In his article United in Communion, but Not Absorbed: Understanding the Pope's Welcome, Bishop Peter Elliott helps set the record straight, confirming the public statements of Archbishop Hepworth and the analysis of The Anglo-Catholic which have been questioned by armchair theologians and Internet controversialists, who, through their own study of the Apostolic Constitution, have concluded that the TAC's characterizations of the scheme provided by Anglicanorum Coetibus were unsupported by the plain reading of the texts. The Apostolic Constitution, we are told, is but a slightly more generous revision of the Pastoral Provision in the USA, now extended throughout the world — and those who believe otherwise are simply deluding themselves (or else falling into a popish trap!). Bishop Elliott, the delegate of the Australian Catholic bishops' conference for the implementation of Anglicanorum Coetibus, a former curial official and distinguished liturgist, has gone on the record to support the genuine interpretation of the Holy Father's most gracious invitation to Anglican Catholics.
The Pastor of the nations is reaching out to give you a special place within the Catholic Church. United in communion, but not absorbed – that sums up the unique and privileged status former Anglicans will enjoy in their Ordinariates.
Catholics in full communion with the Successor of St Peter, you will be gathered in distinctive communities that preserve elements of Anglican worship, spirituality and culture that are compatible with Catholic faith and morals.
The detractors of the Apostolic Constitution interpret the injunctions requiring cooperation between the Anglican ordinary and the local Roman Catholic bishop as the subordination of the personal ordinariate. The local bishop will interfere with the personal ordinariates at every step, they say, preventing their erection wherever he is able, vetoing the decisions of the Anglican ordinaries, and generally making things as difficult as possible. The "converts" will only begrudgingly be allowed to retain a few incidentals of Anglicanism. There will be no honored place for a genuine expression of our tradition in the Catholic Church.
Bishop Elliott echoes the words of Dom Lambert Beauduin at the Malines Conversations: “The Anglican Church united but not absorbed.” We are to have a "unique and privileged status" in the Catholic Church.
Each Ordinariate will be an autonomous structure, like a diocese, but something between a Personal Prelature (as in Opus Dei, purely spiritual jurisdiction), or a Military Ordinariate (for the Armed Forces). In some ways, the Ordinariate will even be similar to a Rite (the Eastern Catholic Churches). You will enjoy your own liturgical “use” as Catholics of the Roman Rite.
This is reminiscent of Archbishop Hepworth's characterization of the personal ordinariate structure at the 2009 Forward in Faith UK National Assembly.
There will be an Anglican leader who relates to the Holy See on behalf of the Anglican Catholics. Thus establishing a body that is Anglican Catholic as distinct from Roman Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, Maronite Catholic, or whatever. It’s not a rite but it looks awfully like one…
Legally, the personal ordinariates will be part of the larger Latin Rite, governed by the Code of Canon Law, but the provisions for our unique Anglican liturgical use, elements of our synodical tradition, and our practice of married clergy, for examples, will give the new structures many of the distinguishing characteristics of a ritual church.
There is no “hidden agenda” here, no popish trap! So beware of warnings from certain traditional Anglican bloggers or pamphleteers. They distort the Pope’s offer because they cling to small fiefdoms and purist enclaves – where they do as they wish. Indeed, the Ordinariates come under the discipline of the Church and her laws, but the Code of Canon Law is also a detailed charter of our rights as clergy and laity.
And we know who these folks are, of course… unless… wait… could Bishop Elliott himself be part of the papist plot?
In the end, I am sure that Bishop Elliott's analysis will prove true. Few of our people will reject the Holy Father's offer on theological grounds. These are almost always a cover for meaner excuses. It's much easier to "cling to small fiefdoms and purist enclaves" — where everyone's a canon, a bishop, or even a metropolitan — than to sacrifice for the unity of Christ's Church. It's much less demanding when everyone's his own pope.
Yet you do not come to the Ordinariates with empty hands. As I learnt forty two years ago, you will lose nothing – but you will regain an inheritance stolen from us four centuries ago. That heritage was largely recovered by the giants of the Oxford Movement. I believe they smile on us now. In these early days, let us keep praying with them, so that together we may patiently work out how Pope Benedict’s project can be achieved.
I do hope we'll lose a few things, actually. While valuing all that is good and true in the English Reformation, we must forever lose our sectarianism and anything and everything that does not accord with the Catholic Faith that comes to us from the Apostles. Above all, we must lose our pride — and finally submit to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church in humility and with filial obedience to the Successor of St. Peter, to whom we owe a tremendous debt for allowing us to finally achieve that goal of "united but not absorbed" that we have so long desired.
Pingback: Morning Catholic must-reads « Editor's Briefing
The naysayers never cease to amaze me. First it was Cardinal Kasper, the bloggers of the Continuum, Latin rite traditionalists and perhaps even a part of our own minds saying that such a thing could never happen.
Conventional wisdom dictates that the Church is bound by her own laws and the canon law system has become so complex that the Church institution can no longer stand up under its weight. Surely, this would explain why it has taken so long to issue Summorum Pontificum and the new English translation of the modern Missal. The Apostolic Constitution could not be issued, because there are too many canonical complications. It cannot be issued and it won’t ever see the light of day.
It did get issued. It exists.
Yes, but Anglicanorum Coetibus can't be implemented. 90% of TAC clergy either have canonical irregularities or haven't enough theology training. FiF aren't interested because they have their medieval churches, rectories stipends and pensions, and the AU people are happy as they are. And real Anglicans have no truck with the abominations of Popery! You can hear the endless whining!
Cardinal Kasper said this could never happen because Rome is committed to endless dialogue with the Lambeth Conference Communion, and no competition against the status quo could ever be admitted. Now we have traditionalists telling us it can’t work because the definitive liturgical books can't be issued in time, so – too bad – we’ll have to surrender our Anglican patrimony anyway. The “classical” Anglicans are saying that the Apostolic Constitution is so bound up with canon laws that it cannot be implemented and those considering availing of it are deluded, unless they are willing to go back to the old individual conversion. So, all our bishops can do is spin and delay, because the end is nigh, and the little American priest with a beard from nowhere is going to come out of all this as a saviour-hero!
This whole thing has flown in the face of liberal Catholic and Anglican establishment men and power-brokers, Catholic traditionalists, “classical” Anglican sectarians. Nobody seems to want this explosive parcel ticking away and being thrown from person to person like in the old children’s game!
And so it was in the time of Christ. The announced Messiah of the Old Testament Prophets could not possibly be that unkempt bearded character from Nazareth. The Messiah would have to be at least a High Priest or Pharisee leader with the right credentials in accordance with the Law of Moses! I don’t compare this piece of Papal legislation with Christ, but the barest idea can shock us into realising there is more than conventional wisdom in this. I have said it before. This is about the Pope’s pastoral outreach and his agenda for the “bloodless” reform of the Church.
Had there been a popish trap, there would never have been an Apostolic Constitution. We would still be waiting and speculating as last 19th October, the day before Cardinal Levada made the announcement to the press. What interest have they to raise the hopes of people who are not their problem only to dash them? Haven’t they other things to do – like playing golf or eating a pizza in Rome?
Bishop Eliott affirms that You will enjoy your own liturgical “use” as Catholics of the Roman Rite. He did not say, we’ll let you have the Book of Divine Worship or make you conform to the Roman rite.
The real issue here is that traditionalist and “classical Anglican” purist enclaves are not vindicated by history. We are moving into the mainstream Church through the front door, not because we have tweaked the law, but because we are going to be useful in the universal mission of the Church. These things happen, like when Newman got the green light from Pius IX in person to establish Saint Philip Neri’s Oratory in England. And that was a Pope who allegedly said "I am Tradition" and "I feel infallible"!
We still have a lot of questions, and we have to be aware that our little worries and ideas are not at the centre of all this. It’s all going to work out, but in ways the Pope and his advisers know best. I am confident of that. I have nothing to lose. Most of us in the TAC have nothing to lose – and everything to gain by being humble and patient.
Indeed, there’s nothing to lose except our pride.
Fr. Anthony,
Even on the canonical front, there is less bespoke jurisprudence with respect to a personal ordinariate than with respect to almost any other "canonical suit" I can imagine, not that I am a canonist. I'm not thinking "wide open road", just a road without narrow bridges, landslides, and ruts. That will have its advantages!
Yes, of course, what Rome does will be according to canon law and objective principles. The whole point of this Apostolic Constitution is that the law is changed to suit the pastoral need – something the Pope as the Legislator has perfectly the right to do.
As an Anglican I find this offer very generous, but still I wonder how much of the Anglican Way will be permitted. For example can I still use my "Authorised Version" (King James Version) with deutero-canonical books included instead of the Roman Catholic translations (New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and the Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition) and will I still be able to use the forms of Morning and Evening Prayer as found in the 1928 American Book of Common Prayer or the English 1662 Book of Common Prayer.
As far as I read and heard, we will be allowed the King James Bible with the so-called "Apocrypha" (deutero-canonical books). The Apostolic Constitution mentions the "Liturgy of the Hours (…) according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition (…)". This seems to mean the traditional Prayer Book Mattins and Evensong as in the 1928 American BCP and 1662 English BCP. The Anglican Offices are probably the most characteristic aspect of Anglican Patrimony, more so than the rite of Mass as they are much more universally accepted.
And an underlying question: how much micro-management are we to expect, governing exactly what we may and may not do or say? How important is it to be all doing exactly the same thing? The Orthodox get on quite well without this kind of worry, and so do we. Isn't a certain degree of freedom part of our Patrimony?
In reply to #6 on this thread –
There's an awful lot of nit-picking in the Anglo-Saxon world. Some examples:
- You don't say Mass unless the book on the altar is a published book with an Imprimatur and Nihil obstat,
- The Mass of a priest not wearing a maniple is invalid,
- You're going to have a High Mass, but the subdeacon doesn't turn up because he's ill. So instead of having a "monastic" mass with only a deacon, you put everything away and only have Low Mass,
- There isn't a server, so the priest doesn't say Mass at all,
As the French say "The better is the enemy of the good".
I'm not for "anything goes" like over the past forty years or so, with clown masses and all that sort of stuff.
Again, and as always, In medio stat virtus.
Yes, please, our King James Bible. Not some modern translation by someone with a tin-ear for poetry and fussy concerns about inclusive language and political correctness.
Deborah
Most Anglicans have not accepted papal infallibility and the immaculate conception up to this time. Have these simply become non-issues, or are they dealt with in some other way?
All Anglicans who will be joining the Ordinariates accept the teaching contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This includes the two doctrines you mention.
Here is a link to the Divine Hours currently approved for the Anglican Use in the United States– http://www.bookofhours.org/
J.M.J.
While I personally use the Roman Breviary of 1962 which is already approved for use in the Ordinariates, I would like to see the Anglican Breviary included, which is a pretty faithful translation of the 1911 Roman Breviary in Prayer Book Usage. Coverdale Psalter throughout. Details may be found at http://www.anglicanbreviary.net which has two links to book reviews of the AB. Also, http://absnospin.blogspot.com/2009/06/anglican-breviary-review-part-1.html
I think the Ordinariates will be wonderful opportunities for many to be introduced to the richness of the Divine Office said in its traditional form, rather than a truncated innovation of the last 450 years.
I think the BCP Office is great for public worship, but is anemic when compared to the Traditional Divine Office, of which the BCP Office is just a minimalization.
FWIW – YMMV
Faithfully,
Sean W. Reed
I agree with most of what Mr. Campbell writes here, particularly the bit about the juridical structure. However, Bishop Elliott was mistaken in writing that the ordinariates are between personal prelatures and military ordinariates. With all due respect to him, he does not understand that the personal prelature structure is entirely remote from the personal ordinariate. But this works IN FAVOUR of his overall statement. It is a GOOD thing because the p.p. structure WOULD put incoming Anglicans under the Latin bishops. In other words, Bishop Elliott's conclusion is correct but one of his premises is false.
The ordinariates are, in fact, equivalent in law to dioceses. The only limit in this regard is a certain requirement to consult with local bishops. Consultation is not a limit on potestas. Bishop Elliott should have said that the personal ordinariates are closest to the Latin ordinariates for Eastern-Rite faithful who do not have their own ordinary. Examples exist in Austria and in France.
P.K.T.P.
While I agree with most of Mr. Campbell's comments, there is this in his analysis of others' words:
"The “converts” will only begrudgingly be allowed to retain a few incidentals of Anglicanism."
Well, nothing Bishop Elliott writes contradicts this claim. Article III of A.C. does not really deliver the goods, as I have argued here before.
However, in defending the TAC today over at "Rorate Cœli", responding to an attack by a certain 'Leo', I realied that Article III might be a trick in a different sense. It might be a test to see if the TAC is committed to becoming Catholic. If the TAC bishops try to make their reunion conditional, they are not true Catholics. But if they trust the Pope, they will be rewarded by having their liturgical patrimony preserved. The right course, then, is to trust the Pope and take the leap of faith. If the Pope cheats the TAC, it will only make him look bad anyway.
Of course, those Anglicans who believe that the Pope is the Whore of Babylon will not be crossing the Tiber. But I suspect that none of those belong to the TAC in the first place!
So I must agree with Fr. Chadwick that, in the end, we must watch and pray. Nevertheless, it is not wrong for Abp. Hepworth to seek a remedy to Article III and he should do so, but making it clear in that process that he will accept whatever Rome grants. There is a meeting later this month between the TAC and Rome. Apb. H. is probably waiting to hear answers to questions before he delivers them to the public.
It's all frustrating to the laity. These Englishmen and Germans can keep a secret, unfortunately. We need to involve more Frenchmen and Italians, who cannnot keep a secret!
P.KT.P.
Fr. Chadwick, quotes Bishop Elliott as follows:
"Bishop Eliott affirms that You will enjoy your own liturgical “use” as Catholics of the Roman Rite. He did not say, we’ll let you have the Book of Divine Worship or make you conform to the Roman rite."
Fair enough but Anglicanorum Cœtibus does not say that in Article III; moreoever, it can be argued that the B.D.W. of 1983 IS an Anglican Use. So this matter does call for clarification. The tone of Bishop Elliott's remarks is positive, however. Perhaps he knows things we do not yet know. On the other hand, the apostolic constitution gives him little space for determining anything. This matter is clearly under the jurisdiction of the C.D.F. and not the episcopal conferences or their representatives.
I am praying that Archbishop Hepworth will seek a solution to this problem and be able to tell us good news about it after his meeting in Rome.
P.K.T.P.
On Mr. Hummerstone's remarks:
Don't worry: the personal ordinariate structure, completely UNLIKE the personal prelature structure (pace Bsp. Elliott) will afford incoming Anglicans enormous autonomy.
It is equivalent in law to a diocese except insofar as limited by A.C. The only limits there are duties to consult local bishops when establishing parishes or working with them on joint charitable projects. A right of Latin bishops to consult is not a limit on power. For example, the personal ordinary for Canada, wanting to establish a parish in Winnipeg, would have to consult with the Latin Archbishop of Winnipeg. The Archbishop could advise him not to proceed and, having respectfully taken this advice into consideration, he could go ahead anyway.
In most cases, the duty to consult is there to HELP the ordinariates because the local bishops can often offer the use of their churches or warn about local difficulties. I very much doubt that there will be many cases in which local bishops try to use their consultative office to obstruct the ordinaries. It's just not worth it to them to be shot down anyway. And they do prefer promotions … from Rome.
Really, only the Pope himself will have any juridical power over the personal ordinaries–and he is too busy with other problems!
All is not roses, though. As the Ukrainians have learned only too well, there is juridical power but then there is also financial power. Because the Latin bishops control most of the sacred places incoming Anglicans will need, the Latin bishop will have a very real de facto power over the ordinariates. The best way to deal with them is to be pleasant and helpful in some charitable projects. Remember your advantage: they are many in a country but you are few or one. So it is difficult for Latin bishops to work against an ordinariates, as most of them can't agree among themselves about anything, esp. these days.
P.K.T.P.
Peter,
In your opinion, what does paragraph V of the AC mean exactly when it says that the power of the ordinary is to be exercised jointly with that of the local diocesan?
Thanks so much,
Mark
Dear Mr. Newsome:
You have left out the restriction! Here is the passage:
"This power is to be exercised jointly with that of the local diocesan bishop [I've removed the erroneous capitalisation and comma] in those cases provided for in the Complementary Norms."
So we turn to the Complementary Norms:
Art. 3: "in order to co[-]ordinate its pastoral activity with the pastoral program[me] of the [d]iocese."
This only means that the two must work together in order to meet the pastoral needs of laics in each diocese. It could mostly benefit Anglicatholics because it means that the Roman ordinaries should be sharing their sacred spaces!
Also see Art. 5.2 on joint powers when faithful work collaboratively on pastoral or charitable activities. This is not a problem but a benefit to Anglicatholics: it means a shaing of resources.
Also See Art. 8 on how clerics of an ordinariate can also serve in diocesan presbyterial and pastoral councils.
See Art. 9 on how priests of the ordinariate should be available to assist the local bishop to provide pastoral care. This is a "should", not a must.
See Art. 10.2 on seminary formation according to a joint agreement with diocesan bishops. This just ensures that ordinariate seminarists get an education which is comparable to that of Latin seminarians.
In all of this, there is very little limitation on the power of the ordinariates. By examining the subjects in turn, one can see that the purpose is mainly to ensure that ordinariates are adequately supported by local dioceses and episcipal conferences (e.g. in the remuneration for priests). There is nothing sinister in all of this but quite the reverse. In fact, the thrust of it suggests that local bishops should be offering their sacred places to Anglilcatholic ordinariates when pastorally helpful.
P.K.T.P.
Peter,
Thank you for such a thorough reply; I in no way meant to imply anything at all sinister in the AC. In fact, I would say that the AC is a very appropriate reply to requests Rome has received. That said, the documents do require that the ordinariate and the local diocese share power and responsibilities, and as you point out above, the de facto power will be with the diocesan and with the episcopal conference. We Anglicans of a Catholic bent do have a history of butting heads with episcopal authority and I would encourage everyone entering the ordinariate to make peace with the idea of working closely with the local diocese and accepting the reality of that de facto power.
Thanks again,
Mark
In regard to comparable canonical structures, there appear to be two distinctive types of Eastern-Rite ordinariates. The more common type is a particular church for people of different Eastern Cathoic ritual churches. The ordinary is normally the leading or a leading Latin Rite archbishop but he governs it in the name of the Pontiff and not as a Latin jurisdiction. So the ordinary will be secondarily appointed. This is unlike the personal ordinariates in that the subjects belong to different ritual churches, they do not belong to the same ritual church that their Ordinary belongs to (viz. the Latin Church), and the Ordinary is secondarily appointed (he is ordinary in at least two particular churches).
This type of ordinariate exists in Argentina, France, Austria, Brazil, and Poland.
The other type is much closer to the p.o. of incoming Angicans. This is the Armenian Rite Ordinariate, a sort of junior diocese sometimes ruled by a simple priest or else by a titular bishop and covering the territory of a country, or even larger. The main difference between this Armenian ordinariate and the Anglican p.o. is that the latter is erected for members of a ritual church (the Latin one) that already has dioceses in the same territory. So it is for faithful of a certain patrimony or Use but not a Rite.
Really, the Armenian ordinariate is almost identical to the Anglican p.o. There exist three Armenian ordinariates. One covers Greece, and one covers Romania. A third, which has its seat in Armenia, covers that country plus Georgia, Azerbaidjan, Russia, the Ukraine, and Belarus.
P.K.T.P.
As far as "financial power" goes… well, this couldn't possibly hurt us: we don't have a lot of money now, many of our clergy are impoverished, and our seminarians struggle to balance study time with work and family responsibilities. If Rome wants to give us the use of some nice churches, and help us to establish formation programs in conjunction with their seminaries, that's great. And if not – well, we won't be any worse off! Besides, there are lots of Latin parishes that are having a hard time covering their expenses. A diocese offering to share a building with an Anglican Catholic parish is as much a good financial deal for them as it would be for us.
On a related note, although there have been some fears expressed by ultra-traditionalist Roman Catholics on blogs, I have yet to hear any Roman Catholic react negatively to this proposal in person. All of them are thrilled, because they have genuine ecumenical goals – they want to be able to be in communion with people from other churches, without them having to necessarily be absorbed into mainstream Roman Catholic dioceses and parishes. In some cases, they really like our worship, and would even want to begin attending our parishes – but they want to be in communion with the Holy See.
For them, the idea of an ecumenical dialogue that stops with dialogue – that doesn't proceed to the establishment of full communion, is like telling a young couple that you're all for them dating – you're happy that they love each other so much – but you couldn't possibly encourage them to get married…
I say we accept the proposal…
On Article III of "Anglicanorum Cœtibus":
To illusrate the problem, let us consider the situation for the TAC bodies in Japan and the Torres Strait. Presumably, their priests are currently saying B.C.P. Masses in Japanese and in Melanesian.
Now they won't want the Traditional Latin Mass because Latin would be foreign to their congregations. There might be translations of the T.L.M. from the late 1960s which have been approved for liturgical use but they are likely out of print and unknown. They also in no whit preserve an Anglican patrimony.
Ditto for Saum, plus it's unpractical.
The B.D.W. of 1983 has been approved ONLY in English, which is useless if you speak only Melanesian or Japanese.
What does that leave? [Drum roll] The Novus Ordo Missæ in Japanese and in Melanesian! Welcome to the Brave New World of Annibale Bugnini! Gotcha! Blessed are You [sic] Lord God of all Creation!
Consider now that about four out of five TACers are from India. What language do you use in their liturgy? Is it English? Sometimes it would be, for the Anglo-Indians. But it must be mostly Hindi, Assamasse, Bengali, Orissa, Tamil, Urdu, Gujarati. It's the Novus Ordo for the lot of them! Annibale! You win again! Your're a genius! We'll turn these Anglicans into liberals faster than you can say 'berakh'.
Seriously, would someone here please tell me how to get around this problem? And please don't suggest that priests can just do their own thing until Rome catches them. We've had enough of that in the Latin Church. It's illegal; it's illicit.
I am beginning to wonder if this process of might take longer than expected. Will Rome have to vet the liturgy of each country as it applies for an ordinariate? That will take months, nay, years.
This matter should have been dealt with twenty years ago, when the TAC was founded. There is nothing more frustrating than watching these Anglo ditherers in inaction, arguing over what colour would be right for the bishop's buskins. We must remember that Roman bureaucrats just love situations like this. It gives them paid work to do for decades as they vet each comma to see if, placed elsewhere, it might change the emphasis of a phrase in the wrong way.
For starters, Apb. H. can at least ask Rome to approve the Anglican Missal of 1921 with the proviso that, for the time being, only the Roman Canon option be used with it (whether in England or Latin). That would (a) preserve the Anglican patrimony in the Mass and (b) get passed in under ten years' time. This won't solve the problem for Melanesians and Japanese immediately but, should it be accepted, Rome could then consisder translations for just one text. This will reduce the TIME needed to get this baby flying.
If they have to vet an Anglican Canon, the TAC needs a sleeping pill that can knock it out for a couple of years. That's how long it would take. And if the English Missal of 1912 is preferred, there is no Anglican patrimony being transmitted, the E.M. really just is the T.L.M. in sacral English.
So it comes down to just ONE ITEM: the Anglican Missal of 1921 with its Roman Canon option as mandatory for the time being. Once approved, a new TAC liturgical commission can begin its work to create the best international Anglicatholic Liturgy, complete with options for various parties within its ambit.
Let's move it, gentleman. The years are passing.
P.K.T.P.
Mr. Michael David makes excellent points.
I should clarify what I mean by financial power. As a Latin Catholic who spent fourteen years 'in exile' in the Ukrainian Byzantine Church (when they disallowed our T.L.M.), I know a thing or two about this subject.
The Ukrainians Catholic in Canada have one ecclesiastical province. It consists of one metropolitan archeparchy and four suffragan eparchies (warning: you Anglicans mean something different by 'suffragan': it's something I've never understood). Let's just say that, every year, the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops redistributes money from the Latin dioceses to the Ukrainian eparchies. Without this extra cash, the Ukrainians would hardly even survive.
The Latin Church is richer than the others because all its expensive propeties were paid off by the pennies of the poor way back in the 1920s, and it has rent-collecting slabs from which priests' incomes are paid. Everyone here should understand my meaning because the Anglican Church is the richest of them all (or was, in the old days) and you fellows have essentially been thrown out from your old Church, like refugees. You are the faithful few, just like Latin traditionalists (which makes me wonder why so many Latin trads are against you, as they are. But I'm all for you!)
Now, when one body depends on another for money, the second finds it to be 'wise' to co-operate with the first. I'm not trying to scare anyone. It just means being diplomatic. I can already see that TAC prelates are adept at playing this game. They swear on the C.C.C., wear those ghastly clericals from the 1970s instead of the simar which all prelates should be required to wear by force, address bishops by the first name (something I really hate), and use all the post-conciliar-speak ('discerning', dialogue, 'outreach', 'social justice' as a euphemism for communism, 'People of God' for God's people, and all manner of linguistic abomination). All the TAC prelates need do is continue with those buzz-words and that nonsense and keep referring to Vatican II over and over again and they're in like Flynn.
One thing you will notice about these 'diplomatic' bishops on the Roman side is that they refer to Vatican II constantly but never to anything else–even the Bible. They never, on priniciple, ever refer to the more important councils, such as Trent, Florence, Lateran IV, or Vatican I, not to mention the early church councils. If you go around quoting Lateran IV of 1215 (my favourite council) and you are a priest, you will end up as a hospice chaplain for twenty unconscious patients.
P.K.T.P.
This is very funny, Mr. Perkins, yet sadly true! If a man's first name is Peter, he's not even addressed 'Fr. Peter or 'Bp. Peter' but 'Fr. Pete' or 'Bp. Pettie'. The most obnoxious part is that children use these diminutive, familiar expressions. To which I posit the question: What? would they call 'Fr. Pete', 'Mr. Pete'?
Is it just me or is this stupid?
‘Father/Bishop [insert last name]’ is the only thing that makes sense. Let's maintain our dignity; yea, rather not our own but the God we represent in persona Christi!
As to liturgy, I totally agree with you. Now, the TAC bishops must simply ask the Pontiff to approve the 1921 AM (c/exclusively the Roman Canon, of course). The worst H.H. could do is say no, at which point he is somewhat obliged to provide an alternative. But, I would think it obvious, our Pope has already been so generous, there is no reasonable doubt that he would deny such a request. And as Rome goes, the response to the TAC's petition was fast as greeez'd lightnin’: are we now to be terminally bogged down debating liturgies?
All the TAC bishops have to do is make the prudent suggestion that as concerns expediency, patrimony, editing, typesetting &c…
Let’s get this thing up and running! Ask and ye shall receive!
This timely intervention of Bishop Elliott has been covered on Rorate Caeli and the comments of the radical traditionalists are absolutely heart-rending. According to their logic, the only true Catholicism would be something like the present Pope, Roman Curia and Hierarchy fired, excommunicated, whatever – and replaced by the hard-line elements of the Society of Saint Pius X. One of the worst commenters in this turkey shoot is a man called McFarland, with whom reasoning is not possible. He is typical of the most hysterical “Tridentine” cranks telling us Anglicans that we should be left out in the cold for “not being sincere in our conversion”. Whatever you say to these people, they will bring you back to the same point.
I could easily imagine them as Inquisition torturers in the fourteenth century. Watch out, Salvatore, for le Draco who gnaweth at your anima! But, I will keep this serious, because the evil we face is serious.
I have read accounts of exorcisms and philosophical explanations of evil that bring me to begin to understand the old enemy among us and inside ourselves. The radical traditionalists and the liberals are as similar to Ribbentrop and Molotov in their evil agreement to arm the Nazis. The snake eats its own tail as opposites converge.
Let us not be swayed or discouraged by so many who would see the Church become an ever-tightening vice to crush man’s souls and vindicate the accusations of secularists and militant atheists. How the enemy is working so well together, for its name is Legion!
Malachi Martin, Hostage to the Devil.
I recommend that Anglicans should look at these comments and know that our only allies are in the moderate positions approaching those of the present Pontiff.
We arrive at the gates of Lent, a time when we can purge such evil from our own “dark sides” and embrace the light, peace and love of Christ. Let us eschew the ravings of those whose insane passion for truth has destroyed reason, beauty, love and prayer. Let us keep on track and at peace.