I have it on unimpeachable authority that there is on ongoing crackdown on those AU/Ordinariate priests who would dare to learn or celebrate the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite on the part of Steenson, Hurd, and Chalmers. The affected priests are naturally frightened, and unwilling to go on record, but make no mistake, the leadership of the U.S. Ordinariate at present has set itself against both Summorum Pontificum and Anglicanorum coetibus. I also have it on good authority that this intimidation, an abuse of power, is being reported directly to the Roman Authorities. And the contention that the traditional Latin Mass has no bearing on the Anglican Patrimony — this simply has me flabbergasted. Is there just a shortsightedness on the part of the Ordinary, or is he ignorant of the history of English Catholicism?[Hat tip to Rorate Caeli]
Related:"NLM: 'The Potentialities of the English Missal for the Ordinariate and the Roman Rite'" (Rorate Caeli, August 2, 2012):
The Ordinariates for former Anglicans established by Anglicanorum coetibus can be something mediocre and tame - but they can also be something truly great for the whole Church. The name of the game-changer is "The English Missal" (the Anglo-Catholic translation of the traditional Roman Missal in Early Modern English), not as the sole rite, but as a possibility open to all their priests - and our friend Shawn Tribe, of The New Liturgical Movement, explains why. Read more >>
Perhaps I do not understand the issue, but it seems true that the "Extraordinary Form is not an integral part of the Anglican Patrimony", - at least in relation to those groups who would come under Anglicanorum coetibus and the Ordinariate. The same goes for the Roman Missal of Paul VI. (Perhaps the Sarum Mass has a greater chance as being classified as feeding into the 'liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion' and Anglican patrimony).
ReplyDeleteThat said, Anglicanorum coetibus, interpreted broadly, does not apparently exclude celebrations of the Ordinary or Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite:
"III. Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared."
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apc_20091104_anglicanorum-coetibus_en.html
However, if those converts (priests, etc.) who come under Anglicanorum coetibus and the Ordinariate, really wanted to be so-called Latin Rite /Tridentine Mass Traditionalist Catholics all along, then they have seriously mislead up until now, IMHO, the Pope and the rest of the Church. Traditionalist catholics should therefore probably not support any 'Tridentine Mass' cause/movement in the Anglo-catholic Ordinariate (or try to create one to push their own liturgical agendas), as this was never its purpose. Or is the the 1962 Roman Missal one of the 'liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition'?
You make a badly-needed point, Paul, which I welcome. In fact, I think I would welcome toleration of increasing liturgical diversity if this means accepting rites that have had a significant Catholic tradition, like the Sarum, Mozarabic, Ambrosian, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe Anglican rite (even "Catholicized"), however, has in common with the Ordinary Form Roman rite that it is not an settled and established Catholic rite. The Novus Ordo may be Catholic, but it's still far from being settled, with current variants ranging from the serious to the giddy.
The Anglican rite has also the troublesome fact, despite its sublime language, that it was formed as part of an attempt to create a state religion alternate to the Roman Catholic religion, and the names of many Catholic martyrs and persecuted recusants litter the pages of the history of its implementation.
Thus, while I agree with your point, I think there are ample other issues to complicate the matter in more than one way.