John Bruce has posted this over at his blog.
*******
January 2013
His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI
Apostolic Palace
00120 Vatican City
Most Holy Father:
This letter is written on behalf of a small, but historic parish in Hollywood, California, USA, St. Mary of the Angels. For well over a year we have accepted your most kind offer to enter the Catholic Church as a traditional Anglo-Catholic use parish. We have had formal votes by the parish on two occasions. In both cases there was a super majority of those wishing to do so by over 80%.
During 2011, our clergy provided a number of months of instruction from the excellent, Evangelium Catechetical course. This was eagerly attended by parishioners ready for unity with Rome.
Msgr. William Stetson was our contact with Archbishop Jose Gomez. He came and spoke to us of the steps necessary for our journey.
We eagerly awaited our early reception in January of 2012, as soon as an Ordinary was named.
You may imagine our puzzlement and disbelief when everything came to a halt. There had been a small group in opposition to our entry in the Catholic Church. They had managed to mail a packet to Cardinal Wuerl in Washington D.C. falsely accusing our priest, Father Christopher Kelley, of multiple counts of serious wrong doing.
Your Holiness, Father Kelley is a priest of deepest Christian faith and practice. In the five years as our priest he has displayed the virtues that should be found in all priests, a complete and total dedication in his love of God, his parish and preserving the beauty of our Anglican traditions and liturgy.
Although we had placed our parish under the Patrimony of the Primate (organized for parishes wishing to join the Ordinariate) we found ourselves threatened with a hostile take-over by a denomination we had withdrawn from (The Anglican Church in America). We found ourselves in need of legal representation. The legal action was initiated by this same ACA who now claimed St. Mary’s parish as their own. We are a freestanding California Corporation with a legally elected governing board yet we have been barred from the property.
Our gates have been locked since mid-June of 2012. Masses were begun on December 2, 2012 but only by invitation. They have claimed to excommunicate all of the duly elected board members and most of those whose hearts were set on the Ordinariate. No homeless are being given aid and no community groups have been allowed to meet.
Many parishioners have become discouraged and left, some have joined Catholic parishes, but there is a small remnant that has continued to celebrate Mass in the park and now in a private home.
Ultimately we believe in the power of God to intervene on our behalf.
Our plea to you, Holy Father, is for your help and prayers on our behalf in order to bring us to the chair of St. Peter. Our hearts long to bring our precious, historical, beautiful church, St. Mary of the Angels into full communion with the Holy See of Rome.
We remember you in our prayers and pray for the unity of the church Jesus came to establish.
We sign below with deepest humility and gratitude for your joining your intentions with ours.
[names redacted]
*********
I don’t know if this letter will do any good, but having only followed this from afar and not knowing any of the people involved, this is what it looks like to me:
This parish hoped to be an Anglican Use parish decades ago under the Pastoral Provision.
Not sure what the reasons why this did not happen. Was it that the then archbishop rejected the idea?
Then it did vote twice to enter the Ordinariate. It even went into the Patrimony of the Primate in preparation for entry.
Legal battles ensued. The Anglican Church in America (ACA) has taken over the property and excommunicated several of the members who I imagine are among the redacted names.
I hope that justice is served and that this majority is successful—-though it looks like it will take a miracle—in becoming an Ordinariate parish.
Foolishness to the world 
One might wish to read this article and comment thread:
http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2011/02/why-st-mary-of-the-angels-matters/
and then seek out this article, which tells the story about the earlier refusal:
http://www.losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/1999/1299cc.htm
My understanding of the “Cause” of this problem:
-1970’s, the Episcopal Church started ordaining women. St. Mary’s leaves, with hard feelings and bitterness. They wanted to be an Anglican Use Catholic Church, and approached the Catholic Archbishop of Los Angeles, Timothy Manning- who rejected St. Mary’s request for reasons unknown. They say it’s because the RC Church was afraid of upsetting the Protestants with the reception of St. Mary’s at the time. (I think it was also the same time “The Spirit of Vatican II” was gaining momentum. So one can only imagine the terrible things happening in the Catholic Church.)
I do believe that the L.A. Times recently published an article about how Anglicanorum Coetibus is bad for Christianity, citing how the Protestants will be upset at the consequences. (Leave it to the devil’s paper to proclaim anything about what’s good for Christianity.) So there’s no reason to rule out the “Afraid of upsetting Protestants” reason for the rejection of St. Mary’s then, and maybe even now.
I certainly pray for St. Mary’s, along with the Ordinariates. I am not ashamed to say that St. Mary’s ought to have been in the Ordinariates. What happened to St. Mary’s is unjust.
On the other hand… The Holy Father may say something that the aspirant parishioners may not like to hear regarding their “precious, historical, beautiful church” and the nature of who and what the Church is. Don’t get me wrong, it’d be nice to get that church building and I agree that it rightfully belongs to the expelled parishioners, but let’s remember that some Ordinariate parishes don’t even have their own church buildings. So there’s that. The question is: how badly does St. Mary of the Angels want to join the Ordinariates? Are they willing to sacrifice their church building? Their priest? How great a sacrifice are they willing to make? No matter what their sacrifice is, it certainly is larger and worthier than the sacrifice of those who -on camera- signed the Catechism of the Catholic Church despite claiming to disagree with it later on.
Ioannes,
You said: I certainly pray for St. Mary’s, along with the Ordinariates. I am not ashamed to say that St. Mary’s ought to have been in the Ordinariates. What happened to St. Mary’s is unjust.
Well, it’s certainly unfortunate.
But without knowing all of the details, we cannot know for sure that there is an injustice or who caused it. Suppose, for example, that Cardinal Manning advised Fr. Kelley privately that he would receive the parish, but that he could not accept Fr. Kelley as a candidate for Catholic ordination and thus that he would appoint another suitable priest as the parish’s new pastor, and that Fr. Kelley rejected this without giving the details to the parish?
You asked: Are they willing to sacrifice their church building? Their priest?
I don’t know the details, but Msgr. Steenson seems not to regard Fr. Kelley as a suitable candidate for ordination in the Catholic Church.
Norm.
Norm, you wrote: “I don’t know the details, but Msgr. Steenson seems not to regard Fr. Kelley as a suitable candidate for ordination in the Catholic Church.”
Yeah… Character assassinations tend to have that effect on peoples’ reputations. And I thought that candidates for the priesthood in the Ordinariates were in fact individually reviewed by the Holy See itself, because Fr. Kelley is married. I didn’t know the Ordinary acted as a filter as to who gets to be priest anyways. (Hence various accusations of favoritism by Msgr. Steenson about TAC priests being less represented, etc.)
———
As for me, my own interest in this case is largely due to the fact that there are so few traditional liturgies/communities I could worship at in Los Angeles. People have a right to a proper, reverent liturgy, right? So that’s the basis of my interest. I was so overjoyed at the prospect of the Anglican Use becoming available in Los Angeles. And then, this happens. Unfortunate, indeed- but something can be done, hopefully. If there’s a will, there is a way.
Ioannes,
You wrote: Yeah… Character assassinations tend to have that effect on peoples’ reputations.
I doubt that the recent character assassinations are what provoked the ordinary’s decision. There’s a reason why Cardinal Manning turned down Fr. Kelley about three decades ago, and that reason apparently persists.
You wrote: And I thought that candidates for the priesthood in the Ordinariates were in fact individually reviewed by the Holy See itself, because Fr. Kelley is married. I didn’t know the Ordinary acted as a filter as to who gets to be priest anyways.
This really is pretty obvious. In the Catholic Church, the diocesan bishop or equivalent individual always has an absolute say in the matter of ordination. In the case of an individual who meets the normal requirements of law, the Vatican does not get involved and the bishop’s decision to ordain or not to ordain a candidate is the end of the story. If an individual requires a dispensation (from celibacy, for example), the Vatican considers the matter only if the diocesan bishop or equivalent individual submits a formal request for a dispensation. A diocesan bishop or equivalent individual who deems a candidate who needs a dispensation not to be suitable does not request the dispensation becaue he is not going to ordain that individual anyway.
Note that this policy is the same for the pastoral provision as for the ordinariates. The only difference is that a candidate for ordination under the pastoral provision goes through the respective diocesan bishop rather than through the ordinary.
In the case of the ordinariates, there is one additional layer. The current policy is for the ordinary to request a votum (recommendation) from the Catholic bishop of the diocese where each candidate resides. If the diocesan bishop’s recommendation is negative, the ordinary theoretically can proceed to request a dispensation for the candidate’s ordination anyway but typically will not do so based upon the circumstances leading to the negative recommendation.
You wrote: (Hence various accusations of favoritism by Msgr. Steenson about TAC priests being less represented, etc.)
I’m not convinced that this is an issue of favoritism. There are very clear circumstances beyond Msgr. Steenson’s control that have affected this.
>> 1. The Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) initially sought an “all or none” solution, and efforts toward this end led to delays in petitions for reception from The Traditional Anglican Church (TTAC), the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (ACCC), and the Patrimony of the Primate here in the States. As a result, most dossiers from the Patrimony of the Primate arrived too late for the individuals to be in the first class of candidates for ordination for the ordinariate. Many of those individuals are now preparing for ordination in the second class. This situation should be clearer by the end of April, when the second class of clergy preparing for ordination for the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter will have been ordained.
>> 2. There’s also no doubt that impediments have surfaced among some clergy coming from the TAC that have not affected clergy coming from the Anglican Communion. The most significant of these seems to be the delict of schism in the case of those who left the Catholic Church as adults. These issues are resolvable, but it takes time to resolve them.
Having said that, the priority given to the Catholic ordination of former ACCC bishops Robert Mercer, Peter Wilkinson, and Carl Reid, which basically waived the normal formation program for former Anglican clergy, speaks volumes. In this context, I’m confused by the fact that Archbishop Falk received a negative recommenation from Archbishop Charles Chaput and that former bishop Louis Campese has not received Catholic ordination on a priority basis. Of course, the circumstances in these cases remain confidential and speculation is an exercise in futility.
You wrote: People have a right to a proper, reverent liturgy, right?
The critical question here is what one means by “proper” and “reverent.” It is heresy bordering on schism to say that the current ordinary form of the mass is not “proper” in its own right. If it is celebrated in a manner that lacks reverence, one’s issue is with one’s pastor rather than with the form of the liturgy.
But in Los Angeles, you might check out the liturgy at the Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels. When I visited there nearly a decade ago, the mass was celebrated very well.
You wrote: Unfortunate, indeed- but something can be done, hopefully. If there’s a will, there is a way.
My guess is that there will be an ordinariate community formed of former members of the Parish of Our Lady of the Angels and perhaps others who have come into the Catholic Church from the Anglican tradition in due course. It simply won’t be the Parish of Our Lady of the Angels, and Fr. Kelley will not be its pastor.
Norm.
Replying to Norm’s latest comment:
It seems that you are getting your eras confused. Card. Manning was then; Fr. Kelley is now. As far as I know, their paths have not intersected.
The TAC did not pursue an “all or none” solution, if you are referring to the bishops’ Portsmouth petition of 2007. On the contrary, it was a simple request for guidance from the pope to find some way for them to come into full communion with Rome.
I was not aware that Abp. Falk had received a negative recommendation from Abp. Chaput. I think that you mean to refer to Bp. David L. Moyer. Falk is in Des Moines; Moyer and Chaput are in Philadelphia.
In your last paragraph, are you referring to St. Mary of the Angels? I agree with you that any ordinariate community that develops out of that parish will probably not be called Our Lady of the Angels, as that is the name of the cathedral that you mentioned earlier.
Future names aside, how are you so sure that Fr. Kelley will not be its pastor? The majority of the congregation have an enduring love and admiration for him. Do you have a bone to pick with Fr. Kelley?
In any case, let’s get our facts straight before we express our opinions. If I myself am wrong on any count here, someone will straighten me out, I am sure.
Norm,
To be frank, you don’t know anything about Fr. Kelley. Have you even met the man?
Nevermind Fr. Kelley, do you even know the History of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, in comparison to that of the history of St. Mary of the Angels in Hollywood?
Based on your misinformed statements about Cardinal Manning and Father Kelley (They don’t know each other. Fr. Kelley lived in Michigan before coming to Los Angeles within the last decade.), as well as believing the “Parish of Our Lady of the Angels” is the same as “St. Mary of the Angels in Hollywood” (The former is a Roman Catholic Parish a few blocks away from Los Angeles Cathedral, the latter is a Continuing Anglican Church that voted to be in the Ordinariates.) I don’t think you know what you’re talking about anymore.
And the fact that you’d describe the Masses at the Cathedral (Which I regularly go to- because it’s still a Cathedral- only a really butt-ugly one.) nearly a “decade ago” (PEOPLE OF THIS BLOG, READ THIS: The Los Angeles Cathedral celebrated its tenth year anniversary last year.) as HAVING BEEN CELEBRATED WELL!? HA! I COULD NOT THINK OF ANYTHING MORE RIDICULOUS! When Cardinal Mahoney was Archbishop, there was so much liturgical abuse, it’s not even funny. The chalices were, for example, made of glass despite Redemptionis Sacramentum (Made by the CDF) mentioning this:
———————————————
3. Sacred Vessels
[117.] Sacred vessels for containing the Body and Blood of the Lord must be made in strict conformity with the norms of tradition and of the liturgical books. The Bishops’ Conferences have the faculty to decide whether it is appropriate, once their decisions have been given the recognitio by the Apostolic See, for sacred vessels to be made of other solid materials as well. It is strictly required, however, that such materials be truly noble in the common estimation within a given region, so that honour will be given to the Lord by their use, and all risk of diminishing the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharistic species in the eyes of the faithful will be avoided. Reprobated, therefore, is any practice of using for the celebration of Mass common vessels, or others lacking in quality, or devoid of all artistic merit or which are mere containers, as also other vessels made from glass, earthenware, clay, or other materials that break easily. This norm is to be applied even as regards metals and other materials that easily rust or deteriorate.
—————————————
Yet this is what we get from Cardinal Mahoney: “I have determined that there is no need to make any significant changes in our liturgical practice at this time.”
or
“Most of the abuses mentioned in Redemptionis Sacramentum do not pertain to the celebration of the Eucharist in our Archdiocese because of our many efforts to provide intensive and extensive training in proper liturgical norms and practice.”
(Are you kidding me?)
This is ridiculous. Mahoney governed an Archdiocese that saw so much sexual abuse and the consequent closing down of various neglected Catholic institutions, including my own Alma Mater, to pay for court settlements. At the same time, the nerve of that man to make an ugly, multi-million dollar building to call his “cathedral”. One would think he would at least do the Mass right. But no. No, siree. The man was drunk with power to the point of stupidity. And now that he is entering his twilight years, we can only pray that when he dies, he would have repented for his sins and dies in a state of grace.
You wrote:
“The critical question here is what one means by “proper” and “reverent.” It is heresy bordering on schism to say that the current ordinary form of the mass is not “proper” in its own right. If it is celebrated in a manner that lacks reverence, one’s issue is with one’s pastor rather than with the form of the liturgy.”
I NEVER IMPLIED THE MASS OF POPE PAUL VI WAS INHERENTLY INVALID, only that it opens itself to impropriety and irreverence spearheaded by some well-meaning but intellectually lazy clergy who don’t know Latin, despite the fact that the Code of Canon Law can. 249 requiring proficiency in Latin, ergo he Latin Mass, whether in Extraordinary Form, or Ordinary Form. They don’t want Latin because they want audience participation? What we end up with is now a sort of religious entertainment, NOT THE MASS. Even Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI wrote extensively on what the Mass is, and what the Mass isn’t. Too bad no one had the time to read.
I find it sad that clergy in Los Angeles are not critical of how their liturgy is celebrated, because “That’s what father wants” Which means to say, it’s all about them and their personality. This is the typical “Los Angeles Celebrity Mentality” which I have never seen manifest itself in the way St. Mary’s went about worshipping, its parishioners, and its priests. This is sad, that a community that properly and reverently expresses the faith, should end up being churchless.. But that sadness is impotent. There must be some fury for any change to occur. If you are sad about something you don’t like, you’re more likely ignored than when you are an uncomfortable threat to your opponent.
“I don’t think you know what you’re talking about anymore.”
Anymore?
Fr. Lawrence,
You wrote: It seems that you are getting your eras confused. Card. Manning was then; Fr. Kelley is now. As far as I know, their paths have not intersected.
Yes, you are right. I had the (obviously wrong) misimpression that Fr. Kelley was the pastor when Cardinal Manning snubbed the parish (or its pastor). But in any case, it’s clear that there are issues that persist.
You wrote: The TAC did not pursue an “all or none” solution, if you are referring to the bishops’ Portsmouth petition of 2007.
No, I was referring to Archbishop Hepworth’s directive not to proceed c. May of 2011 when Cardinal Wuerl and Archbishop (now Cardinal) Collins were beginning to lay the groundwork for ordinariate(s) in North America. This directive was not much of a problem in the United States, where there was plenty of interest apart from the Patrimony of the Primate for the formation of an ordinariate to proceed, but it nearly brought the process to a halt in Canada, where only the Parish of St. John the Evangelist in Calgary and the Toronto Ordinariate Group were ready to proceed. When Archbishop Hepworth rescinded that directive, it was too late for the majority of dossiers of clergy coming from the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (ACCC) and the Patrimony of the Primate to receive the nulla osta in time to be part of the first class of clergy preparing for ordination for the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter.
You wrote: I was not aware that Abp. Falk had received a negative recommendation from Abp. Chaput. I think that you mean to refer to Bp. David L. Moyer. Falk is in Des Moines; Moyer and Chaput are in Philadelphia.
Argh, you are correct once again. My brain had somehow confused the two bishops of the Patrimony of the Primate.
But this begs the question: what has happened to (former?) bishop Moyer?
You asked: Future names aside, how are you so sure that Fr. Kelley will not be its pastor? The majority of the congregation have an enduring love and admiration for him. Do you have a bone to pick with Fr. Kelley?
No, I have no bone whatsoever to pick with Fr. Kelley. I do not know the man, so I have no opinion one way or another in this matter.
But the statement from the ordinary concerning the Parish of St. Mary of the Angels that appeared on the ordinariate’s web site c. last May, which tragically seems to have disappeared, gave a clear indication that Msgr. Steenson would not accept Fr. Kelley as a candidate for ordination. Unless Msgr. Steenson reconsiders, his decision settles the matter.
Anyway, thank you for the corrections!
Norm.
Ioannes,
You wrote: To be frank, you don’t know anything about Fr. Kelley. Have you even met the man?
No. My comments about the matter are strictly based on the statement from Msgr. Steenson that appeared on the web site of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter c. May 2012, and that now seems to have been removed. But that statement contained a very clear indication that Msgr. Steenson will not accept Fr. Kelley as a candidate for ordination for the service of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter. Unless Msgr. Steenson reconsiders, his decision settles the matter.
And yes, I mistyped “Our Lady of the Angels” instead of “St. Mary of the Angels.”
You wrote: And the fact that you’d describe the Masses at the Cathedral (Which I regularly go to- because it’s still a Cathedral- only a really butt-ugly one.) nearly a “decade ago” (PEOPLE OF THIS BLOG, READ THIS: The Los Angeles Cathedral celebrated its tenth year anniversary last year.)…
My visit occurred in March 2003, a few months after the solemn dedication, when I stopped in Los Angeles overnight en route home from a cruise to “French Polynesia and Samoa” aboard MV Tahitian Princess.
As to aesthetics, it’s fairly normal for new church buildings to be rather plain. Quality art costs money, and the resources are generally needed for the physical construction during the construction phase. Thus, artwork typically comes some time after the construction loans are paid off.
You wrote: When Cardinal Mahoney was Archbishop, there was so much liturgical abuse, it’s not even funny. The chalices were, for example, made of glass despite Redemptionis Sacramentum (Made by the CDF) mentioning this…
Actually, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) had little do to with Redemptionis sacramentum. Rather, this document came from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments.
But having said that, the paragraph that you cite need not be construed to exclude quality crystal that is not “easily broken.” In fact, the “easily broken” criterion would more readily exclude the chalices and patens made of thin sheet metal that one can crush with one’s fingers.
When it comes to liturgical abuse, there are other abuses that are much more eggregious. We can start with undue haste, especially in the recitation of the prayers, which deprives the members of the congregation of a chance to reflect upon their meaning as well as manifesting irreverence. There’s a serious issue of inappropriate liturgical music, either because it’s not within the competence of the assembly to sing it well or because it’s not suitable for the actual use in the liturgy. I see many parishes where the readings are proclaimed poorly (often hastily and with poor diction) so the congregation cannot understand them. A related issue is a lack of sound deadening that causes reverberations (echos) that make the readings incomprehensible. Then there are the shoddy homiles that parlay very clear text of scripture (“Jesus said, ‘You are either with me or against me…'”) into sentences of vascillation and paragraphs of doublespeak. When I see this sort of nonsense, the fact that the presiding celebrant is using a gorgeous crystal chalice is the least of the concerns.
You wrote: They don’t want Latin because they want audience participation?
To be blunt, your reference to the congregation as an “audience” is pure heresy. Rather, members of the congregation are active participants in the celebration of the mass. The present General Instructions to the Roman Missal (boldface added in quotation below) are quite clear about this.
This even extends to the proper arrangement of the church.
You wrote: I find it sad that clergy in Los Angeles are not critical of how their liturgy is celebrated, because “That’s what father wants” Which means to say, it’s all about them and their personality. This is the typical “Los Angeles Celebrity Mentality” which I have never seen manifest itself in the way St. Mary’s went about worshipping, its parishioners, and its priests.
Tragically, this mentality is not limited to Los Angeles and the Hollywood mindset. Rather, it’s prevalent in many more traditionalist dioceses here in the East, too. In fact, the more traditionalist the diocese, the worse the mindset. In comparison, I have long found the dioceses of the midwest and the deep south to be a welcome breath of fresh air.
Living in the Archdiocese of Boston, I usually worship at a Benedictine monastery located about ten miles from my home. I go past about a dozen parishes to get there, but the worthy celebration of mass in a manner that draws the whole congregation into full participation makes it worth the investment of my time (about a half hour each way) to go there!
Norm.
To Dr. William Tighe;
I tried to give “Norm” the benefit of the doubt. He seemed on the level elsewhere.
But in the case of St. Mary’s, not -anymore-.
Norm:
I knew you’d get back on the level again!
1. You wrote: “As to aesthetics, it’s fairly normal for new church buildings to be rather plain. Quality art costs money, and the resources are generally needed for the physical construction during the construction phase. Thus, artwork typically comes some time after the construction loans are paid off.”
Yes, and they always run behind “Noble Simplicity” as an excuse. Truth is, the people they hire to design churches don’t know the difference between “Noble Simplicity” and “Industrial Austerity.” I have a background in the arts, so I can totally understand the disparity in both aesthetics; here’s a link for your information: http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2011/01/modernism-and-other-modern-cautionary.html
2. You wrote: “Actually, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) had little do to with Redemptionis sacramentum. Rather, this document came from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments.”
Ah, see, we both can make mistakes. Easily forgivable! It escaped my thought for a moment, because the CDF (a.k.a. The Inquisition) kept creeping in my mind. How I wish they would call it the Inquisition again. But see, that was only in one post, and one letter of the alphabet…
3. you wrote: “But having said that, the paragraph that you cite need not be construed to exclude quality crystal that is not “easily broken.” In fact, the “easily broken” criterion would more readily exclude the chalices and patens made of thin sheet metal that one can crush with one’s fingers.”
A key word used in the document is reprobated. This is a techincal term meaning that it is abolished, or forbidden in such a complete way that no one can appeal to custom (‘but we`ve been doing this for years now!”) nor can anyone try to establish a custom by violating the law over a long period of time.
4. You wrote: “When it comes to liturgical abuse, there are other abuses that are much more [egregious]. We can start with undue haste, especially in the recitation of the prayers, which deprives the members of the congregation of a chance to reflect upon their meaning as well as manifesting irreverence. There’s a serious issue of inappropriate liturgical music, either because it’s not within the competence of the assembly to sing it well or because it’s not suitable for the actual use in the liturgy. I see many parishes where the readings are proclaimed poorly (often hastily and with poor diction) so the congregation cannot understand them. A related issue is a lack of sound deadening that causes reverberations (echos) that make the readings incomprehensible. Then there are the shoddy homiles that parlay very clear text of scripture (“Jesus said, ‘You are either with me or against me…’”) into sentences of vascillation and paragraphs of doublespeak. When I see this sort of nonsense, the fact that the presiding celebrant is using a gorgeous crystal chalice is the least of the concerns.”
What I’ve seen in Los Angeles, from your own list, is this: 1. Inappropriate Liturgical Music (mediocre classics such as “One Bread, One Body” and “Eagle’s Wings” Please read this article expressing the sentiment I’ve come to have about this “Folk Style” Liturgical Music http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/column.php?n=2301) 2. Poor readings- but a bit more forgivable. My parish is part Korean, part Hispanic, part Filipino. We thank the parish for giving us missals; we would not understand what is being said in English, otherwise. (Oh, and this isn’t me being racist or some other ridiculous thing: I’m Filipino, I know the difficulties my people face in pronouncing Hebrew words translated into Greek translated into Latin translated into English.) 3.SHODDY HOMILIES It has been a regular thing for our priest to just take something off the internet and repeat it verbatim.
But going back to “crystal chalices” at best, they are illicit, not invalid- but they are a part of a larger mentality that reduced the Chalice into the “cup” and the Blood it holds having been shed for “all” rather than “many”.
The most serious thing which infuriates me is the nonchalant attitude people have when receiving communion- it just… Really? Jesus Christ is on the same level as potato chips? Really? I mean people don’t really consider the last thing they touched before taking communion?
5. You wrote: “To be blunt, your reference to the congregation as an ‘audience’ is pure heresy. Rather, members of the congregation are active participants in the celebration of the mass.”
A congregation is a congregation, when it does what congregations are supposed to do- liturgical dancing, for example, may be performed in African nations, but not when we’re in the middle of the Anglosphere. It’s when the priest treats the congregation like an audience and demands from them audience participation that the Mass starts becoming a form of religious entertainment or a venue for socializing. It’s not me, it’s the priest, who acts like the church is a concert hall and the congregation as the audience- they even have the giant flat-screen T.V. and electric guitars and drum sets to prove it. (At least in Los Angeles.)
The Holy Father himself wrote, as Cardinal Ratzinger: “Wherever applause breaks out in the liturgy because of some human achievement, it is a sure sign that the essence of liturgy has totally disappeared and been replaced by a kind of religious entertainment. ” (Spirit of the Liturgy p. 198) AND YET THAT IS WHAT I CONSTANTLY EXPERIENCE IN LOS ANGELES
6. You quote the GIRM, my comments in italics:
95. In the celebration of Mass the faithful form a holy people, a people whom God has made his own, a royal priesthood, A reference to how once the offering, which was eaten only by the Levites and the Kohanim, is now available to the non-priests; NOT A REFERENCE TO HOW WOMEN SHOULD BE PRIESTESSES so that they may give thanks to God and offer the spotless Victim not only through the hands of the priest but also together with him, and so that they may learn to offer themselves. BUT REMEMBER: THE LAITY ARE NOT PRIESTS, and the principal celebrant is JESUS CHRIST. They should, moreover, endeavor to make this clear by their deep religious sense and their charity toward brothers and sisters who participate with them in the same celebration. If the celebration is valid and not a mockery of God’s Church like a Black Mass of any other name.
Thus, they are to shun any appearance of individualism or division, Except when people break away from Tradition, apparently. Or when women wear revealing clothing and men wear head coverings in church so to express their individuality. keeping before their eyes that they have only one Father in heaven and accordingly are all brothers and sisters to each other. This does not explicitly command that the faithful hold hands during The Lord’s Prayer, by the way, nor does it make it “alright” when everyone in the congregation breaks into applause, forgetting about Jesus Christ.
96. Indeed, they form one body, whether by hearing the word of God, or by joining in the prayers and the singing, or above all by the common offering of Sacrifice and by a common partaking at the Lord’s table. This unity is beautifully apparent from the gestures and postures observed in common by the faithful. I would prefer to kneel when everyone stands after communion.
Oh, last thing I’ll say on this thread (Which we have gloriously derailed)
Most of the liturgical abuses listed on this particular article of the NCRegister (NOT National Catholic Reporter) I experience regularly. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/dan-burke/tidings-of-discomfort-and-liturgical-abuse
I just thought about how in my parish, the readers/cantors/altar girls are girls who are goaded by their overzealous mothers who hold a position in the parish council. Nevermind their inability to sing/chant or the fact that they are bored out of their wits just sitting at the side of the sanctuary.
I’m not sure if that’s liturgical abuse but, if it is, as with all other liturgical abuses, there’s nothing I can do, but write a strongly-worded letter that will be ignored. And just bear it or leave. (But to whom shall I go?) I simply don’t have the strength to be a liturgical vigilante (Please refer to: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/liturgical-vigilantes) and this is probably why I am so livid at the issue. I don’t like it, but I have to bear it. Maybe the liberal Catholics at the local Roman Catholic Parishes should attend a 2-hour Byzantine Catholic church service and see how the worship of God is supposed to look like, sound like, smell like, taste like, and feel like. Then, we’ll see who the fakers are, the ones who go to church merely to socialize and look good and honor their cultural tradition rather than express the Catholic Tradition.
Anyway, these lengthy and draining posts warrant a humorous note at the end:
http://www.eyeofthetiber.com/2013/01/12/catholic-blog-reader-patiently-waiting-opportunity-to-lambast-someone-on-thread/
The second link appears not to work any longer. When it did work, it lead to an article by Charles Coulombe in the (?December) 1999 issue of “The Los Angeles Lay Catholic Mission” publication dealing with the circumstances of the earlier refusal ca. 1985, in the furtherance of which attempt Mr. Coulombe was personally involved.
Sad but true. However, put the link in the wayback machine on internet archive, and it magically rises from the dead!
http://web.archive.org/web/20000407184805/http://www.losangelesmission.com/ed/articles/1999/1299cc.htm
Dr. Tight,
That second link appears to be dead.
Dr. Tighe…please excuse my type-o in your name.
Pingback: An appeal to the Holy Father by members of St. Mary of the Angels in LA | Catholic Canada
Why would the Pope get in the middle of a legal battle between parties over whom he has no jurisdiction? Why would he give the appearance of encouraging the faithful to go over the head of their Ordinary in this matter? Another in the long list of bizarre gestures in this real estate dispute.
EPMS, “no juridiction” you sure got that right! I feel for these people but alas, B16 is not going to help them at all. At least in the way that they think.
Here’s the question- who is the Ordinary of a people who were excommunicated from the ACA and not received of the Ordinariates?
Here’s what I get from the ACA: “Sure, you can join the Ordinariates. But the building is ours. The State says so.”
If Msgr Steenson is not their Ordinary, neither is “B16” their “Holy Father “, unless they have been received into the local diocese, in which case there would still be a normal chain of command to work through.
Yeah, that’s what I gathered- if not Msgr. Steenson, then Archbishop Gomez.
But see, St. Mary’s is insistent that they voted to go to the Ordinariates, which they did, so they are de facto members, just not officially. (Maybe that’s the mentality.) They certainly are de jure excommunicated from the ACA. They are not yet -confirmed- Catholics either.
So, yeah. I’d wish there’s some clarity from someone. The frustration is that the local Roman Catholic hierarchy doesn’t seem to be doing anything actively to do anything for these technically unchurched people. At least from the point of view of the laity; a certain Mr. Cavanaugh stated that we’re not entitled to know whatever discussions Msgr. Stetson (not Steenson) and the members of St. Mary’s have had regarding a resolution to this situation.
Maybe the expectation from the Archdiocese of L.A. is that they’d let go of the Ordinariates, at least in how the parishioners initially wanted things to go for themselves, or any hopes of getting the church building and be “Normal Roman Catholics”. It seems to me that St. Mary of the Angels in Hollywood are utterly alone in this fight, and whatever happens, they will end up alone. I’ve come to accept this as a possibility, but I totally understand the attachment the parishioners have with their building and I’m convinced that they’re in the right, no matter how the rest of the world seems to agree with the contrary.
Ioannes,
You wrote: Here’s the question- who is the Ordinary of a people who were excommunicated from the ACA and not received of the Ordinariates?
They presumably remain under Archbishop Louis Falk as part of the Patrimony of the Primate, which is no longer part of the Anglican Church in America. But in doing web searches, I can’t find anything on what happened to either Archbishop Falk or Saint Aiden’s Anglican Church in Des Moines, Iowa, which had joined the Patrimony of the Primate and then decided not to move into the ordinariate. Fr. Chori Seraiah, who had moved to Des Moines to become the rector of that parish after it voted to join the ordinariate, subsequently stated that Saint Aiden’s Anglican Church would remain with Archbishop Falk as a result of the reversal of its decision after his departure to join the ordinariate. Fr. Chori apparently is now a presbyter of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter who works as a hospital chaplain while attempting to gather an ordinariate community in Des Moines.
You wrote: Here’s what I get from the ACA: “Sure, you can join the Ordinariates. But the building is ours. The State says so.”
Being a civil matter, the case theoretically could be reopened and the judgement reversed or modified based on evidence not admitted at the original trial. The catch here is that Fr. Kelley and his followers apparently do not have the financial resources to hire competent lawyers to pursue the matter.
Norm.
Norm,
1. You wrote: “…I can’t find anything on what happened to either Archbishop Falk or Saint Aiden’s Anglican Church in Des Moines, Iowa, which had joined the Patrimony of the Primate and then decided not to move into the ordinariate.”
——————————————–
Taken from Fr. Stephen Smuts’ blog:
———————————————–
Fr Gerald says:
January 10, 2013 at 14:28
Hi, where is Archbishop Falk? I mean with all the things taking place surrounding TAC and Ordinariate? How is he doing. I would like to communicate with him to see how he is. Would it be possible to post his email address?
Reply
Michael Frost says:
January 10, 2013 at 15:52
Fr. Gerald, He remains at St. Aidan’s Anglican in Des Moines, Iowa. He preached an interesting sermon this past Sunday on the Magi and Christian worship. He celebrates the liturgy and preaches most Sundays; when he doesn’t, Fr. Brad does. You might call the church and leave a message for him on the answering machine. His lovely wife is there with him each Sunday.
————————————————
2. You wrote: “The catch here is that Fr. Kelley and his followers apparently do not have the financial resources to hire competent lawyers to pursue the matter.”
Well, for the meantime, if there are no Catholic lawyers offering their services pro bono, or if they have not yet saved enough money for lawyers, I think that it would be wise for the St. Mary’s parishioners to regroup within the Catholic Church. They’d have a larger circles of contacts. Who knows, maybe they’ll get a bigger and prettier church than the one they were expelled from!
Deborah,
You asked: This parish hoped to be an Anglican Use parish decades ago under the Pastoral Provision.
Not sure what the reasons why this did not happen. Was it that the then archbishop rejected the idea?
The “word on the street” seems to be that somebody in charge of ecumenism in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles persuaded Cardinal Manning, who was then the archbishop, that reception of the parish would be harmful to ecumenism, and counselled against it. But perhaps there is more to the story…
You said: Legal battles ensued. The Anglican Church in America (ACA) has taken over the property and excommunicated several of the members who I imagine are among the redacted names.
The parish clearly lost its case due to bad legal advice and incompetent representation in court. Unfortunately, neither the parishionners nor the bootstrap start-up known as the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter have the financial resources to hire competent attorneys to pursue the matter. Thus, the parishionners’ best option is to cut their losses and move on.
Here, Msgr. Steenson has stated that the parishionners are welcome to come into the Catholic Church as members of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, and their numbers are clearly sufficient to establish an ordinariate community in Hollywood. I have no doubt that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles would provide facilities for them. Indeed, there seem to be indications that some, though I have no idea how many, former members of St. Mary of the Angels have taken this step.
As to clergy, the statement from the ordinariate several months ago concerning this parish, which seems to have disappeared from its web site, indicated pretty clearly that Msgr. Steenson would not accept Fr. Kelley for Catholic ordination — which now harkens back to Cardinal Manning’s earlier rejection. It’s very probable that Cardinal Manning’s staff noted the same character issues in Fr. Kelley that dictated Msgr. Steenson’s more recent decision, and thus refused his request for Catholic ordination, with the obvious consequence that the parish did not come with him into the Catholic Church. Of course, this would not bar Fr. Kelley from coming into the ordinariate as a layman.
Backing up a step, this whole scenario begs the question of whom the community that is still gathering with Fr. Kelley is following. Quite simply, are they following the Lord, or are they following Fr. Kelley?
Norm.
I didn’t know Fr. Kelley was the Rector from way back Cardinal Manning’s time as bishop during the 70’s; That means Fr. Kelley was Rector of St. Mary’s through Cardinal Manning, Roger Mahoney, and Archbishop Gomez. I assumed that Fr. Kelley only became rector during the 90’s at the earliest. Here is an independent, unbiased source where I base my own assumptions:
http://www.sarahlaughed.net/anglicana/2005/08/st_mary_thrives.html
-This article, dating from August 2005, seems to have mentioned a Reverend Gregory Wilcox, and no mention of Fr. Christopher Kelley.
So Fr. Kelley’s character couldn’t have been an a factor for the rejection of that parish’s bid to become a Catholic Church back -then- because I don’t think Cardinal Manning even knew Fr. Kelley. But it’s a separate issue now. According to the parishioners, the accusations against Fr. Kelley only came up conveniently, once the parish started to vote for joining the Ordinariates- at the same time, Fr. Kelley wasn’t too supportive of the bid to join the Ordinariates as well and only came to support it at a latter time. But one thing is consistent: more than 80% (84%, if I recall) of the parishioners voted to join the Ordinariates.
So Msgr. Steenson postponed the acceptance of the Ordinariates, and there seemed to be a proposal to allow the parish to enter without Fr. Kelley- either with him as a layman, or him going elsewhere- I had forgotten exactly the details of that proposal. And then the situation became about the church building as well; the ultimate result was: Fr. Kelley and his family were expelled, and so were the 84% who voted to leave the ACA, and the ACA apparently won the legal right to keep the church building.
It seems more plausible that some agent of the devil wanted false ecumenism first before accepting sincere attempts of parishes to become Catholic. The fact that the L.A. hierarchy’s attitude towards ecumenism is like an attempt to imitate Assisi in making the Cathedral a “House of prayer for all people” to reflect the cosmopolitan nature of the city, I would not be surprised to see the happiness of Protestants being given a priority over traditional, or seemingly traditional expressions of the faith, much less acceptance of a community espousing the same mentality. (Because, you know, the Anglican Communion allowing gays and women to be whatever they want in their church is -far- from traditionalism.)
Norm, Fr. Kelly has been at St Mary of the Angels only for 5 years. Back in the 90’s, the Rector at the time of the first tentative was a Fr. Tea or Tee or Teel who was then received privately with a small group of laypeople, and ordained a pastoral provision Priest in (another?) diocese.
So the first refusal has nothing to do with Fr. Kelly. Given the manners of doing things in the Continuum, I even suppose those accusations against him are unfounded and I sincerely hope (and pray for) he and his community will find a way together to the ordinariate.
+ pax et bonum
Norm, you wrote: “Quite simply, are they following the Lord, or are they following Fr. Kelley?”
It was apparent that they were interested in the Ordinariates prior Fr. Kelley’s own interest in joining. So it isn’t about Fr. Kelley as the ACA people like to redirect our attention to- But that is also related to my question: “How much are they willing to sacrifice to be Catholics?”
Regardless of their motives, I find it unjust that the parish building, which they had spent so much investment on will fall into the hands of a minority group who will benefit from what the majority had worked and spent for. It’s like the situation during the Reformation era. You have a bunch of Protestants who agreed that they’re no longer Catholic, so they took Church property with them. To this day, Westminster Abbey is Protestant, and so are various Northern European cathedrals and churches. It may be a lopsided comparison given the differences in historical scale, but it’s somewhat applicable in principle to what happened at St. Mary’s: A group of Protestants made off with Catholic Church property due to their “right to freely practice religion”, and so forth, and that’s fine with us Catholics, apparently, but when a majority Catholic community tries to take a church building into which they invested their own time and money, the secular court sides with the minority opposition, and this is somehow just? I don’t deny the rights of the minority- no one is evicting -them- anywhere, but what happened with “majority rule”?
Nevermind the false assumption that any secular authority is always a good judge of moral values! (You know, the same sort that allows abortion and homosexual pseudogamy. The same that supports stealing from the rich and call it “equal distribution of wealth”.)
Norm, I am posting here a quote from John Bruce’s blog in response to this comment because he rejects your contention the legal advice the parish received was not good.
Also, let’s refrain from making judgments about Fr. Kelley. You may not think character assassination played a role, but I’ve seen enough of it to go around in other circumstances to be cautious about engaging in it especially when I do not know him.
You can find the whole post: http://stmarycoldcase.blogspot.ca/2013/01/the-usual-craziness.html
*******************
The parish is represented by TroyGould PC, which specializes, among other things, in the corporate governance issues that the litigation with the ACA brings up. Many parishioners with specific knowledge of events and documents related to the case worked closely with TroyGould attorneys, and I believe we developed a mutual respect and appreciation, for Fr Kelley’s integrity and that of the Ordinariate-bound majority on one hand, and for the attorneys on the other. Nobody at St Mary’s who worked with TroyGould or who attended the court proceedings feels that TroyGould provided “bad legal advice” or “incompetent representation”. Judge Linfield in his opinion noted the high quality of legal representation on both sides of the case.
Then “Norm” says (in bold, no less), “It’s very probable that Cardinal Manning’s staff noted the same character issues in Fr. Kelley that dictated Msgr. Steenson’s more recent decision, and thus refused his request for Catholic ordination, with the obvious consequence that the parish did not come with him into the Catholic Church.” I simply don’t know what “Norm’s” relation to the parish is, or where (if anywhere other than a ouija board) he’s getting his information. The first attempt by St Mary of the Angels to become Anglican Use lasted from 1980 to 1984, when, according to Fr Jack Barker, who was Rector of St Mary’s during this period,
[B]oth Bishop Law and the Ecumenical Relations Committee of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles had made it clear that sensitivity to ecumenical relations would be paramount in the carrying out of the pastoral provision. . . . It was in October 1984 that Bishop Ward, in behalf of cardinal Manning, reported to PDSAC clergy in Los Angeles that no parish of the pastoral provision would be allowed in the archdiocese and that both clergy and laity would have to be received into the Catholic Church on a strictly individual basis through their local latin rite parish.
Deborah,
You wrote: I am posting here a quote from John Bruce’s blog in response to this comment because he rejects your contention the legal advice the parish received was not good.
I find it difficult to believe that the parish would not have prevailed in court in this matter with competent legal advice, unless the court simply refused to give effect to the parish’s decision to move to the Patrimony of the Primate. Of course, that might be the basis of appeal.
You wrote: Also, let’s refrain from making judgments about Fr. Kelley. You may not think character assassination played a role, but I’ve seen enough of it to go around in other circumstances to be cautious about engaging in it especially when I do not know him.
To be clear, I agree completely. My observation of Msgr. Steenson’s apparent decision is NOT in any way intended as a personal judgement of somebody whom I have never met. There are a slew of reasons why a bishop or other ordinary may deem somebody not to be a suitable candidate for ordination, many of which do not reflect adversely in any way on the individual.
Norm.
While I don’t normally comment here, I want to make it plain that nobody at St Mary’s who worked with the attorneys at Troy Gould on the vestry’s case feels that anyone at Troy Gould was incompetent or provided bad legal advice. My wife, a retired attorney, was familiar with all the filings. Neither she nor I has any but the highest opinion of the attorneys on the case. In fact, the attorneys on the other side were very good as well (and after all, they won — they had to be!) The judge noted as well the extraordinary quality of the representation on both sides. Naturally, the vestry hopes to prevail on appeal. Also, Fr Kelley was nowhere near the parish in the 1980s when Cardinal Manning made his earlier decision. “Norm” — I don’t know who this is — is simply uninformed here. Fr Barker was the priest at the time of Cardinal Manning’s decision, and he became a Catholic priest subsequently (and still is). All I can say is that if Norm feels entitled to make such statements about issues on which he is simply in error, people should evaluate his comment on that basis. Nobody’s perfect, but nobody who knows Fr Kelley well feels he’s anything but a sincere and dedicated priest. Why does Norm feel the need to attack him personally?
God bless St. Mary’s, John Bruce! I pray that God gives the parishioners the strength to weather this hardship!
Here we go again. When will we ever have an end to this sordid business? Lord, have mercy on St. Mary’s.
What John Bruce has written above are the facts. The rest of the opinions expressed in the comments so far are mostly conjecture.
Sorry, Fr. Lawrence.
I guess it’s human nature to try and fill in the gaps, until the facts are made known?
Anyway, I’m merely trying to repeat what I’ve read in support of St. Mary’s Parishioners and Fr. Kelley. I apologize if I was inaccurate somehow.
One can perhaps see some parallels with the Fellowship of John Henry Newman, Philadelphia. Although this group is not involved in any dispute over its former building, the rector, as was widely reoprted, has been been refused a votum and many former members of his TEC parish are postponing reception into the Catholic church until this situation is reversed. At some point an examination of priorities will be required, I would think.
Ioannes : Although I sometimes despair at your tendency to heap negative comments on abstract targets like Protestants, feminists, and interpretive liturgical dancers, I do note that you usually express support for identified individuals or communities in need. You should try to nurture these better angels of your nature.
We are all of us sinners, sir/madam, even if I heap nothing but pleasant compliments to my fellow sinners. All of us are born with a missing or broken part that cannot really heal without God’s help. That is why we need Salvation, which can only exist in God’s Church, unless God states otherwise.
I think the reason a lot of people are put off by the religion is because there is an impression that the Church is a museum of saints, when it is a hospital of sinners. They think we think that all of a sudden, we are perfect. Yet look at people like some of the Apostles, and people like St. Jerome and St. Nicholas- they are good men, not always the brightest, but they are also hard men who say something is wrong when it is wrong and are not afraid when feelings are hurt. They are not the angelic, effeminate understanding of “saints” we’ve grown accustomed to nor did they pretend that they are somehow perfect and masked their flaws by being agreeable and pleasant.
I would be dishonest to say that I exist totally without sin in this Earth- perfect good is a perfection that can only exist in God, who is also the embodiment of perfect good, which is the ultimate good; I can only participate, -commune with- to some degree. but I cannot -be- God, hence I cannot be the ultimate good nor the most perfect. I can only but accept what God wills for me and support the Church and commit myself to acts of mercy, part of which is to admonish the sinner.
No human can be devoid of imperfection, perhaps except our Blessed Mother, but if I am imperfect, my imperfections might as well be at service to the Truth. Even the devil unwittingly works for God despite his vanity and rebellion. God has a way of turning evil into something that can bring about good. Pain and suffering are such examples. Not just when I receive them, but when I inflict them- If you wish to save someone, many times, you usually have to inflict pain and suffering on them, especially when they are too comfortable with how things are. Ask generals, doctors, good teachers, or good parents. Letting people derive happiness from mere pleasure and comfort is detrimental- that is how people rot.
Protestants, feminists, and interpretive liturgical dancers, among many people are adversaries. The parishioners at St. Mary of the Angels are not. I am furious, outraged over the injustice they experience! How could any decent, God-fearing men not care about them!? It is because of false compassion and apathy that good people suffer. If the so-called sensitive ‘catholics’ are tolerant of fornicators, sodomites and protestants, they will have to practice their tolerance consistently and tolerate me as well. If necessary, I have to be the bitter pill everyone has to swallow; I can afford to write the truths people don’t like to read because I am not likable. I have no reputation to guard. It is better to be hated by the whole world than to compromise the Truth.
Aw dude, you’re not unlikeable. You’re just eccentric– you’d fit right in with the rest of us from St. Mary’s! The seriously hard to like are the Bishop/ Lodge Master and his Canon,but Jesus loves them,too.