Protestant doctrine into the Church, called "not real Catholics" for desiring to keep their tradition of vernacular liturgy, attacked for having a unique patrimony at all, accused of creating roadblocks to the return of "The Only True Mass Of All Time Which God Hears Because It's In Latin", and generally treated as a hostile boarding party. Just look at 12:20, 15:18, 17:48, 22:13, and 22:39 for a taste of what shows up every time TLM partisans start discussing Anglicanorum Coetibus.

If acceptance of Catholic doctrine and communion with the Pope is not enough to entitle them to be left alone to worship in peace, then it would appear the doctrine of total depravity exists in Catholic circles after all, informally, but only applies to Protestant converts.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes is right in his last comments. First of all, the T.L.M. was prayed before the Council in Church Slavaonic in the single case of Dalmatia. This was known as the 'Glagolithic Mass'. In the Byzantine Church, the Romanians were allowed to replace Slavonic with modern Romanian as early as 1885. True, Latin is essential to the Latin Church. But that does not mean that no other language may ever be used.

As for Chant, the TAC uses it widely. In my T.L.M., it has been the expertise of the TAC choirmaster that has improved our Chant markedly. In the case of my Diocese, it is the Latin traditionalists who are learning a thing or two about Chant from the TAC, not the other way around.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 22.39 makes some legitimate points. It is true that the 'Latin' Latin Church is not now returning. What is staying is mostly a 'spruced-up' vernacular liturgy everywhere.

I do take issue with this, however:

"3. TACers will not elevate Latin Church Liturgical Tradition, certainly not among "Novus Ordo Catholics" as they, the TACers are few in number and celebrate all-vernacular liturgies."


Under Article III of A.C., TAC priests will have the right to offer the T.L.M. IN LATIN. Some of them are very attached to our T.L.M. and will offer it. They will do so as extra Sunday Masses (bination & trination) under their own ordinaries. As a result, they can't be touched by our Latin bishops when they offer such Masses, well, at least not when doing so on their own turf.

It is true that Latin bishops will exert a large influence, since they control most of the sacred places the TACers will need. However, I don't think that many Latin bishops will try to stop such Masses. Most dioceses in France & the U.S.A., for instance, already have every-Sunday Latin Masses, so few will complain about a few more here and there.

The next step is to get an international 'ordinariate' for the T.L.M.!!!

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anon. asks:

"Certain Traditional Catholics argued that the influx of TACers into the Church would instill among "Novus Ordo Catholics" a strong sense of Latin Church Liturgical Tradition.

How is that possible when TACers promote all-vernacular liturgies?"


Well, the Latin Liturgical Tradition is more than the Latin tongue. It includes ceremony and music and vestments and the theological content of prayers, prayers of propitiation as against only prayers of memorial. Much of what the TAC is bringing is from the Latin Liturgical Tradition; much else is allied to or compatible with it.

Most TACers are liturgically very conservative. Dare I write 'traditional'? They are a lot like us except that they were born on the wrong side of the Tiber, by no fault of their own. Most of their spiritual ancestors resisted the Reformation but were hampered by death at the end of a pike. Pikes do tend to slow people down when they're impaled on them. Somehow, I think that their entrance into the Church will be a good influence next to what we have in NewChurch, what with Sister Chitister and all her potted plants and pumpkins on the Altar at Hallowe'en. Somehow I think that they will improve things in a Church where Clown Mass and Lesbian Action Mass is the order of the day. Call me crazy for thinking it.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Craig writes:

"I respect your position, but see the landscape as different than it was in 1983."

Yes, I agree with this assessment. The Pope does indeed wish to bring the Anglican patrimony on board and the landscape has changed since 1983. The problem is that Bugnini the Barbarian still has partisans in the curia and they are still trying to sabotage the Holy Father's initiative. That is why I have been so vocal here, both in defence of the TAC and also in defence of Holy Tradition in the Latin Church.

It is true that some 'archtraditionalists' of the Latin Church are extremely hostile to the incoming Anglicans. But this is nothing compared to the reception they will get from Roman liberals.

Batton down the hatches. A storm is coming! I want the new Anglicatholics as allies in the fight to come. Unfortunately, I am seeing ignorance and contempt on the part of many Latin traditionalists here. Craig is certainly right about that.

P.K.T.P.

Andrew said...

I would like to point out an interesting article in the National Catholic Register:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/3_words_that_drive_progressive_catholics_crazy/

Matthew Archbold writes in his article that:
"I’ve been running a Catholic blog for a few years now and have inadvertently come across certain words and phrases that just drive self described “progressive” Catholics crazy. Tweeters have been doing this a while concerning politics but I thought we could have some fun here coming up with 3 word phrases that just unhinge “progressive” Catholics."

What is #1 on his list?
answer:
1) Traditional Anglican Communion

Judging from many of the comments on this blog, it seems that "Catholic" liberals learn faster than traditionalists.

Anonymous said...

Ok, for those who are wondering about the influence that the Traditional Anglican Communion will bring to the table, well, stop wondering.

They won't bring any influence to the table. The majority of them live in India. And even there, they're not going to change the liturgical scene.

You see, our bishops, no matter the country, won't allow TAC to change anything. Our bishops have turned Summorum Pontificum into a dead letter. You really think they're going to allow TAC to reshape the liturgical scene?

Dream on, brothers and sisters. Dream on.

Anonymous said...

"There is no Apostolic Tradition that requires the Eucharist to be celebrated only in Latin, nor that the Latin Church pray only in Latin."

What about organic development of the Tradition to its full form? The Tradition has grown up. The notion that we should go back to the praxis of the primitive Church has been condemned.

Jordanes said...

It is impossible for something that has never been an Apostolic Tradition to organically grow up into one. And whether one agrees with vernacular Masses or not (or whether the Church's approval of them is prudent or appropriate r not), the modern introduction of vernacular Masses is not in fact a return to the praxis of the primitive Church, but a liturgical innovation justified by a spurious archaeologism.

Anonymous said...

Jordanes, what do you mean "spurious"? Didn't the Apostles use vernacular?

Jordanes said...

No. The Apostles prayed in hieratic Hebrew, Aramaic (Syriac), and Septuagintal Koine Greek (the languages of Holy Scripture), which in relatively short time led to their becoming liturgical languages of the Church (Latin was added soon after, though some think its origins as a liturgical language are apostolic, and later still came Ge'ez and Old Slavonic). The Church has never had a liturgical tradition of praying communally in whatever the common tongue might be, but the historically groundless belief that it was the original practice of the Church was used to justify the introduction of vernacular liturgy about 45 years ago.

Anonymous said...

'ordanes is absolutely correct on this matter. The 1549 and 1662 Books of Common Prayer convey some of the finest literature in the English tongue, as does the King James Bible. It is on a par with the Canterbury Tales, Paradise Lost, and the plays of Shakespeeare. It is an artistic treasure no less than is sacred polyphony or the finer retables in Italian Renaissance churches. It belongs in the Catholic Church, which welcomes, nay, embraces, all that is great. Beauty reflects God's glory and the Church is God's Mystical Body. They belong together. It is a fairly simple matter to remove the Protestant suggestions of Cranmer from the Anglican patrimony."

The King James Bible always was, and should be anathema to any faithful, traditional Catholic. The thought of this totally Protestant book (which was a re-working of the Bible to reflect Protestantism) would be an extremely distasteful and unwelcome intrusion into the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church and it's liturgy and liturgical expression.
Such a suggestion sounds like the rantings of the most radical of "catholic" ecumenists either of the Roman Curia, or in so many USA parishes which have done their best to turn their parishes into Protestant churches in all but name.

These books might contain some of the finest literature in the English language. That might be true. But they were written entirely for Protestants....and that's where the King James Bible, and other Anglican elements should stay.
Next (God forbid) w'll be hearing about Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists and other Protestant ecclesial groups wanting to enter the Catholic Church, providing they can keep their respective Protestant traditions too. Nothing would ruin the Roman Catholic Church and it's liturgical tradition and heritage faster.

But perhaps this has been the plan all along?

Jordanes said...

The King James Bible always was, and should be anathema to any faithful, traditional Catholic. The thought of this totally Protestant book (which was a re-working of the Bible to reflect Protestantism) would be an extremely distasteful and unwelcome intrusion into the tradition of the Roman Catholic Church and it's liturgy and liturgical expression.

You don't know what you're talking about. No translation of the divinely-inspired Scriptures can be "totally" Protestant -- the Holy Spirit is not a Protestant. Lay a KJV next to a Douay-Rheims and you'll find that they overwhelmingly agree (as should be expected since the KJV and Douay-Rheims translators consulted each others' work). But your superstitious aversion to the KJV has nothing to do with traditional Catholicism.

The KJV was certainly not a reworking of the Bible to reflect "Protestantism." Rather, it was the production of a translation intended for universal use in Anglican pulpits, to supplant the Calvinist Geneva Bible and to replace the Anglican "Bishops' Bible." As such, there is a very subtle Anglican-episcopalian bias in the KJV which most people can't detect at all.

Of course, I also note that you are bashing the KJV, while Mr. Perkins was talking about the 1549 and 1662 editions of the Book of Common Prayer, not the KJV . . .

Next (God forbid) w'll be hearing about Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists and other Protestant ecclesial groups wanting to enter the Catholic Church, providing they can keep their respective Protestant traditions too.

Most of those groups have not preserved even the form of an episcopate as the Anglicans have. Methodists and some Lutherans have ministers that they call bishops, and they still retain liturgical traditions that bear some relation to Catholic liturgy (and some of them have changed their liturgies to bring them more into line with the Church's liturgy), but they don't believe in any semblance of Holy Orders and most deny the Real Presence. Baptists, however, have neither bishops nor liturgy nor sacraments. Considering the status of other Protestant groups, it is extremely unlikely that we'll find very many of them knocking on our door at all, let alone asking for accommodations of their liturgical traditions (if they have any that aren't imitations of the Pauline Missal, that is).

Anonymous said...

Wow! I thought Donatism was feisty among some Anglicans who oppose Aglicanorum coetibus, but I see it is an even more vigorous heresy among some rad-trads here.

For Anon. 29 January, 2010 15:19 - What is "Protestant" about the Authorized Version? Is the NAB more Catholic than the AV? That thing which motivated Protestant reformers was their private interpretation of Greek originals and Jerome's Vulgate, not the AV. You cannot place blame for the Reformation at the feet of the AV any more than you can place the blame for the Novus Ordo Missae at the feet of the NAB. Still, the proof is in the pudding; persistent use of the AV by Anglican Catholics has led them back to the See of Peter. Now, when (not if) the Pope authorizes the AV (among other Anglican things) will you continue to anathematize yourself or will you make the great mea culpa on this blog?

And for the others who don't think the TAC can make a difference among Roman Catholic traditionalists, my gut tells me that you are being disingenuous. My guess is that you are actually the very liberals who in truth hate the T.L.M. and fear that an alliance between TAC'ers and the T.L.M.'ers will be the silver bullet that puts you doppelgangers under for good.

I pray for your conversions to the Christian religion of Charity and Obedience. If my guess is correct, you would benefit from a show of humility similar to that of the TAC’s.

However if my guess is incorrect and you are really rock-ribbed supporters of the T.L.M., my suggestion remains the same; that you show parallel humility. Just who are you trying to impress with your chest thumping? If this thing is of God you are fools to continue fighting against it as you do. If it is not of God then it will amount to nothing. Many of you are late comers to the T.L.M. anyway, many of you are converts yourselves. Is it bitterness and jealousy that spurs you? Please rather, pray for the TAC; don’t condemn us in ignorance of what we do and believe. We could prove to be your most loyal friends, but not if you persist in your ignorance and Donatism.

Anonymous said...

In response to P.K.T.P.

I wrote: "3. TACers will not elevate the Latin Church Liturgical Tradition, certainly not among "Novus Ordo Catholics" as they, the TACers, are few in number and celebrate all-vernacular liturgies."

P.K.T.P wrote: "I do take issue with this, however. Under Article III of A.C., TAC priests will have the right to offer the T.L.M. IN LATIN. Some of them are very attached to our T.L.M. and will offer it."

But P.K.T.P., in the initial post to this thread, which is your post, you stated the following:

"A Latin Mass will be foreign to them, and it does not convey the Anglican patrimony. So it will not 'sell' there."

Therefore, based upon your statement, we can conclude the following:

1. The TLM is foreign to TACers.

2. The TLM does not convey Anglican patrimony.

3. Based upon #2, for TACers, to exchange their liturgy for the TLM would destroy their Anglican patrimony.

4. Once inside the Church, their patrimony will prove foreign to the Latin Church's Traditional patrimony (and vice versa).

5. Therefore, I am correct to argue that TACers enterance into the Church will not do much to promote among "Novus Ordo Catholics" the Latin Church's Liturgical Tradition.

Let us welcome the TACers into the Church. That is fine.

But let's not pretend that their Anglican liturgy and Anglican patrimony, which, based upon your statement, is foreign to the Traditional Latin Mass and our patrimony, would promote among Novus Ordo Catholics a strong sense of Latin Church Tradition.

Let us also keep in mind that no matter how wonderful the TACers may be, and I don't mean that sacrastically — I am thankful that they will join the True Church — even at best they would have little influence upon the state of Novus Ordo liturgy.

Why?

If only for the following reason:

The majority of bishops and priests are not interested in promoting among Novus Ordo Catholics the TLM and authentic Latin Church Liturgical Tradition.

Our bishops and priests will not permit anybody to break the dreadful Novus Ordo culture that grips the Latin Church.

Anonymous said...

Having attended Our Lady of
the Atonement every chance I got while visiting family in San Antonio, I can only say to those that have not experienced their beautiful liturgy to withold judging until such time as they do experience it.

Outside of the rare TLM in San Antonio, I would venture to say it was the most beautiful and reverent liturgy. The school is filled to overflowing and the Masses are full. They are as orthodox as possible and there is no funny stuff in the Mass.

Andrew said...

"But let's not pretend that their Anglican liturgy and Anglican patrimony... would promote among Novus Ordo Catholics a strong sense of Latin Church Tradition."

More education needs to happen on this front. To help with this, I post part of a blog entry of Fr. Hunwicke of Dec. 4:
http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/
Fr. Hunwicke is an English Anglo-Catholic.

"Anglicanorum coetibus and SSPX

The views of a Fr Scott of the SSPX are brought to my attention by a reader. I agree with most of what he actually says. Where he is off-centre is in simply knowing nothing whatsoever about us. His doctrinal comments are particularly inapposite. We are not heretics. Unlike the Orthodox, whom Fr Scott interestingly thinks are hardly heretics at all, we fully accept all that the Magisterium of the Church has defined de fide, including the decrees of Trent, Vatican I (and Vatican II where it is de fide ... mind you, I think there would be no harm in having one or two clarifications about the Vatican II decree on Religious Freedom; I hope Fr Scott will not condemn me out of hand as a dangerous liberal for this). Is it so wrong for us to accept the Catechism CC as a useful popular compendium of what is taught authoritatively as de fide in the primary Conciliar and Pontifical dogmatic documents and by the Ordinary Universal Magisterium, and to treat things in it which are not so based with the appropriate obedient respect (obsequium) that falls short of acceptance by divine Faith?

I know SSPX has resolutely defended the use of Latin in the Worship of the Western Church, and I admire them for their long and often lonely act of witness. I myself say the Tridentine Mass, in Latin, several times a week. I am aware of other Anglican clergy who are learning it and will use it with enthusiasm. But - just suppose the Holy See authorises for us a version of the Tridentine Rite in 'Tudor' English. Would this really be so terrible? There are examples from before the twentieth century of the Roman Rite being allowed in East European languages. However glorious the Latin language is, is it doctrinally unthinkable for the 'aloud' bits of the rite to be vernacular? Did not the admirable Mgr Lefebvre sign the Conciliar decree on Liturgy which allowed the possibility of some use of the vernacular? [snip]

If we can make the Apostolic Constitution work ... and if SSPX sorts itself out with our Holy Father ... I will be very happy to recommend to my PCC that we welcome SSPX to our altars. Especially Fr Scott. He will not find much evidence of Dr Bugnini in S Thomas's."

Steve Cavanaugh said...

One Anonymous wrote:
"Without Latin and Gregorian chant incorporated within "their" Masses, how can the TACers remain loyal to and promote Latin Church Liturgical Tradition?"
I can't speak about the TAC parishes, are there are none nearby, and those small, but the example of the Anglican Use parish I do frequently attend in Boston should serve: every Sunday and Feast Day Mass has chanted propers, using the Anglican Use Gradual, most of which are simple psalm tones, but some of which are the full melody from the Gradual. And we have been setting more to the Gradual melodies in the past year. We do not attempt more right now because we have a very small schola; prior to the split from the Episcopal Church, the congregation frequently had polyphonic Masses, Schubert in G, etc. We are currently learning a new Latin setting of the Gloria for Maundy Thursday (and possibly St. Joseph's day if we can learn it by then). It is not the Anglican Patrimony that holds us back from doing more, it is the same problem any small parish has...a small choir, limited time, etc. I imagine it will be the same for the TAC parishes; those with the resources will do more. San Antonio's Our Lady of The Atonement, mentioned above, has a weekly NO Latin Mass with chant during the week and one on Sunday.

Another Anonymous wrote:
"Our bishops have turned Summorum Pontificum into a dead letter."

Well, here in Boston, prior to SP, we had one TLM weekly, which was moved around from a downtown church to a suburban church just before SP was issued. Since SP we have had the chapel at the Cathedral re-ordered and refurbished, and there is also a weekly TLM there; there is a weekly TLM every week in Middleborogh south of the city. There are a few TLMs during the week on a regular basis. Three parishes north of the city also offer TLMs on Sunday regularly. The Atonment Friars in Brockton offer a TLM once per month.

Why no more...partly because the same choristers are running like mad to do 2 or 3 Masses every Sunday, because there aren't enough to go around. But there is interest, and we are teaching new people. But it takes time. But that's hardly a dead letter.

Anonymous said...

I may have been the one who said that S.P. was a "dead letter". What I was referring to was not the provision of Latin Masses but to the apostolic letter's workability in law. The bishops have found a way around it. They simply let it be known that any priest who offers the T.L.M. will end up as a hospice chaplain for life. Simple. Easy. One-two-three.

Most of the bishops who are open to S.P. have already seen to it that it is implemented. The others use threats to stop it. A few lack the resources to have the Mass offered. So there is very little progress now. It comes mostly when the Pope retires one bishop and appoints another.

That is the sense in which it is a dead letter. As long as the T.L.M. is controlled by the local bishops, there will be restriction, refusal, and even persecution. The T.L.M. needs its own universal diocese. But no more on that today.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"I can't speak about the TAC parishes, are there are none nearby, and those small, but the example of the Anglican Use parish I do frequently attend in Boston should serve:"

Thank you. I appreciate your knowledge of the above situation.

But returning to the initial post to this thread, regarding the TAC, P.K.T.P. stated:

"A Latin Mass will be foreign to them, and it does not convey the Anglican patrimony. So it will not 'sell' there."

Therefore, we cannot count upon the TAC to promote the Latin Church's Traditional Roman Mass patrimony.

1. The Latin Liturgical Tradition is "foreign" to the TAC.

2. The Traditional Roman Mass does not "convey the Anglican patrimony."

3. The Traditional Roman Liturgy "will not 'sell' there" (at the TAC parishes).

Anonymous said...

Anon. 16.45 writes:

"5. Therefore, I am correct to argue that TACers enterance into the Church will not do much to promote among "Novus Ordo Catholics" the Latin Church's Liturgical Tradition."


This analysis, of which I cite just an excerpt, is inadequate; no, it's just false. So I'll put it this way:


1. TAC priests have a right to celebrate the T.L.M. in Latin (A.C., Article III).

2. TAC priests are subjects of their own personal ordinaries, who are equal in law to diocesan bishops except to the extent specified in their statutes (cfr. Canon 368 and apply it to this new structure). In the case of the personal ordinariates, the only restriction is a duty to consult with Latin bishops when erecting new parishes or in co-operative acts of charity. In no case do the local Latin bishops have any commanding authority over the ordinariates; and each ordinariate has full territorial jurisdiction where it exists.

3. Under Canon 905, the local or proper (in this case, proper) ordinary can permit his priests to trinate or binate on Sundays and holydays and to binate on other days.

4. Most TAC parishes are very small and widely scattered. As a result, many of their priests celebrate their Anglican liturgy only once per Sunday.

5. This frees them up to offer the T.L.M. on Sundays as well.

6. As Latin Catholic priests, they can offer Mass at pariish churches of the local diocese at the invitation of parish priests, without even consulting any bishop.

7. They may also offer the the T.L.M. at their own churches. In fact, under S.P., to which they are subject as Latin Rite priests (they have not been accorded their own Rite or ritual church), they are even bound to offer the T.L.M. for those who request it, if they deem this to be possible--and the local Latin bishop can have no say in the matter. He is not even consulted.

8. Because ordinariatess cover entire countries, the personal ordinary can invite the F.S.S.P. or I.C.R. to operate apostolates ANYWHERE in that country, and the local Latin bishops can do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it in law. All that is required is a resolution of funding problems. But the F.S.S.P. has money even when the Anglicatholic personal ordinary does not. The F.S.S.P. could supply a priest and some cash; the local lay supporters could supply most of the cash; the Anglicatholic ordinary, the jurisdiction. At least in law, and where ordinariates exist, it frees the Latin Mass from being banned by local Latin bishops.

9. Ordinariates will likely cover the entire former British Empire, including that revolutionary America founded by that traitor, Washington. It also covers Japan, Mexico, and a few other places.

Need I go on? THINK before you comment.

Addendum:

Of course, I am not suggesting a bed of perfect roses here. Also given financial reasons, the TAC ordinaries will normally want to work co-operatively with local Latin bishop so as to gain access to the Latin bishops' parish churches to offer Mass. Remember, the ordinariates will have very few sacred places of their own for a while to come. So there is a control on this. The Latin bishops lose a juridical control but gain a financial one. But I'm betting that, in a short time, the local Latin bishops won't even know which ordinariate priests are offering the T.L.M. or where personal ordinaries are making deals with the F.S.S.P.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

To Mr. "Dream On" Anonymous:

While it's true that at least three-quarters of TACers are in India, it looks as if the entire FiF in England, the U.S.A., Australia, N.Z., and Canada is coming across. There will also be many other 'continuers' crossing into the ordinariates, plus an ever-growing number of Canterburian Anglicans who are just sick to death of all the homo nonsense and clown liturgies and lesbian-action Masses among potted plants.

Here on Vancouver Island, it was just announced that the regular Anglicans are about to sell off 36% of all their churches. They are going down fast, partly because their product is a joke.

Think of the TAC as an archtraditionalist vanguard that will establish jurisdiction and set standards by being the first through the door. Now consider that ordinariates will cover huge countries and have the authority, for example, to admit the F.S.S.P. and I.C.R. and grant them faculties and jurisdiction (cf. Complementary Norm 9.2). There are advantages to rejecting the original TAC's request for a separate ritual church! This Pope is genius and a wily fox!

So, if there's a group of persecuted trad laics in, say, Minnesota and it has a war chest (some cash), it need only ignore the nasty liberal bishop and ask the Anglicatholic personal ordinarte to 'bring in' the F.S.S.P. The F.S.S.P. would be sharing in the work of the Ordinariate but, under a prior written agreement with the Ordinary, it could do so only to provide the T.L.M., which Anglicatholics *also* gain a right to benefit from!

Think about it. Think.

In addition, knowing this situation in advance, many of those local bishops will be more tolerant of the T.L.M. in the first place. Why? Because they don't want to oppose our Mass publicly and then be humiliated when an Anglicatholic personal ordinary stationed a thousand miles away brings the F.S.S.P. onto their turf.

Last question: Which countries will be covered by Anglicatholic structures? Answer:

Canada and the Excited States of America to our south, Mexico, Guatemala and probably all of Central America, Colombia, probably the entire Caribbean (ordinariate in Puerto Rico), Ireland, the U.K., Australia, New Zealand, Japan, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Botswana, Mozambique, Zambia, Zimbabwe, the Congo, perhaps Kenya, Cameroon, and in one diocese in each of Normandy, Switzerland, and Chile.

Unfortunately, it will not help much in France, the world's most civilised country, or in Germany, Italy, and so forth. It won't help much in Europe.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

On Bibles:

While the Douay-Rheims will remain the standard English Bible for Catholics (I have two huge copies plus the Vulgate in Latin), the King James Version has only a mild Protestant bias and is slightly better æsthetically. Keep in mind that no translation is perfect. All of them must be read in accordance with the mind of the Church. The King James Version is a cultural treasure and includes 'the Protestant Apocrypha'. It would be a small matter for the Holy See to reintegrate those books into their proper places (the King James official version has them as an appendix that does not appear in most publications but is needed because Anglicans have liturgical lections from them) and to add some interpretative notes in the margin. Not a problem. We needn't throw out this great work of art just because of a few imperfections in expression. The Protestants abhor commentary in Bibles; we welcome it when it bears an imprimatur. Let us embrace whatever is good!

Let's welcome the glorious traditions of these Anglican incomers as well as the incomers themselves. I don't mind if some of their ancestors persecuted some of mine. Unlike some of the uncharitable idiots on this blog, I can see past that.

P.K.T.P.

P.S. Yes, I do own a King James Bible too (although, sadly, it doesn't have the 'apocrypha' in the back). I have it for literary reference so I'm not afraid of going to hell for its presence. Good grief!

Anonymous said...

From Wikipedia. "The membership base of FiF (Forward in Faith), however, is not exclusively Anglo-Catholic and there are many members in the United States, England and elsewhere who would not consider themselves to be Anglo-Catholics."

About how many true FiF Anglo-Catholics plan to enter the Church?

Anonymous said...

Anon. 2.23:

It is true that many in FiF are not Anglo-Catholic in churchmanship, meaning that they do not prefer a more ritualistic form of worship in sacral wording. It would be a mistake, however, to conclude that, therefore, they are not interested in reunion with Rome under the ordinariates.

The FiF is mostly held together by its common opposition to the liberal moral agenda of the Canterburian Anglican Communion.

The FiF in England don't use the more 'Catholic' and ritualistic Anglican servicebooks. Instead, believe it or not, they use the Novus Ordo. That is one reason why A.C. grants the N.O. to Anglican incomers, although it is not the prinipal reason.

The latest indications are that most of the FiF in England will cross into the new ordinariates. The FiF in Australia seems to be linked very closely to the TAC there and likely also come over. Some Fifers in North America will likely come across as well but many will not.

Another source of incomers will be members of other 'continuer' bodies: Anglicans who left the Canterbury Communion over various issues. TAC itself is presently a continuer body.

Then there are families and individuals in the Canterbury Communion who are appalled by the moral direction that sect has taken, or who are Anglo-Catholics ritually but are still in the regular bodies for whatever reason.

Lastly, some N.O. conservatives will go to the ordinaries to escape the N.O.M. bland Mass.

I don't think that all the laics in the TAC will cross over, particuraly in the U.S.A., but these other groups will more than compensate for that. I also believe that, in some FiF cases, parishes will come across one by one rather than as a huge group.

The Canterburian Anglicans are going down fast in liberal areas, such as Canada and the U.S.A. Here on Vancouver Island, it was front-page news in the local paper, what I call "The Times-Communist [Colonist]" that they wlll lose 36% of their churches over the next 18 months.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Addendum on the Decline in the Anglican Church of Canada


According to recent reports here, the (Canterburian) Anglican Church of Canada is losing 13,000 members every year. Were the present rate of decline to continue, the last Anglican should die or leave the A.C.C. in about 2060. Of course, it doesn't work that way. When institutions collapse, there is an accelerating decline to a very bad point and then the rate of decline, near the extinction of the organisation, decelerates markedly until it almost flatlines, as the last stubborn adherents remain loyal no matter what. The absolute loyalists will live full lives and will never leave, so they keep a skeleton organisation going for the last phase.

So, for the A.C.C., I expect an even more devastating decline than the current one over the next, say, 30 years, and then a flatlining for about 60 to 80 years. For the last, say, 40 years, Anglicans in Canada will only be a handfull of individuals who entered the organisation at Baptism and remained loyal for their whole lives.

A tiny remnant will then continue on for ages to come, much like the Methodist Church of Canada, which only exists now in a few rural places in Ontario (most of it jnd. the United Church in 1925).

The Anglican Church is much larger and more prominent in Canada than it is in America. That's because the A.C.C. was the establishment church in a British colony and Dominion. In contrast, most of the Protestant founders of America were anti-Anglicans, whose ancestors left the Church of England. Hence Anglicans were recently 12% of the Cdn. population but only 2% of the American one. (Catholics in Canada have declined from 47%, the high point, to about 42% today.)

Because the A.C.C. was the unofficial establishment body here, it acquired the very best real estate in the Dominion. It has been on life support for the past 50 years, living off of the determination of the generations before that. The Anglican clerics are now selling off that valuable property to protect their sorry pensions and benefits--to keep them rich or, at least, to keep the wolf from the door.

In a few years, they will have to 'twin' with other Protestant denominations. This means that each keeps its legal identity but shares 'worship spaces'. This is already happening now on a small scale.

As they collapse, we can pick up some of their refugees in our shiny new ordinariates. Unfortunately, our ordinariates won't have the cash for their fire-sale buildings, which will be acquired by developers and then levelled & turned into carparks.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Over at the Anglo-Catholic site, some new information has emerged, thanks to a statement of Bishop Campese, one of the TAC prelates in the U.S.A. Apparently, leading TAC bishops will meet with the C.D.F. late next month (February). The C.D.F. will supposedly be answering a number of qq. at that meeting and several of these are qq. from laics, including some passed on by me.

On the matter of the liturgy for the ordinariates, there is more evidence (from a critic of the TAC from within official Anglicanism) that what is currently being reformed is the American Anglicn Use "Book of Divine Worship" of 1983.

On the other side, their Primate seems to be saying not that his experts are working on a new Liturgy but only that they favour forming an international commission for this in the near future. Apparently, several of his prelates have suggested this in recent conversations with him.

So it would seem that the revision that is presently in the works is only of the 1983 "Book of Divine Worship", restricted so far to the Anglican Use Catholic parishes (all 8 of them) in the U.S.A. From what I have been able to gather, the TAC is likely proposing tha the Traditional Offertory of the Roman Mass be added, at least as an option. It might also be proposing allowing the use of an Anglican canon as an option. I don't think that Rome would be open to that.

The B.D.W. has, as one of its options, E.P. 1 in liturgical English, and yet the Offertory is not in liturgical English, thereby causing a discord.

So much seems to be up in the air in regard to the liturgy of these incomers. The revision was supposed to be published six weeks ago. We are still waiting for it.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

"Lastly, some N.O. conservatives will go to the ordinaries to escape the N.O.M. bland Mass."

"Some" is the key word in your statement.

I have found that with few exceptions, the 15 to 20 percent of Catholics who continue to assist at Mass are very happy with "their" Novus Ordo liturgies.

Interestingly, I've found that perhaps the majority of eldery Catholics who grew up with the TLM are very resistant to the TLM.

There is a notion among Traditionalists that the Faithful hunger for tremendous liturgy, particularly the TLM.

That isn't what I've found.

Again, with few exceptions, the remaining 15 to 20 percent of Catholics who assist at Sunday Mass are very happy with the Novus Ordo.

They enjoy the image of the laity overwhelming the Sanctuary, not to mention all-vernacular Masses, relaxed dress codes and the chatty atmosphere that they encounter each week.

Therefore, I find little reason to believe that Novus Ordo Catholics would flock to Catholic-Anglican parishes.

Anonymous said...

TAC Bishop Nona, Ordinary for their Church of the Torres Strait, has just given the Pope's offer a very strong endorsement. The TAC Church of the Torres Strait is for the very Anglo-Catholic Melanesians living in Queensland and especially on the islands between Queensland and Papua New Guinea. Moderators may wish to go to the "Messenger" Site for the statement. It is under the Primate's Announcements or else News, I've forgotten which.

P.K.T.P.

P.S. I note that Bishop Nona's sole auxiliary, Bishop Sania Townson, died last week. Let's pray for his soul.