Rorate Caeli

Pope Benedict XVI and true ecumenism: the Church has always been fully Catholic

Glorious words of the Holy Father:

[T]he Church is Catholic from her first moment, her universality is not the fruit of the successive inclusion of various communities. From the first instant, in fact, the Holy Spirit created her as the Church of all peoples; she embraces the entire world, she transcends all limits of race, class, nation; she breaks down every obstacle and brings all men together in the profession of the One and Triune God. From the beginning, the Church is One, Catholic, and Apostolic: this is her true nature and as such it must be recognized. She is Holy, not thanks to the ability of her members, but because God Himself, with His Spirit, creates, purifies, and sanctifies her always.
Benedict XVI
June 12, 2011


Anonymous said...

Message for the S.S.P.X:

The Anglo-Catholic has just posted an address by Bishop Peter Elliott, the C.D.F.'s represetative for the Anglican ordianriates in Australia. Scroll down to his section on liturgy. It is very worrying. His mention of the I.C.E.L. makes me wonder if the new ordinariate liturgy will indeed include mandatory sections from the Novus Ordo trainwreck. (On the other hand, there might be only N.O. optional texts in it.) If the Anglo-Catholics of the TAC are forced to swallow the N.O. Offertory or any bits from that defective liturgy, this will amount to a betrayal. I have warned everyone repeatedly not to trust Rome on the matter of the liturgy. Here we are months after the first Anglican ordinariate has been erected AND WE STILL HAVE NO APPROVED MASS TEXT for those people. Were I an incoming Anglican, frankly, I'd pull back and wait at this point. They should not proceed into a Novus Ordo structure. Rather than do that, they should abandon their patrimony entirely and convert as individuals so as to benefit from the Traditional Latin Mass.

We can already see that the real traditionalists of Anglican backgrounds are being shut out of the English ordinariates. The TAC in England has not come across, there is the deferreal of Fr. Hunwicke's diaconal ordinartion, and I know of one other 'Missal' priest from FiF who was discouraged from entering the ordinariate. Msgr. Newton and Bishop Alan Hopes are 'vetting' the candidates. I suspect that it is a screening process to keep out anyone who is too 'rigid' or too traditional. We all know the drill. What they want are Novus Ordo 'mild' Anglicans. Such men can be moulded like butter into any creature the magic circle wants.

The Ordinariate of our Lady of Walsingham in England is turning into a Novus Ordo parallel structure for neo-cons, not traditionalists. They don't want Anglican traditionalists because they are too close to the hated Catholic traditionalists.

The magic circle in England and the outright Maoist bishops of my country, Canada, don't want any traditionalism. They want to destroy it any way they can.

I deliver here this warning as Rome extends its offer. Wait to see what liturgy is 'granted' to these incoming Anglicans before you even think of accepting any arrangement. Watch what Rome does with both her hands. Watch what she does to these Anglican incomers and don't become entirely fixated on what she is doing for you.

Trust, but verify. When we are dealing with the local bishops, more often than not, we are dealing with our mortal foe.


Anonymous said...

Interesting. Some popular Catholic "apologists" like to imply that the universality -- the "Catholicity" -- of the Catholic Church comes from the fact that there are Catholics all over the world. There is some truth in that, but if "Catholicity" really means "geographically widespread" then that would mean that there was a time that the Catholic Church was not Catholic, and that the measure of what the true Church is, is the extent of its territorial coverage.

Fr Gabriel Burke C.C. said...

The majority of Anglo Catholics in Britain have been using the Paul VI Missal for many years. TAC in Britain is a very small group but even within this group the Paul VI missal has been used.
If we look at the situation in the USA the Book of Divine Worship is basically the text of the Paul VI missal with Anglican additions. They have a choice of prayers in an older style English or modern English.
Your remarks are needlessly alarmist.
As one who has visited many Anglo Catholic churches in these Islands I have failed to see any so called Anglican Patrimony when it comes to the Mass.
The only difference is that the Anglicans celebrate the Liturgy as it should be celebrated.
The Anglo Catholics have the same tacky statues as we do, Many of the Altars were turned around years ago.
The problem with Anglicanism is that there are so many variations. Here in Ireland there is only one Anglo Catholic church and it is in Dublin. All other Anglican churches are very low Church. Yet the Anglican Communion in Ireland would still identify itself as catholic.

Timothy Mulligan said...

P.K.T.P., would you please give us some idea about who you are and what your qualifications are for making prognostications like this? Thank you.

Anonymous said...

"If the Anglo-Catholics of the TAC are forced to swallow the N.O. Offertory or any bits from that defective liturgy, this will amount to a betrayal."

This is a ridiculous statement. What do the Anglican groups think, that they can keep their Protestant service but enter the Catholic Church anyway? I don't think so.
Read the Pope's speech for Pentecost Sunday. He states that the Catholic Church is Catholic not because it has included various groups, but rather Catholic from the very beginning.
If these Anglicans who want to be Catholics are balking about what their new Missal will be like, (that they'll have to accept parts of the Novus Ordo), then they should not even bother entering the Catholic Church.
They are not being accepted as Anglicans staying Anglican. They are being accepted as Anglicans becoming Catholics.....and that might include accepting in their Missal parts of the Roman Catholic Mass...even if for now that means the Novus Ordo.
If they can't accept that, then they should just found another new Protestant "church".
After all, how many of those are there now across the globe, 15,000+?

Anonymous said...

Yes, have a look at the post on 'The Anglo-Catholic', where Bishop Elliot mentions the liturgy. There is nothing to be alarmist about.

Fr. A.M.

Anonymous said...

They should have been told to return to the mass they used when they left the church. This Anglican patrimony nonsense is NOT Catholic. The only patrimony these groups should have been allowed to have is prior to the break with Rome. The various Uses fall into this category.They are already beginning to sound like whining liberals which they claim they needed to separate from in that heretical sect set up by Henry the 8th.

I am not Spartacus said...

Our Sweet Jesus on Earth makes a fantastic and Traditional public pronouncement about our Most Holy Mother Church and it is to be swamped by a tsunami of tangential, at best, posts?

Thanks be to God for that excellent statement.

You know, Joy IS permissible even for we soi disant Traditionalists

Adam said...

Excellent statement. This displays a clarity we often don't see these days. I still look forward to hearing, "And this One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church is the Catholic Church."

Anonymous 10:14,

We must have traveled in the same circles. When I read the first words of the Holy Father's statement, I, too, thought of how some popular Catholic apologists use the geographic spread of the Catholic Church as one of their chief defenses of her catholicity. Often such apologists use this notion of catholicity to attack Eastern Orthodoxy. It's not a sound argument as the Holy Father noted. True catholicity entails totality of true doctrine and the consciousness of the obligation to spread it to all, not missionary zeal (which waxes and wanes) or imperialistic opportunities (which depend on the monetary not doctrinal realm).

mundabor said...

Anonymous, the question whether to be Catholic is the question whether one wants to belong to the True Church, or to a ridiculous mickey-mouse outfit.

Compared to this question, the question about the liturgy for the ordinariate is a secundary one.

Moreover, to let one's conversion decision depend from the fact that one finds the liturgy of one's own liking is exactly the contrary of what being Catholic means.


Anonymous said...

It is personally impossible to believe that anyone expected the Anglican "converts" to the new post-conciliar church to become any other than NO disciples. This was entirely predictable.

Anonymous said...

Here we go again, this time with Fr. Burke.

Dear Fr. Burke:

Bishop Mercer has led twenty-four (24) bishops in England to submit their dossiers directly to the C.D.F. They are not being given a fair shake by the Novus Ordo neo-cons who now control the new Ordinariate. In addition, there are several 'Missal' Anglicans in the FiF group who wish to come into the ordinariate but are being discouraged or even prevented. There are, therefore, about 30 stout men who want what the TAC wants throughout the world: a fusion of the Anglican prayerbook and the PRE-conciliar Roman Offertory and Canon.

Thirty men may seem like few and yes, we've heard the old saw: they worship in garages and were not trained in 'Anglican theological colleges'. What tosh. The quality of education in those colleges is abysmal in our day and they are expert only in creating heretics, not Catholics.

Thirty is too few. Dear me. Really? How many do the FiF people have? How many N.O. compromising Neo-cons does Msgr. Newton have in his little army? About sixty (60). So if you combine the two groups, the good guys--and that is what they are--are one third. Nothing to sneeze at when you only have a mere army company of 60 men. Even if ten of the thirty are found to be not qualified, twenty out of eighty is a sizeable per centage--one quarter. Remember, the TAC's lack of buildings is irrelevant because the FiF incomers ALSO have no buildings. So it's the number of priests that counts.

What is happening in England is appalling. The magic circle has taken over and they are imposing the Novus Ordo trainwreck liturgy, which is Protestant in implication and Freemasonic in spirit. I should by rights be arguing that the N.O. must be proscribed in the ordinariates and that not one word of it should be allowed in any new Anglican Use liturgy. But I am not going that far! I am only calling for TOLERANCE of a non-N.O. option. Remember what tolerance is? It is the quality liberal hypocrites whine about all day long, except that they have none of it themselves. They are and always have been the real tyrants, as everyone knows on this blo! There message to the Anglican traditionalists coming into the ordinariates is this: Welcome to the Novus Ordo! Got you! It's that juvenile.

I have it on good authority that two Anglican Use liturgies are coming: one for England, the Burnham Book, and one to be used across the ordinariates or perhaps outside England. This latter one I call 'the TAC book'. From what +Elliott is writing, it looks as if the noxious N.O. is being allowed to mar even the TAC version. I don't know that but the signs from his little talk are definitely not good. One possibility, though, is that 'the TAC book' will include the N.O. and real Roman Offertories as options to each other. That would save the day, however unfortunate.

The liberals in the Church have gained control, as always, and are turning the screws on the Missal Anglicans coming in. Until this stops, the S.S.P.X should not trust Rome. The Pope is the Supreme Pontiff, not the Archbishop of Westminster. It's time we were reminded of that fact.


Anonymous said...

Anon. writes:

"What do the Anglican groups think, that they can keep their Protestant service but enter the Catholic Church anyway? "

No, they think that they can fuse their prayerbook traditions with the real Cathollic Mass, which is the Traditional Latin Mass and not that joke liturgy from 1970.


Anonymous said...

Anon. writes:

"They are being accepted as Anglicans becoming Catholics.....and that might include accepting in their Missal parts of the Roman Catholic Mass...even if for now that means the Novus Ordo."

No, why should it. As a certain Benedict XVI has said: the Traditional Latin Mass was never abrogated.

The Traditional Latin Mass is the Rule of Liturgy in the Latin Church. It defines and is the reference point for Latin Liturgy, not something that was cobbled up by a Modernist on the advice of six Protestant ministers in 1970. The Traditional Latin Mass is the Mass of all Ages in the Catholic Church. That just might make it aceptable.


Anonymous said...

Dear Fr. A.M.:

Look more closely at the post and ignore the usual chorus of neo-con praisers. Use the little grey cells when reading Bishop Elliott's words. Look under his section on "Liturgy". He can't be referring to the coming 'Burnham Book' because it is to be approved only for England, or so numerous soruces are saying, including Abp. Hepworth. So he must be referring to the 'other' book to be used across the ordinaraites. Now why would the new I.C.E.L. translations be helpful, as he avers, in the arranging of that book? Why unless, of course, they were planning on including parts of the noxious Novus Ordo in it?

Meanwhile, the months pass and nobody will say what is to be in this book. Whole ordinariates are created without liturgies proper to them being decided in advance!

Dear Bishop Fellay: Don't be fooled. Note carefully how these Anglican traditionalists from the TAC are being treated. A good tree does not produce bad fruit.


Anonymous said...

Mundabor miswrites:

"Moreover, to let one's conversion decision depend from the fact that one finds the liturgy of one's own liking is exactly the contrary of what being Catholic means."

But that is not the case! The question is whether or not TAC people should enter the ordinaraites, not whether or not they should enter the Catholic Church, which they can do through individual conversion.

The entire point of the ordinariate structures is to provide a place for a decent fusion of the Anglcian patrimony and the Eternal Roman Liturgy, not the mickey mouse Novus Ordo trainwreck. We don't need more N.O. clown liturgies. We already have enough and we have seen what they can do.


Anonymous said...

Notice how everything comes down to 'accepting' the Novus Ordo. Nobody may attend a Traditional Latin Mass unless he accepts the "doctrinal soundness" of the New Mass (Quattuor Abhinc Annos, No. 1, 1984). Those petitioning for the T.L.M. must accept not only the validity but also the "legitimacy" of NewMass (Universæ Ecclesiæ, No. 19, 2011).

The Anglican Use "Book of Divine Worship" of 1983 MUST have the N.O. Offertory. Blessed are You [sic] Lord God of all spiritual drinks. Why? It is because Bugnini designed that Offertory to imply a Protestant sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise to replace the Catholic propitiatory Sacrifice of the Divine Victim for the salvation of the living and the dead. Bugnini regarded the Last Supper as *only* a berakh, whereas it was more than that: it was also an anticipation of the Sacrifice of Calvary. Hence the Cranmerian reference to "spiritual drink"; hence the ambiguous "bread of lilfe"; hence the emphasis on what we have done for God instead of what God has done for us ("human hands", "fruit of human labour"); hence the complete lack of any reference to the Divine Victim (Hostia). Consider the source: Bugnini the Barbarian controlled the Consilium and there was a Modernist who knew his own mind.

Now they will shove this down the throats of that small and heroic band of Anglo-papalists from the TAC who have the same conception of the Mass as we have. They will roll the N.O. into a funnel and insert it into the incomers' mouth and ram it down their throats. History is on their side! The Catholic Church must be a Protestant sect in the end!

Now I wish to make it crystal clear that I don't know that this will happen. From what Bishop Elliott has said, there is another possible explanation. It is possible, for instance, that the coming Mass text for the ordinariates in Australia and Canada (&c.) will have two optional Offertories: the Traditional Roman Offertory and the Bugnini Offertory. I admit that this would explain the reference to I.C.E.L. translations as guides. So all is not lost and we should pray for a good outcome. If the Traditional Roman Offertory is permitted even as an option, the day will be saved, however imperfectly.

Dear S.S.P.Xers. As you read this, keep in mind what U.E. says about coming changes in the T.L.M.: the Prefaces from the Novus Ordo mistake "can and should" be "inserted" (read ) into the T.L.M. The S.S.P.X must be a site where all infection and all poison from the N.O. is resisted and refused. Ensure liturgical freedom when you sign any deal with Rome! NO COMPROMISE WITH THE NOVUS DISORDO! Yes, let them have their Mass. They deserve it. But let us also have ours!


Anonymous said...


Truth is one and that is the true meaning of 'Catholic'. We are on the verge of a possible reconciliation with the S.S.P.X. I pray for its success. But it MUST be grounded in honesty and truth. What is happening in the Ordinariate in England is important. Remember, according to our source, the Pope plans a similar ordinariate for the S.S.P.X. Of course, there are differences. The local Maoist bishops will not have a direct say in any arrangement for the Society. But what the Pope allows in the ordinariates is an indicator of how far he will go (if at all) to protect a reconciled S.S.P.X.

Anglo-papalist Anglicans from the TAC are being allowed to drown. They are being put under neo-conservative compromisers, and a neo-con is only a liberal in slow motion. Will the same happen to a reconciled S.S.P.X? For example, who will succeed Bishop Fellay in the fullness of time? Will it be a Latin version of Msgr. Newton? If so, we are in real trouble.


Knight of Malta said...

P.K.T.P--good postings as always! I want to discuss the following quote:

"Were I an incoming Anglican, frankly, I'd pull back and wait at this point. They should not proceed into a Novus Ordo structure. Rather than do that, they should abandon their patrimony entirely and convert as individuals so as to benefit from the Traditional Latin Mass."

We think alike on most points, but I do not agree that the Anglicans should wait to enter the only Church that offers salvation (I'm a firm "Feeneyite", though I don't like that term; I'm a firm believer in a dogma that has been solemnly declared not once, but three times).

Again, great postings!

Anonymous said...

Very good ideas. Someone is calling you "alarmist". But there are signs to be worried about that pretty much "predict" what could possibly happen to the SSPX in a similar position.
I do think you are right on.

Anonymous said...

Dear Knight of Malta:

God is not constrained by time as we are. If an incomer has a firm intent to enter communion with the Holy See, it might not be wrong for him in practice (given subjective fault) to wait. As long as he has the firm intent to enter the Catholic Church no matter what, it is not wrong for him to ask that the provisions offered by the Pope not be hijacked and ruined by the neo-cons and magic circle liberals before they even get off the ground.

However, it would be possible, I suppose, for such a convert to cross over as an individual and then apply for membership in a good ordinariate, since anyone who was once an Anglican can enter. So that might solve the problem. He could convert as an individual and then do his utmost to save the ordinariates from ruination from within.

Anyway, it doesn't concern me. As a Latin, I will do everything I can to help the Anglo-papalists coming over. They are more Catholic than anyone I know except S.S.P.X supporters and *some* non-S.S.P.X Latin traditionalists.

I know what it feels like to be kicked in the face for countless years by the puerile low-class morons whom we call liberals. I don't want it to happen to them. I am motivated by a real love for those people, some of whom I met at the local branch of the Monarchist League. They are my sort of people: objectivists, traditionalists, royalists, integrists, anti-Modernists. I just love them, so I want to help them. Do unto others.... It actually means something.

I'll tell you what I see. I see the TAC people as future traditional Catholics who were raised on the wrong side of the Tiber. And I see the FiF people as mealy-mouthed neo-con hypocrites who stayed in the Church of England until the last dog was hung. They are people who would rather be Anglicans than Catholics, and the Pope is handing over control of the English Ordinariates to these ... people. I don't even want them in the Catholic Church at all let alone in the ordinariates. But that does not much concern me. After all, 99% of those professing to be Catholic are as bad or worse.

It will be all for naught if the ordinaraites just turn out to be a jurisdiction for Novus Ordo neo-conservative Anglicans. If they want that defective liturgy, they can always cross over and join Opus Dei or the Legionaries of Christ. There's a group of compromisers in the Latin Church who have no honour.


John L said...


Yes, all good. Of course the allegedly 'Protestant' traditional liturgy of Anglicans is in fact less Protestant than the Novus Ordo, because it is largely a translation of the traditional Latin liturgy. I don't myself think there is any hope for a good liturgy for the ordinariate, because any proposed liturgy would be in the vernacular, and vernacular liturgies in the Latin rite are a failure and no good. Of course the whole idea of a vernacular liturgy is a Protestant one, based on the claim that the liturgy has to be in a language 'understanded by the people' - the presupposition being that it is primarily the people, not the priest, who are praying to God in the liturgy. The only way for the Ordinariate to have any lasting prospects would be for it to revive the Sarum rite in Latin, but alas that does not seem on the cards.

On the Pope and what this shows about his intentions (to return if only tangentially to the original subject of the post); I think the thing to remember is that he is only one man, he is in his mid-80s, and he had a personal and philosophical objection to making other people obey him. When he thinks something is absolutely necessary and of the first importance, he is willing to use his authority and make it happen against all objections. When he does this, the results it seems to me are good: in other cases, he uses the usual channels, with the disastrous results we know of. The examples of this use of papal authority that I know of are the motu proprio, the lifting of the excommunications of the SSPX bishops, action against various corrupt religious groups. This limited approach to his authority may well be motivated by quite realistic political considerations about what he can in fact make happen. On past form reconciliation with the SSPX is something that he considers absolutely necessary and of the first importance, so I don't despair of him making it happen properly.

Catholic Voice said...

PKTP: we really don't need to read an essay every time you have a particular point to insist on. Spare us, poor readers.

Knight of Malta said...

"They are my sort of people: objectivists, traditionalists, royalists, integrists, anti-Modernists."

P.K.T.P, I agree the current praxis of the modern Church is infected with liberalism and modernism hilt to point. I would also say that I have a belief system closer to many high church Anglo catholics (e.g. T.S. Eliot) than those "in" the Church who support contraception and abortion, but are really modernist heretics who claim to be "Catholic" (e.g. Hans Kung--I was him at the University of Michigan in the late 90's, and when he voiced his support for abortion, the crowd gave him a standing ovation.)

But we shouldn't forget the horror around which the Anglican faith was formed. A disgusting, horrible, thrice wife-killing, Catholic-killing pig of a man germinated it; his daughter fully implementing it, while continuing his policies of Catholic-persecution.

Anonymous said...

Knight of Malta:

On your closing paragraph:

Yes, obviously so, but tha was hundreds of yaers ago and those people just grew up as Anglicans. There were always 'spikey' Anglicans. They were put down by the Puritans in the 17th century (Laud, &c.), went socially underground in the 18th, and emerged (but with no necessary continuity of persons) in the Oxford movement in the 19th.

As for the 16th century, keep in mind that most Englishmen were completely opposed to the Reformation, especially when it came to changes in customs and ceremony. The Reformation was imposed from above in England; it was not a 'grass-roots' movement as it was in Germany, Switzerland and Scotland. The really sickening anti-Catholic abuses on the part of ordinary people really did not come until weel into the reign of Elizabeth I. I am referring to popular anti-Catholicism as a social norm.


LeonG said...

Fr Gabriel Burke

Indeed the Anglicans are very diverse on the extremely orthodox to free church continuum. I have stated here before I used to go to an Anglican church in my home town when the NO was imposed o us because the High Anglicans used to say the Latin Mass. Anyone who came in and did not know it was an Anglican church would have thought themselves in a normal Roman Catholic Church.

Anonymous said...

I can't find this sermon in English anywhere, not even on the Vatican website. It's not like English is an obscure language...what is the holdup? He must have said something supremely orthodox that the translaters are trying to decide how to sufficiently water down...


LeonG said...

After the Ascension day NO circus service in Clermont, and certainly not unprecedented, can we be sure that the postmodern church in France is "fully Catholic"?

Anonymous said...

What is "fully Catholic"?