Rorate Caeli

Anglican Catholic Personal Ordinariate in the United States...

... will be established and named on January 1, 2012, as announced by Cardinal Wuerl today in the ongoing meeting of the USCCB (the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops). A Q&A on the new Ordinariate has been made available at the conference website. Congratulations to those who have been so patient!

The first Anglican Catholic Personal Ordinariate, dedicated to Our Lady of Walsingham, was created for the faithful of England and Wales in January 2011.


  1. Anonymous3:20 AM

    The Donna!

  2. Gratias7:30 AM

    Great development. Goes to show the wisdom of our Benedict XVI. I think this Anglican Ordinariate was a test run for SSPX joining too.

    Now, if Cardinal Wuerl would just obey the Pope and stop forbidding the Latin Mass in his Cathedral and everywhere else except one parish in D.C., what a wonderful priest he would be.

  3. Congrats! And Deo gratias!

  4. P.K.T.P.11:47 AM


    I welcome this too, from a juridical point of view. However, the process was flawed, and seriously so. The cart was put before the horse. They have no decent liturgy for the new structure. Incomers must use the N.O. or a Book of Divine Worship from 1983 that includes the N.O. Offertory (no options) and has prayers taken mostly not from the traditional 1928 U.S. Anglican Paryerbook but from the Modernistic 1979 one. To make matters worse, the N.O. Offertory, which is, of course, Freemasonic and Protestant in implication and in spirit (it is open to an interpretation of sacrifice that is non-propitiatory and even implies this), is forced upon them in non-sacral English, whereas the rest of their Mass is in sacral English. This creates a very emphatic discontinuity of form.

    This problem could have been fixed in advance. Instead, they will now embark on a three-year endeavour to do what could have been done in a week-end five years ago.


  5. Anonymous2:44 PM

    "what could have been done in a week-end five years ago"

    I'm sure the folks at the Vatican are still waiting for their 386es to boot DOS 5. That, and the fact they have the work ethic of the DMV.

    Let's be realistic here: the Anglicans said "yes" unconditionally, and it took three years for Rome to answer them, another year to actually create the first ordinariate in the UK, and another year has passed before the second has been announced for the USA. I can't see Rome giving final approval of a liturgical book in less than five years minimum, even if the only proposed change were to the font size.

  6. Louis5:52 PM

    "To make matters worse, the N.O. Offertory, which is, of course, Freemasonic and Protestant in implication and in spirit (it is open to an interpretation of sacrifice that is non-propitiatory and even implies this..."

    In all the years that I have attended the Novus Ordo, I haven't had the slightest doubt in regard to the sacrificial nature of the Mass.

    Against everything in my heart, I was placed recently in a difficult family situation which had led to my having attended an Episcopal "Church" service.

    I had always heard and read from Traditionalists that there wasn't the slightest difference between the Novus Ordo Mass and Episcopal Episcopal "liturgy".

    My experience that Sunday was that there is a tremendous difference between the two liturgies.

    I did not experience in slightest that the Episcopal "liturgy" was sacrificial in nature.

    Conversely, the Novus Ordo makes very, very clear that we are participating in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

  7. \\To make matters worse, the N.O. Offertory, which is, of course, Freemasonic and Protestant in implication\\

    PKTP, can you please tell us from what Masonic sources the Pauline Missal's offertory prayers are derived?

    And while you're at it, can you tell us how you know and where you get your expertise in Masonic lore?

    I was under the impression heretofore that the OF's offertory prayer was based on the Jewish blessings at meals, not from Masonry.

    Most holy Theotokoks, save us!

  8. Louis7:01 PM

    "PKTP, can you please tell us from what Masonic sources the Pauline Missal's offertory prayers are derived?"

    He can't.

  9. P.K.T.P.9:44 PM

    Dear Jack and company:

    Just do a bit more reading. Start with Davies's books on the New Mass. Bugnini and company were partisans of the Modernist ideas of the French Revolution. All of these ideas are connected with Freemasonry and Protestantism. They wanted to make the Mass 'acceptable' to Protestants, which explains very much the nature of the New Offertory and of the new Consecration formula. The point of both is to imply that the Mass is not an unbloody propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ by Christ to the Father, as Trent taught at its 22nd Session, but only a commemoration of the Last Supper and a sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise. Bugnini and his Consilium were assited by six Protestant ministers. None of the liberals has ever denied this, and one of them openly admitted that the six had an important effect on the outcome.

    Bugnini was accused of Freemasonry. Shortly thereafter, a file on him was presented to Paul VI. Instantly, he was demoted to nuncio to Iran (where he ended his sordid days) and, as an added insult, the Consilium was completely dissolved.

    The Freemasons believe in a 'Great Architect' God who created the world and then stepped back and does not interfere in its operation. That's the kind of God who does not Sacrifice himself on the Altars perpetually. Perpetual sacrificial action is the very antithesis of the Freemasonic model.

    And, yes, the N.O. Offertory is also based on a Jewish grace, falsely implying that the Last Supper was *no more than* a berakh. The Last Supper was, of course, only secondarily a berakh; it was primarily an anticipation of the Sacrifice of Calgary.

    You can say that the N.O. Offertory is Jewish and Freemasonic and Protestant; it is anything but Catholic in implication and tone. E.P. No. 2 is equally unCatholic, and so is the new consecration Formula, with the 'mysterium fidei' removed from its proper referent (the Sacrifice) so that it can be re-applied to the real centre of Protestant worship: a memorial. Hence the addition at this point of the innovative 'Memorial Acclamation'.

    E.P. No. 2 carefully avoids any direct reference to propitiatory Sacrifice. Ditto for tne New Modernist Offertory. With those two used in tandem, it is possible to make no direct and univocal reference to the PRIME MEANING of the Mass--unless your meaning is the Protestant one and your model of deity is Freemasonic. At the end of the Mass, as a special safeguard, we have the Placeat Tibi. But wait! Bugnini removed that too! I wonder why. Duh!

    As usual, Jack just doesn't know Jack Shadwell.


  10. Anonymous9:46 PM

    For the anon who just addressed Jack and gave a long history of Davies' account of the NO, please repost and follow the instructions for how to use a name. You may not post anonymously.

  11. P.K.T.P.9:50 PM

    Dear Craig:

    Quite so. Strange, though. It takes years and years to approve a corrected translation of NewMass, and yet NewMass itself was composed out of Bugnini's perfervid imagination in just five.

    The TAC presented the C.D.F. with a perfected Mass text on disc at Penteocst, 2010. It seems likely that it was filed under f for 'forget it'.

    Levada and company don't want an Anglo-Catholic Mass to be permitted, and they will block any attempt to restore the Sarum Use, especially in sacral English. Their aim is to force NewMass Protestant texts on these very Catholic incomers.

    Welcome to the Novus Ordo.



  12. P.K.T.P.10:03 PM


    Actually, the TAC Anglicans said yes unconditionally in about 1999. Their bishops went to Rome and knocked on the door. Knock, and the door shall be opened unto you. Rome opened the door, saw who they were, and then slammed the door in their faces. They were not the 'right stuff'--not real Anglicans but Anglo-Catholic rebels from the heretical Canterburian Communion. Shocking!

    The incident of the TAC bishops going to Rome and having to wait out in the hot Roman sun is literally true. Embarrassed curialists (or doormen, I guess), finally opened the door and gave them all glasses of water. Their visit was 'duly noted' and then the note was likely flushed down the toilet of an Italian restaurant.

    But when the FiF Anglicans from the OFFICIAL Church of England approached Rome in 2006, they were warmly welcomed. Still, it did indeed take five years to take action.

    The complaint against the TAC men is that many of them have not been 'educated' at Anglican theological colleges. What should be a real boon is counted as a deficit. Yes, many TAC clerics have not been miseducated and trained in heresy at Modernistic Anglican theological colleges which, these days, have low standards of education by any measure. This ought to mean that the TAC men are more, not less, eligible to be ordained, since we needn't spend five years untraining them in heresy. The TAC men, unlike regular Anglicans, already know that lesbian priestesses should not be allowed to live together or to marry housecats or hear the confessions of their poodles.



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!