Rorate Caeli

Ordinariate in England and Wales: January 2011

In less than two months, the first Ordinariate established according to the norms of Anglicanorum Coetibus will be established in England and Wales. Let us all pray for this incredible canonical achievement, which is a great hope for all Catholics and a precedent of particular relevance for Traditional Catholics.

In collaboration with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in Rome, the Bishops of England and Wales have been preparing for the establishment of an Ordinariate early in January 2011. Although there may be practical difficulties in the months ahead, the Bishops are working to address these at a national and local level.

Five Anglican Bishops who currently intend to enter the Ordinariate have already announced their decision to resign from pastoral ministry in the Church of England with effect from 31 December 2010. They will enter into full communion with the Catholic Church early in January 2011. During the same month, it is expected that the Decree establishing the Ordinariate will be issued and the name of the Ordinary to be appointed announced. Soon afterwards, those non-retired former Anglican Bishops whose petitions to be ordained are accepted by the CDF, will be ordained to the Catholic Diaconate and Priesthood for service in the Ordinariate.

It is expected that the retired former Anglican Bishops whose petitions to be ordained are accepted by the CDF, will be ordained to the Catholic Diaconate and Priesthood prior to Lent. This will enable them, together with the Ordinary and the other former Anglican Bishops, to assist with the preparation and reception of former Anglican clergy and their faithful into full communion with the Catholic Church during Holy Week.

Before the beginning of Lent, those Anglican clergy with groups of faithful who have decided to enter the Ordinariate will then begin a period of intense formation for ordination as Catholic priests.

At the beginning of Lent, the groups of faithful together with their pastors will be enrolled as candidates for the Ordinariate. Then, at a date to be agreed between the Ordinary and the local diocesan Bishop, they will be received into the Catholic Church and confirmed. This will probably take place either during Holy Week, at the Mass of the Lord’s Supper on Holy Thursday or during the Easter Vigil. The period of formation for the faithful and their pastors will continue to Pentecost. Until then, these communities will be cared for sacramentally by local clergy as arranged by the diocesan Bishop and the Ordinary.

Around Pentecost, those former Anglican priests whose petitions for ordination have been accepted by the CDF will be ordained to the Catholic Priesthood. Ordination to the Diaconate will precede this at some point during Eastertide. Formation in Catholic theology and pastoral practice will continue for an appropriate amount of time after ordination.

In responding generously and offering a warm welcome to those seeking full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church within the Ordinariate, the Bishops know that the clergy and faithful who are on that journey of faith will bring their own spiritual treasures which will further enrich the spiritual life of the Catholic Church in England and Wales. The Bishops will do all they can to ensure that there is effective and close collaboration with the Ordinariate both at diocesan and parish levels.

Finally, with the blessings and encouragement they have received from Pope Benedict’s recent Visit, the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales are resolved to continue their dialogue with other Christian Churches and Ecclesial Communities on that journey towards the communion in faith and the fullness of unity for which Christ prayed.


  1. This entire enterprise is a disaster. Notice how the bishops mentioned in the opening paragraph are those from the Church of England and no mention at all is made of Bishop Mercer and Bishop Moyer of the TAC in England. The message to the TAC, to date, is that it can 'fall in' to a new FiF-led structure or get lost. From what I am hearing, the TAC body in England is being elbowed out of the negotiations, although its leaders are too restrained to say so directly. And what Mass text do the Forward in Faith (FiF) people use? Answer: Nearly all of them use the Novus Ordo sing-along! Most of them abandoned their sonorous prayerbooks in the 1970s, along with the English Missal (mostly the T.L.M. in liturgical English). This is a new Novus Ordo structure!

    The TAC, which approached Rome in 2007 and begged entrance, having given up everything, is being ignored. It took Rome nine months just to respond to the TAC's initial letter asking for admission. The response simply said: "We received your letter". Now we know why. This is a game.

    Can the TAC apply for a separate ordinariate for England? Yes: because these structures are personal, more than one of them can occupy the same territory. That's also why the personal Apostolic Administration of St. John-Mary Vianney occupies the same territory as the Diocese of Campos.

    Oh, but, say the critics, the TAC is too smaaaall in England to have its own structure. Balderdash! The territorial Apostolic Administration of Atyrau, erected in 1999 in Kazakhstan, has only 2,600 subjects and seven priests, and it embraces only five parishes. The Armenian Catholics have an ordinariate covering 28 countries--for only two parishes and having only two priests. There is an entire sui juris church for the Albanian Byzantine Catholics in Southern Albania (population: 3,000) and one for the Byzantines of Greece (2,500 subjects in two parishes). There is a prefecture apostolic for the Galapagos Islands, occupied mostly by rare birds but also by just nine priests. All of these are particular churches and are therefore juridically MORE than is a personal ordinariate.

    The TAC knocked first and has given up everything to come across. As a result, it is ignored. The FiF people of England stayed in the Church of England as long as they could and only left when they had no option, when they were even denied a 'code of practice'. They are 'wannabe' Anglicans. They kept their hefty State pay packets until the last dog was hung and were prepared to remain in an Anglican body that included bishopettes. While the TAC priests preferred the Faith to the buildings, the FiFers were rather attached to those grand old edifices.

    The instant the FiF bishops, with their large numbers, asked, they received. So every rich man who asketh receiveth, and to every poor man who knocketh, the door shall be slammed in his face.

    What will be the Mass text in the new structure for England? A.C. only allows three options so far: the N.O.M., the 1983 Anglican Use Mass, which includes the defective N.O. Offertory and is based on a 1979 American prayerbook, and the T.L.M. but only when offered in Latin.

    Few incomers will want Latin: it is foreign to them. Rome has not approved anything else. Rumour has it that the TAC leaders submitted a text at Pentecost but it somehow got lost. If Rome wanted to approve it so as to quell fears and warm hearts, she could have done so before proceeding with the first ordinariate.

    Pray hard for the Traditional Anglican Communion. Its good people have waited long and suffered much. Pray that that Pope will do something. What is not needed is a hostile take-over by Novus Ordo Anglicans. I'm asking that bloggers here turn to our Lady to ask succour for these people. Let the Rosary be our sword; the scapular, their shield.


  2. Beautiful! How my heart wishes for everybody to undergo this wonderful passing to Catholicism..!!

    I sure hope that they will not be confronted with all too modern theology etc., as it might just scare them away. On the other hand, who knows what good influence the to-be-taught might have on (all too) modern teachers!

    God bless his Church and that our Heavenly Mother may guide us all to Her Godly Son!

    Pax et bonum!

  3. Dear I.M.:

    I agree with you that there is wonder and good in this. After all, it is a first: a juridical structure for returning Anglicans, one that is designed to preserve an Anglican patrimony. We should be thankful for that, and I am. So I don't want my concern for the TAC to overshadow this completely. However, I do want everyone to pray that the leaders of the TAC are given a role in these new provisions. Their people have come a very long way to prepare for this day.


  4. PKTP, I share your concerns. Thank you for your vigilance. I will pray.

  5. PKTP,

    While perhaps less than optimal, this can hardly be characterized as a 'disaster'. Better that people are Novus Ordo Catholics than Anglicans of any kind.

  6. Beautiful! How my heart wishes for everybody to undergo this wonderful passing to Catholicism..!!

    Ah, but "Catholicism" is precisely not what these people are passing into ... that is, if we accept the fundamental attitude behind the learned arguments of PKTP.

    It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that "the FiF people" (i.e., Anglicans who wish to become Catholic) have an easier time finding their place in the Church than do the Traditionalist Anglicans (should we call the latter "the TAC people"?), because after all it's hard already to be a Catholic Traditionalist. I agree with PKTP that the Trads are treated unfairly. Life is unfair. I disagree with PKTP's apparent view that "the FiF people" should be seen with a jaundiced eye.

    I'm with you, IM, we should pray with joyful hope that all Anglicans ("FiF people" and "TAC people") will come home to Rome.

  7. I saw PKTP's second comment moments after posting my first one. Therefore, I retract most of my first comment. PKTP, you can pick out the bits that I should obviously retract and please accept my apology.

  8. Let me clear that I absolutely agree with PKTP that we should pray that the obstacles be cleared for the TAC and that they be treated more fairly.

  9. One major thing that PKTP leaves out of his comments is that the TAC people in the US seem positively ecstatic about the ordinariate, as seen at the recent conference in San Antonio.

    While sidelining the TAC in England may be a problem (who really knows), the FiF crowd cannot rule the day everywhere because they exist only in England.

    PKTP's missives really do nothing at this point other than spoiling the pot and causing fear. Unless you really know something, instead of offering more gossip, better to keep quiet and see how it unfolds.

  10. In Canada, also, mayn't we still reasonably be hopeful that the Traditional Anglicans will be the main formers of the Ordinariate? I think there's exactly one AC of C parish which has expressed its intention to join - the rest are all TAC.


  11. Anon. 16.37:

    I did not mean that the outcome is a disaster for the FiF people. I mean that it is so far a disaster in the way the TAC has been treated; it is also a disaster for the provision generally. The TAC has given up everything and is, so far, being ignored in England. Mrs. Gyapong, over at the Anglo-Catholic site, also reveals that the TAC is not having any part in deciding the structure for the ordinariates in Canada or the U.S.A. As she put it (and she is far more 'moderate' than I): the TAC is being completely "frozen out".

    I do not think that the situation is hopeless. I do think that Rome needs to intevene in this process, keeping in mind the very limited role accorded the episcopal conferences in "Anglicanorum Cœtibus". It is the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith alone that erects personal ordinariates.

    The problem here is very large. The TAC should be seen as a united organisation and also as a family. As such, it has a culture, a charism, an ecclesiology, a coherence and a perspective that should be respected. Are there other international Anglican groups that have applied for structures to Rome? We are not hearing about any.

    It was the TAC bishops who swore on a TAC Altar in England to accept all Catholic teaching. That alone unites them and sets them apart as a party which Rome should try to accommodate, and you don't accommodate people by pledging to absorb them in structures possibly run by Anglicans from other origins and possibily having a different character. You don't put your most loyal supplcants under new and unknown management.

    While any comparisons with parties in the Latin church will be less than exact, I think it fair to say that most TAC Anglicans are like Latin-Mass Romans, whereas FiF Anglicans are a lot like 'conservative' and 'neo-conservative' Romans. So putting the TAC under the former FiF bishops would be like putting the S.S.P.X under Frs. Fessio and Harrison of Adoremus, or even under conservative Novus Ordo bishops. The TAC is a special case and has a close coherence. What is needed is a set of regional jurisdictions for it. The Code of Canons had the perfect solution in Section 2 of Canon 372: the Campos structure. There could have been erected by Rome a set of 'personal' dioceses organised into an ecclesiastical province, just for the TAC and others willing to join it after foundation. So why did Rome go to all the trouble to create a new structure in the juridical zoo? Think about it: the personal ordinariates are a locus in which Anglicans from *all* backgrounds can cross the Tiber. Once the crossing is done, liberal bishops can then insist that TAC men not be given control of them. That, I fear, is what is happening. It's why nobody is talking to the TAC. The episcopal conferences, dominated by liberals, are trying to take over the process and cut the TAC out of the future leadership. Pray for them.

    I'll put this in stark terms but this is needed right now. Many in Rome and in the episcopal conferences see the TAC men as right-wing wildmen. The men in power in the Church would say, "They are not ... sound". Therefore, they are to be brought to heel and subjected to those having a much more ... liberal ... perspective. I trust that everyone here gets my meaning.

    Message to the S.S.P.X: Be very very careful in accepating any structure from Rome and NEVER even consider a 'personal prelature' structure. Suicide is not a preferred outcome.


  12. Dear Bloggers:

    Over at the Anglo-Catholic, there is a lady from the Anglican-Catholic Church of Canada who is coming from a very different perspective than I am, and she is apparently among the moderators over there. I refer to Mrs. Deborah Gyapong. After they censored me for about the fifteenth time, she made this startling admission. I quote directly:

    "Bishop Mercer and the Traditional Anglican Communion have been frozen out.

    Once the ordinariate is established, then individual TAC people can apply one by one to come in. But we will have no part in the foundations of the ordinariates.

    This seems as well to be what's going to happen in Canada and Australia as well.

    This is crushing.

    But then, the fix was in when CDF held a week of secret meetings with the Church of England Bishops last spring and made crucial decisions about the formation of the ordinariates that basically excluded the TAC and our aspirations for corporate reunion. Our bishops got an hour a short time later and those decisions were never revealed. We were left twisting in the wind while a concerted campaign of negative information went around the world to discredit our primate and that campaign then also discredited all those who are loyal to him.

    Bad faith? Favoritism? Sheer incompetence? I don't know.

    But this is a sad day for the Traditional Anglican Communion.


  13. Dear Bishop Fellay:

    Let us imagine a little scenario. Rome offers to erect the S.S.P.X as a personal prelature, and to connect it juridically to the various religious orders it is presently affliated with. Then Rome creates a worldwide personal archdiocese under my favourite Canon: section two of Canon 372, the Campos canon.

    However, Rome then invites other 'groups' (e.g. F.S.S.P., I.C.R.) into the new international archdiocese and, of course, Rome chooses a bishop from among these other groups. Suddenly, the S.S.P.X finds itself subject to a bishop from the F.S.S.P. or to a Novus Ordo 'conservative' bishop, such as Archbishop Haas of Liechtenstein.

    This is a parallel to what they are doing to the Traditional Anglican Communion.

    Trust, but verify.



    *BREAKING NEWS from Menzingen* :


    Le Supérieur général, Mgr Bernard Fellay, a appris par la presse la décision de Mgr Richard Williamson de révoquer, dix jours avant son procès, l’avocat chargé de ses intérêts pour se laisser défendre par un avocat ouvertement lié à la mouvance dite néo-nazie en Allemagne et à certains de ses groupes.

    Mgr Fellay a intimé l’ordre formel à Mgr Williamson de revenir sur cette décision et de ne pas se laisser instrumentaliser par des thèses politiques totalement étrangères à sa mission d’évêque catholique au service de la Fraternité Saint-Pie X.

    La désobéissance à cet ordre ferait encourir à Mgr Williamson l’exclusion de la Fraternité Sacerdotale Saint-Pie X.

    Menzingen, le 20 novembre 2010

    Abbé Christian Thouvenot, secrétaire général "

  15. Dear Cardinal Cañizares Llovera:

    Unlike some in the curia, you are a man whom we love and trust. At Pentecost, the Traditional Anglican Communion submitted a proposed liturgy for Rome's approval. It was handed over to the C.D.F. Have you seen it? Has it even been passed to you? After all, you are Prefect for the Liturgy and the Sacraments. It would be insulting to you if nobody had even consulted you about this.

    I understand that your colleague, Cardinal Levada, has served his full quinquennium as at May last, and he will turn 75 in the coming year. Some fresh blood over at the C.D.F. would be welcome by many. Archbishop Burke and others in the curia might agree. As for His Holiness, I'm sure that he does not want his provision for the traditionalist Anglicans to be ruined by malefactors and incompetents. And this might even have an impact on any coming arrangements for the S.S.P.X.


  16. Now we know why it took Rome a full nine months to respond to the TAC's 2007 request to enter the Church. What did this response say? It said, "We got your letter". Then it took another year before the C.D.F. sent a second letter, committing to nothing. But when the Novus Ordo FiF Anglicans asked for a canonical structure, they instantly got secret meetings at which they were promised control of any future ordinariate for England. Nice work, Levada.

    Has anyone noticed that, since Levada took over the P.C.E.D. from Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, there has been ZERO movement on implementing "Summorum Pontificum"? The years are apassing and the promised clarification of that apostolic letter has not been forthcoming. It blew off the Pope's piano and out into the warm Roman air.

    When Levada was Archbishop of San Francisco, he was the most implacable of all bishops in refusing our Mass ON ANY BASIS whatsoever--not even once a year. Instead, he tried to lure our people into a 'nice' N.O. in Latin with all the smells and bells and chant. Even after the least-populous Caifornian see allowed our Mass (viz. Santa Rosa), he would not budge. Even after the wild leftist Bishop McGrath finally capitulated in San Jose, Levada would not budge. And he was running one of only two archdioceses in the State.

    He also completely failed to obstruct the homo lobby in that Baghdad by the Bay when he was there. Having failed totally as a bishop, his old mentor, the Holy Father, moves him to the top job in the curia! Is this the sort of man we can trust to treat us--or the TAC--fairly?


  17. A.M.:

    Your point is excellent. My impression is that, in Canada and Australia, the incomers so far are all TACers. But I have heard that Archbishop Collins of Toronto, the Canadian bishops' point man for the ordinariates, is ignoring the TAC and looking for other Anglicans to come over. Does he plan to put the TAC under these others, assuming he can induce them to join? I have no idea. Nor do I know what is planned for Canada, if anything. But look at what Mrs. Gyapong (in my previous entry) is saying about Canada and Australia. And she has very good contacts. So what is going on?

    I've also heard that the TAC in Canada asked for an ordinariate for itself and was "flatly refused". Of course, this does not mean that Rome will choose an ordinary from outside the TAC. We just don't know. But these developments do not cheer the heart.


  18. The same off-topic, in English:

    Filed under From Tradition, News
    The Superior General, Bishop Bernard Fellay, has learnt by the press of Bishop Richard Williamson’s decision, just ten days before his trial, to dismiss the lawyer charged with his defense, in favor of a lawyer who is openly affiliated to the so-called neo-Nazi movement in Germany, and to other such groups.
    Bishop Fellay has given Bishop Williamson a formal order to go back on this decision and to not allow himself to become an instrument of political theses that are completely foreign to his mission as a Catholic bishop serving the Society of Saint Pius X.
    Disobedience to this order would result in Bishop Williamson being expelled from the Society of Saint Pius X.
    Menzingen, november 20 of 2010.
    Fr. Christian Thouvenot, general Secretary

  19. It looks like Bishop Williamson's formal expulsion from the Society is now imminent. I must wonder why he has retained the services of a lawyer who once led a group called 'Viking Youth'. Good grief! The man has no judgement. This is like pouring oil on a fire.


  20. I liked your original comment, P.K.T.P., the whole thing is a disaster because the Novus Ordo is a disaster. 40 years of disaster, and nobody with authority wants to admit it. The thing must eventually go or we'll never climb out of this pit.

  21. I hope to know much more tomorrow.



    Mary Ann Mueller of VirtueOnline filed the following report from San Antonio, Texas:

    "What the Anglican Use parishes of the Ordinariate are going to hand on to their Catholic brethren is a deep appreciation for decency and order, reverence, majesty, respect, and awe for the sacredness of ecclesial actions reflected through the Anglican music, liturgy, architecture, vestments, and churchmanship."

    That is the belief among many conservative Catholics in regard to the manner in which they believe that the "Anglican Ordinariate" will alter the Catholic Church.

    Unfortunately, I believe that the claim that "Anglican" parishes will alter (as indicated above) "Novus Ordo" parishes is not to be taken seriously.

    Just as a TLM-only parish within a given diocese will not alter one bit the manner in which Lityurgy is approached and offered throughout "Novus Ordo" parishes.

    By the way, will "Ordinariate" parishes offer the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin?

    Will Gregorian Chant enjoy "pride of place" status at said parishes?



  23. Dear Tony:

    I agree with you that the ordinaraites will have little effect on the N.O. in the territorial parishes. As for the character of A.U. parishes, it is generally very good and quite devout. But the bottom line is that they are stuck with the N.O. Offertory.


  24. Why P.K.T.P would the English Bishops mention Mercer and Moyer. Mercer is Canadian and Moyer American. there are no "Bishops" in the Traditional Anglican Church the UK element of TAC. Moyer is a visiting Bishop. If they cross the Tiber they do so in their own area namely USA and Canada.

  25. What a storm in a teacup - sectarian NO Anglcans join the NO church of the post-concilia epoch. Is there really very much difference?

  26. I don't understand this canonisation of TAC by the readers of this blog.
    TAC like any Anglican Structure does not celebrate using one rite. It varies a lot. Many in TAC use the ordinary form of the Roman Rite. Some use the Anglican usuage of that same rite.Some use the English Missal and some like the traditional Church of Ireland use the older Anglican books. The same is true of the many CoE Parishes who have expressed an interst in joining the Ordinariate.
    There are elements in TAC that will be unable to join the Ordinariate. I am thinking especially of the Trad. Church of Ireland which is very protestant and makes no concession to Romanist way.They still abide by the old Anglican rules . Only two candles and a cross on the "Altar", No images at all in the church. No bells and smells . No Vestments except the traditional Anglican cassock, surplus and black scarf. They adhere strictly to the 39 articles.The idea that they would be confecting the sacrament is totally foreign to them. The idea of praying for the dead absolute no no.
    So people TAC is no better or worse than the CoE. except maybe in its clergy. TAC seems to have a lot of apostates in its clerical ranks including its "Primate"
    Having said all that we all should be happy that anyone outside the Church is willing to enter. Instead of nick picking we should chant a Te Deum and pray that more herectics and schimatics will return to Mother Church
    Fr B

  27. Fr. B. preaches nonsense here. What is most important about the TAC is what it does not use: it does not use the Novus Ordo singalong with its Protestant ethos and spirit. The liturgical diversity of the TAC is owing mainly to its lack of finances in the past. But its Masses are almost entirely reverent and extremely devout. To cite the exception of Ireland is a joke. The TAC in Ireland has only three parishes and it is the only TAC body whose vicar-general did NOT sign the Catechism on the Altar at Portsmouth in 2007. So it is not in the game in the first place.

    The TAC bishops, as it happens, have submitted to Rome at Pentecost a truly superb Mass text. It would end this 'diversity' Fr. B. mentions. Remember that no Mass text can be used in the ordinariates unless approved by Rome. At present, that limits the ordinariates to the N.O. and a 1983 prayerbook based on the later 1979 U.S. book (not even the traditional 1928 one) and with the N.O. Offertory intruded.

    What the TAC has in common with Latin Traditionalism is sound liturgy and great reverence. Its priests do not use the N.O. and do not want that. Why on earth would any traditional Anglican want to enter a Roman structure to get the N.O.? That would be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire. But the FiF Anglicans of the Church of England are not traditionalists; they are conservative Anglicans. And the fact that they only asked for an ordinariate after the last dog was hung in the C. of E. (with even a 'code of practice' being rejected) proves that they are wannabe Anglicans and only reluctant Catholics. In contrast, those in the TAC have given up money and position for the last thirty to forty years because they have something valuable. It's called principle; and they actually prefer to be Catholics and do not in any way yearn for any connexion with the completely heretical Churdh of England. God bless them for that.


  28. Nice trick, Anon. 10.07.

    Mercer, I believe, is originally from England or Southern Africa. He was for years an Anglican bishop in Africa, only later a TAC bishops in Canada. He retired long ago from Canada and has been living in England ever since. That's why the TAC in England asked, in its first appeal to Rome, to name him as Ordinary. Furthermore, where did you get the idea that one had to be a citizen of one place to be a bishop there? What a bizarre notion. We have Italian bishops serving in Brazil, French bishops serving in India, English bishops serving in Argentina. Irrelevant.

    As for Moyer, he is the episcopal visitator for the TAC in England, which does not have a diocesan bishop.


  29. More information on Bishop Mercer:

    He was born at Preston, in Lancashire. So he is presumably a British subject. So much for the idea that he's not English.

    I note, by the way, that Preston is one of the most prominent centres of recusancy in all of England. Even today, a large per centage of its population is Latin Catholic, and descended not from Irish immigrants but from those English heroes who rightly rejected the Reformation. They, and not those in the Church of England, are the REAL faithful of Our Lady's dowry.

    But it is an interesting coincidence, no? I wonder if he was affected by that atmosphere as a youth. I have no idea.


  30. LeonG:

    It's nice to see one of the stalwarts still publishing here, and others appear.

    Yes, you are exactly right. The ordinariate for England will be dominated almost entirely by Novus Ordo Anglicans who will use the N.O. disaster. No matter where you look, friend, Bugnini is everywhere. N.O. to the right of you, N.O. to the left of you, N.O. above you, N.O. behind you: there is no escape.

    Just imagine what Rome is doing here. She is creating an entire new structure for incoming Anglicans, so that they can have the Novus Ordo of Bugnini. It's 1970 all over again, man. Koom-by-ah. If these incomers want the N.O. Mass, why don't they just go to the territorial parishes for it? Oh, they have a 'special' way of saying these prayers. That excuse would make a cat laugh.

    There is a decent group of Anglcans who have traditionalist sympathies. Translation: they actually like quality and beauty. Stamp them out! Deny them! Persecute them! What place will they have in this new sructure? So far, their leaders are being DENIED a say in the drafting of the constitution for the new personal ordinariate. It's a joke and a nasty one.

    Beware, Bishop Fellay. This is the sort of treachery you will face if you try to make an arrangement with Rome. You wake up one morning and they've pulled the rug from under your feet. These TAC gents applied for the structure three years ago and got only delays and letters saying "We received the letter you sent nine months ago". Then the FiF appeared at the last minute and got the whole show.

    The solution is simple: a separate personal ordinariate for the TAC in England. That's the beauty of a personal structure: there can be more than one structure in a given territory. Campos is the precedent; Campos shows the way. Are there enough boys in the English TAC to justify a separate structure? Definitely, and I've already proved that point by listing other Roman particular churches have tiny populations. There are DOZENS of them.


  31. Dear Readers:

    At Pentecost of this year, some six months ago, Archbishop Hepworth, Bishop Falk, Bishop Wilkinson, and Lay Canon Cheryl Woodman, submitted a TAC Mass text to the C.D.F. (This is now common knowledge.) The hope was that it would be approved for the ordinariates so that the incomers would not have to use the N.O. or an Anglican Use based on a 1979 American prayerbook with the N.O. Offertory. Reasonable, eh? After all, these are Anglican traditionalists.

    Will Rome approve this text? Has anyone in Rome even read it?

    I ask everyone here to pray assiduously that this text will be reviewed by the C.D.F. and approved with any needed alterations--and soon, all to allay any fears that some people might have. People need to know that they won't be saddled with a liturgy that in NO WAY transmits their patrimony. What is the purpose of the new structure? To preserve and foster and transmit an Anglican patrimony? How does the Bugnini Mass do that? And what could be more central--more essential--to liturgy than the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass?


  32. Message to Abp. Hepworth:

    Have you considered giving Bishop Fellay a ring? He's a good man and he might be able to help in some way. He will understand the position you are in after Rome betrayed the Transalpine Redemtorists (and after they made *their* mistake). Give it a try. Perhaps the TAC could make an alliance with the S.S.P.X in some way. Your Archbishop Falk has valid orders in the eyes of Rome, I understand (courtesy of the Polish National Catholic Church). Perhaps it's time to take some sacramental action. If your submitted liturgy is completely deCranmerised, well, you might be able to make an alliance with the Society, even if an imperfect one.


  33. "And the fact that they only asked for an ordinariate after the last dog was hung in the C. of E. (with even a 'code of practice' being rejected) proves that they are wannabe Anglicans and only reluctant Catholics."

    Mr. Perkins, the above quote is a misrepresenation of the facts. The Catholic element in the CofE asked for something along the lines of the ordinariate in the early 90s when it became clear that the CofE was going to admit women to its presbyterate. In fact, there were several such suggestions by Anglican churchmen, some of whom I know personally. The Rome of that time was unwilling to fight the Catholic bishops of England on that, and it didn't come to pass. It was only with the accession of His Holiness Benedict XVI that some of the clerical stumbling blocks were cleared to make this possible.

    And all of this denigration of the NO among the FiF in the UK fails to appreciate that the catholic-minded Anglicans adopted it because it was the Roman Rite, not because they wanted to abandon the English Missal. It was based on loyalty to Rome. But the music and churchmanship in these FiF parishes and other Anglo-Catholic parishes has remained far superior to ordinary Catholic parishes.

  34. Mr. Cavanaugh:

    I do not deny that the FiF has long wanted to enter into an arrangement with Rome. In no way does that alter the fact that its bishops did everything they could to remain in the Church of England right up to and including this year, until finally rebuffed when they asked even for provisons that would afford them little protection.

    I realise that they adopted the N.O. to show their loyalty to Rome. The problem is that this also shows that they are anything but traditionalists. The English Missal of 1912 was essentially the Roman Mass rendered in sacral English. So they gave up the Traditional Roman Rite to adopt that New Mass, which is Protestant in spirit and Protestant in effect, as Archbishop Lefebvre, that hero, so rightly 'discerned'. Not a very good choice.

    But I do not mind it if they get an ordinariate, although why they need one is a good question, since they could enter the territorial parishes of the Latin Church and offer the N.O. the way they do now. Rome could also authorise their Evensong and whatnot as rites useable generally in the Latin Church. Not a problem.

    What I do mind is them dominating those Anglican-Catholics who abandoned all the perks thirty years ago and remained attached to tradition. The TACers have also approached Rome long before 2007, believe it or not! They also have been constant in their desire for reunion. And, long before these FiF bishops approached the C.D.F., the TAC did so first, in 2007.

    The jurisdictions are personal in nature and there is no reason why the TAC cannot have a separate one so as to pass on an Anglican patrimony in the context of Roman tradition. The N.O.M. is not traditional for anyone and it in no way preserves or fosters an Anglican patrimony, which is the entire purpose of the personal ordinariates. Read the preamble to A.C. The Mass is the Crown and centre of the Liturgy. If there is no Anglican patrimony there, what does it matter?

    The TAC bishops went to Rome in good faith and were instant in accepting all Catholic dogma. By doing this, they became a party in a relationship (I refuse to say that horrid word 'dialogue'). The idea was not that they would be absorbed in a Novus Ordo-dominated structure.

    AS LeonG put it so well: Welcome to the Novus Ordo.



Comment boxes are debate forums for readers and contributors of RORATE CÆLI.

Please, DO NOT assume that RORATE CÆLI contributors or moderators necessarily agree with or otherwise endorse any particular comment just because they let it stand.


(1) This is our living room, in a deeply Catholic house, and you are our guest. Please, behave accordingly. Any comment may be blocked or deleted, at any time, whenever we perceive anything that is not up to our standards, not conducive to a healthy conversation or a healthy Catholic environment, or simply not to our liking.

(2) By clicking on the "publish your comment" button, please remain aware that you are choosing to make your comment public - that is, the comment box is not to be used for private and confidential correspondence with contributors and moderators.

(3) Any name/ pseudonym/ denomination may be freely used simply by choosing the third option, "Name/URL" (the URL box may be left empty), when posting your comment - therefore, there is no reason whatsoever to simply post as "Anonymous", making debate unnecessarily harder to follow. Any comment signed simply as "Anonymous" will be blocked.

Thank you!