On Msgr Steenson and The Anglo-Catholic

it is time for me to take another hiaitus from the Anglo-Catholic blog as the moderator seems to be taking an editorial stance that makes me uncomfortable.  

Our experience of Msgr. Jeffrey Steenson in Canada has been good so I want to distance myself from that stance.   He is also my Ordinary and thus issues of loyalty also apply.  That doesn’t mean I will never be critical of something he may say or do but that I will do my best to be fair and not to pre-judge things know nothing about.   I do not know enough about the American situation to comment further except to say I pray for the success of the Ordinariates and for wisdom and discernment from God for Msgr. Steenson

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to On Msgr Steenson and The Anglo-Catholic

  1. Pingback: On Msgr Steenson and The Anglo-Catholic « Fr Stephen Smuts

  2. Good for you! Distance yourself from the slandermongering.

    This blog of yours would have stood far if you put as much effort into it as you have expended over at the Anglo-Catholic.

    • David Murphy says:

      Ditto !!

    • Michael Birch says:

      Thank goodness, Deborah, and not before time! The “Moderator” of the Anglo Catholic is simply following his usual pattern; it will be nice to get news from another source than that blog.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Michael,

        … it will be nice to get news from another source than that blog.

        I agree completely!

        Norm.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      Fr. Stephen,

      You wrote: This blog of yours would have stood far if you put as much effort into it as you have expended over at the Anglo-Catholic.

      Amen!

      Norm.

    • Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

      I am a little confused about what the slandermongering consists in. I had heard only good things here about Msgr. Steenson. Then I heard some mild criticism from former TAC priests on both sides of the border, both on blogs and in private e-mails. Now we have a full-out attack from some over at the Anglo Catholic. While these attacks are proceeding. a decision is taken to ditch sacral English for the lections at Ordinariate Masses (in favour of the 2nd edn. R.S.V.), and out comes a Customary approved by Rome which attracts some criticism from former TAC priests (and Msgr. Entwistle gives it a less-than-enthusiastic reception). Meanwhile, Bishop Peter Elliott informs us that the next edn. of the B.D.W. will include at least some parts from the New Roman Mass, a suggestion which perplexes me.

      I worry that, in some cases, there is bickering going on among the new and coming priests of the Ordinariate, and things are not moving in the right direction. I hope that I am wrong and that we might find unity in Tradition. Liberals in the Church will sow dissension if they can. Let’s work against that.

      P.K.T.P.

  3. Couldn’t agree more; the stance of the moderator is frankly appalling. I am baffled by it all and can only imagine the damage being done to the community in Orlando.
    I love the Ordinariates and am most impressed by the Canadian example.
    God bless and keep you.

  4. Mourad says:

    Sad to say, I think you are right about Mr Campbell’s recent approach to some matters. He seems to have something of a bee in his bonnet of late and, while he is quick to criticise, often in intemperate terms, he is also quick to exercise his power of censorship should a commentator venture to suggest that his approach is wrong.

    It’s the age-old problem of the newspaper industry now repeating itself in the new media. As a journalist you will have heard stories about old time newspaper proprietors and editors getting too big for their boots. Perhaps Mr Campbell sees himself as the Lord Rothermere or Lord Beaverbrook of the Anglo-Catholic blog.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      Mourad,

      You wrote: He seems to have something of a bee in his bonnet of late…

      Unfortunately, it is not so “of late” as you suggest. His fondness for the Tridentine form of the Roman liturgy is not new, and it’s coupled to a fondness for heretics. About two years ago, he banished me for daring to point out the statement in a motu proprio promulgated by Pope Benedict XVI which said explictly that the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) remains in a state of schism due to doctrinal error. The motu proprio in question reorganized the pontifical commission Ecclesia Dei for the reconcilliation of “traditionalists” who prefer the Tridentine liturgy, joining it to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (with the prefect of that congregation becoming also, ex officio, the president of the pontifical commission), for this reason. The standard for reconcillation of the members of the SSPX is exactly the same as for reconcilliation of those coming to the ordinariates from the Anglican Communion: they must accept the whole of Catholic doctrine set forth in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. My words at the time were not in any way disparaging; rather, they simply stated the facts.

      Norm.

      • Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

        No, you are wrong. Schism is a state of persons, not organisations. So the S.S.P.X cannot be in a state of schism; only some or all of its members can be (cf. 751). What was effected in 1988 was a material schism on the part of six individuals, not a formal schism. The six bishops involved were excommunicated latæ sententiæ not for schism but for an act of consecrating bishops without a papal mandate. John Paul II described this action as schismatic in nature, as a schismatic act. But they were penalised for the act itself, not its character as tending to schism.

        The P.C.E.D. has clarified on a number of occasions that this schismatic act was not sufficient to effect a formal schism because those acting upon it did not claim to establish parallel jurisdictions. Only clerics belong to the S.S.P.X and yet nowhere in the apostolic letter “Ecclesia Dei Adflicta”, given motu proprio on 2 July, 1988, does the Pope say that the clerics are schismatics. He does say that a state of [material] schism exists but only names five (of the six) bishops as being excommunicated for a schismatic act. In No. 5c of that m.p., he groups the clerics and lay supporters as “those linked in various ways” and only warns of them of a danger of falling into schism should they come to adhere to a formal schism.

        When Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos was President of the P.C.E.D., the body having competence in this matter, he explained on several occasions that there was no formal schism. For example, on 13 May, 2005, he wrote, “It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. They are within the Church.”

        What occurred in 1988 was a schismatic act affecting only the five (or six) bishops involved. This act resulted in a state of material schism but did not make of anyone a formal schismatic because it was not completed by the erection of jurisdictions. Were there a formal schism, all the Society priests who returned to Roman obedience would need to make a profession of faith to be instated or reinstated, but none of them have been asked to do so (e.g. those of the F.S.S.P. or those of the I.B.P). Also, the Roman courts have treated Society marriages as valid, which is impossible in the case of a formal schism because there could then be no form of jurisdiction to enable validity, needed in the cases of Penance and Matrimony.

        This is a confusing issue but let me propose an analogy. If I were to strike a tree with an axe, this would be a destructive act, but it does not destroy the tree unless the blow fells it. That is very much like an incomplete schismatic act. What has resulted is a de facto or material schism because those participating are not obeying legitimate authority. But the state of soul of the priests and deacons and supporters of the Society is objectively not one of schim–or, at the least, the law does not presume this in any particular case. It is possible that some Society members have fallen into schism by imbibing a schismatic attitude–as warned by John Paul II.

        John Paul II did not claim that they incurred schism owing to doctrinal error. What he wrote is that the root of the schismatic act (which was not completed in formal schism), an act which incurred excommunication for five named individuals and not the entire S.S.P.X, was an insufficient conception of Tradition. I don’t know exactly why you were censored by Mr. Campbell, as I don’t have that record.

        On the matter of Msgr. Steenson, I would hope that all will go well for the ordinariates. His statement regarding the Traditional Latin Mass is worrying, given the fact that some incoming TAC priests want to offer the T.L.M. as well as an Anglican Use Mass. Article III of A.C., when read together with Article 1 of S.P., makes it clear that ordinariate priests have a general right to offer the T.L.M., and the supervisory faculties in this, as mentioned in Canon 838, apparently pertain to the personal ordinary, as they are not mentioned as belonging to the local bishops in A.C. (see the last ¶ of Art. IV), for a p.o. has full ordinary jurisdiction. I would hope that Msgr. Steenson does not plan to throw to the liberal wolves among the Latin bishops those of his priests who wish to offer the Traditional Latin Mass, the Mass from which their own patrimony developed. I should hope that there will be no Latin exams for ordinariate priests set by local bishops. In charity, it would be delightful if ordinariate priests were completely free to offer the T.L.M. in addition to A.U. Masses. Why not, when there’s no restriction on them offering the Novus Ordo? Msgr Steenson has said recently that the idiom of the ordinariates is not Latin or vernacular English but sacral English. But his priests are completely free to offer the N.O. in vulgar English and he will adopt the same idiom for the lections at his Anglican Use Masses. If sacral English is to be the norm but vernacular English is to be allowed, why not give equal freedom to use Latin, the lingua sacra of the Latin Church, to which his priests belong. But wait! His priests presumably will have an unrestricted right to say Mass in Latin–provided it’s the New Mass in Latin.

        P.K.T.P.

        P.K.T.P.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Peter,

        Are you a canon lawyer?

        You wrote: Schism is a state of persons, not organisations.

        No, that is not true. A schism is a state in which one part of the Body of Christ is separated from (out of communion with) another. This intrinsically requires some sort of organization. Further, a schism is not sacramentally sustainable unless there’s a bishop in the schismatic body.

        You wrote: The six bishops involved were excommunicated latæ sententiæ not for schism but for an act of consecrating bishops without a papal mandate. John Paul II described this action as schismatic in nature, as a schismatic act. But they were penalised for the act itself, not its character as tending to schism.

        You are correct in stating that the six bishops involved in the episcopal ordinations at Econe in 1988 incurred the automatic canonical penalty of excommunication for that act. Nonetheless, the penalty carries with it immediate suspension of orders and all offices held. Thus, it was impossible for them to continue ministry in communion with the Catholic Church. Rather, their continued ministry within the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) made the schism real, and the society’s acceptance thereof made the society part of it.

        You wrote: The P.C.E.D. has clarified on a number of occasions that this schismatic act was not sufficient to effect a formal schism because those acting upon it did not claim to establish parallel jurisdictions.

        Rather, the SSPX is a de facto parallel jurisdiction, and the Vatican is treating it as such.

        You wrote: He does say that a state of [material] schism exists…

        Yes, that is exactly the point, and that is exactly the terms under which the Vatican has entered discussion with the Society of St. Pius X. Your doublespeak trying to argue that it is not a real schism is irrelevant.

        You wrote: … but only names five (of the six) bishops as being excommunicated…

        Yes, but this is related to the canonical effects of declaration of an automatic excommunication after a party incurs it. The Vatican deemed it necessary to declare the automatic excommunications of the five bishops who were part of the SSPX because it perceived that there was widespread confusion over the status of the SSPX. The Vatican opted not to declare the automatic excommunication of Bishop Antonio de Costa Mayer because was not part of the SSPX.

        You wrote: In No. 5c of that m.p., he groups the clerics and lay supporters as “those linked in various ways” and only warns of them of a danger of falling into schism should they come to adhere to a formal schism.

        Yes, and that danger clearly would not exist, so there would have been no need for such a warning, if there were not a formal schism.

        You wrote: When Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos was President of the P.C.E.D., the body having competence in this matter, he explained on several occasions that there was no formal schism. For example, on 13 May, 2005, he wrote, “It cannot be said in correct, exact, and precise terms that there is a schism. There is a schismatic attitude in the fact of consecrating bishops without pontifical mandate. They are within the Church.”

        I’m not so sure that the current pope would agree with that statement.

        You wrote: Were there a formal schism, all the Society priests who returned to Roman obedience would need to make a profession of faith to be instated or reinstated, but none of them have been asked to do so (e.g. those of the F.S.S.P. or those of the I.B.P).

        The clergy who formed the Fraternal Society of St. Peter (FSSP) clearly manifest their intent not to be part of a schism by approaching Catholic authorities and initiating the process of erecting the FSSP immediately after the schismatic act occurred. Thus, they never “adhered to” the de facto schism in any material sense and did not fall under the canons pertaining to reconcilliation of schismatics.

        I don’t know to whom you are referring as the “I.B.P.” It’s always a good practice to state the full name of an entity, followed by the acronym or abbreviation in parentheses, at the first reference because many readers might not be familiar with the shortened form.

        You wrote: Also, the Roman courts have treated Society marriages as valid, which is impossible in the case of a formal schism…

        That’s not true. The Catholic Church also treats marriages of a Catholic party in the churches of the Orthodox Communion, which has been in an undisputable state of schism since 1054 AD, as valid.

        You wrote: John Paul II did not claim that they incurred schism owing to doctrinal error. What he wrote is that the root of the schismatic act (which was not completed in formal schism), an act which incurred excommunication for five named individuals and not the entire S.S.P.X, was an insufficient conception of Tradition.

        Splitting hairs, an “insufficient concept of Tradition” most assuredly IS a doctrinal error — and not only a doctrinal error in its own right, but an error which enables other errors.

        But in any case, what Pope Benedict XVI wrote in the motu proprio Ecclesiae unitatem leaves no doubt that doctrinal errors are now the major issue. Here is the relevant text (emphasis in original).

        5. Precisely because the problems that must now be addressed with the Society are essentially doctrinal in nature, I have decided 21 years after the Motu Proprio Ecclesia Dei and in conformity with what I had proposed (cf. ibid., art. 11 781) to rethink the structure of the Commission Ecclesia Dei, linking it closely to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

        7. With this decision I have wished in particular to show fatherly solicitude to the “Society of St Pius X” in order that it rediscover full communion with the Church.

        You wrote: On the matter of Msgr. Steenson, I would hope that all will go well for the ordinariates. His statement regarding the Traditional Latin Mass is worrying, given the fact that some incoming TAC priests want to offer the T.L.M. as well as an Anglican Use Mass.

        The Ordinary seems to be saying that the ordinariate groups should not use the Tridentine form of the liturgy for their ordinariate group masses. I don’t perceive an intent to forbid ordinariate clergy from celebrating the Tridentine form at other times, even in churches of ordinariate parishes, provided that they can do so in a competent manner.

        That said, the ordinary has the same authority over ordinatiate parishes and clergy that a diocesan bishop holds over the clergy and parishes of his diocese — and that includes authority over the celebration of the liturgy. Thus, the ordinary is the arbiter if there’s a question of the competence of clergy of the ordinariate to celebrate the Tridentine form of the liturgy properly.

        You wrote: I should hope that there will be no Latin exams for ordinariate priests set by local bishops. In charity, it would be delightful if ordinariate priests were completely free to offer the T.L.M. in addition to A.U. Masses.

        I rather hope that clergy who wish to celebrate the Tridentine form of the liturgy would have to demonstrate their competence to do so properly in order to receive faculties to do so. This should minimally include demonstrating enough literacy in Latin to understand the rubrics and to pronounce the spoken parts correctly.

        But in the case of a presbyter of the ordinariate, the diocesan bishop does not have competence to require an examination in Latin. Rather, it is the ordinary who has this authority. Of course, the ordinary may well ask the diocesan bishop to administer such an exam on his behalf.

        You wrote: If sacral English is to be the norm but vernacular English is to be allowed, why not give equal freedom to use Latin, the lingua sacra of the Latin Church, to which his priests belong. But wait! His priests presumably will have an unrestricted right to say Mass in Latin–provided it’s the New Mass in Latin.

        This is an interesting point. Indeed, there has never been any prohibition on celebrating the current ordinary form of the Roman liturgy in Latin. Of course, I hope that clergy who don’t have enough competence in Latin to pronounce the Latin text correctly would refrain from doing so — and the ordinary, like a diocesan bishop, has the power to direct such clergy of their jurisdications not to do so.

        Norm.

  5. Pingback: On Msgr Steenson and The Anglo-Catholic | Catholic Canada

  6. sjfoundation3 says:

    I don’t really have anything to add to the discussion right now. However, I am a founding member of Our Lady of the Atonement in San Antonio and this matter has a very eerie similarity to the very early days of the Pastoral Provision. I would be happy to give you some more details if you wish to email me directly at chuckw@satx.rr.com. Then you can decide what parts, if any, would be of interest to readers of your blog.

    Kindest regards,

    Chuck Wilson

  7. Pingback: Blogs in the USA | Ordinariate Expats

  8. I think your reporter’s instincts are serving you well, Deborah ; )
    The real problem with the posts are the comments; people don’t have the background to post informed comments, and then it all gets blown out of proportion resulting in damage to people’s reputations, to the cause of Christ and thus ultimately to people’s salvation. Trying to calm the waters is near impossible; instead of pouring oil on troubled waters, I feel like I’m spitting into the wind!

  9. wayfarer says:

    Deborah, have you seen this post that initially came from the Blog Catholic in the Ozarks that Fr. Smuts has also posted? it seems to be a most balanced and measured look at Msgr. Steenson’s statement – particularly voicing the concern that was often heard before the formation of the Ordinariates “All the RCs want to do is to assimilate us, and this is just a temporary gesture that will die in a generation.” How quickly we forget!

    http://catholicozarks.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-latin-mass-and-anglican-ordinariate.html?spref=bl

  10. EPMS says:

    Sayre’s Law states that “The politics of the university are so intense because the stakes are so low”. The Ordinariate seems to be in a similar situation. If moderators were not weighing in on the KJB or the TLM, what would they have to discuss? Another dozen people have joined up in Missoula, MT?

    • Rev22:17 says:

      EPMS,

      The Ordinariate seems to be in a similar situation. If moderators were not weighing in on the KJB or the TLM, what would they have to discuss? Another dozen people have joined up in Missoula, MT?

      At this point, “[a]nother dozen people [joining] up in Missoula, MT” (or anywhere else), the ordination of clergy for the ordinariates, and events that unit the various ordinariate groups in common mission and purpose are laying the foundation for the future of the ordinariates. Thus, these events are most critical.

      I have to agree with the observation attributed to Msgr. Steenson to the effect that the Tridentine form of the liturgy is not really part of the present Anglican patrimony. It certainly is not familiar to those who are coming into the Catholic Church to form the ordinariates, so its use within ordinariate groups rightfully should be very limited for the foreseeable future. Thus, I don’t see its relevance on discussion boards dedicated to the Anglican patrimony and to the formation of the ordinariates. There are other discussion boards devoted to the Tridentine form of the liturgy and its present use, which are appropriate fora for discussion of such topics.

      The translation of scripture properly called the “Authorized Version” and also known as the “King James Version” (KJV) is a more difficult subject. I don’t know to what extent it was still in use in the Anglican congregations coming into the ordinariates, but the Catholic Church has always held it to be unacceptable due to errors in the translation itself. I doubt that the KJV will gain approval for liturgical use within the ordinariates even though it is very much part of the Anglican patrimony due to the concern about errors, but discussion of this topic and its potential impact upon the ordinariates is most assuredly reasonable. My guess is that those who would come to the ordinariates would find the Revised Standard Version (RSV), which is now approved for use by the ordinariates, to be an acceptable alternative.

      Norm.

  11. EPMS says:

    Mrs Gyapong’s post “News from Edmonton” drew three comments; “The King James Bible”, 83. Mr Cavanaugh’s updates at The Anglican Use of the Roman Rite on receptions, ordinations, and other events that are “laying the foundation for the future of the ordinariate” typically elicit no comments at all. What is the function of a blog? What constitutes success in the blogosphere?

  12. Foolishness says:

    Alas,success in the blogosphere is driven by conflict.

  13. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Norm, are you a canonist? Obviously not. Your arguments are facile. Let’s deal with them one by one. First of all, it is apparent from Canon 751 that schism is a state of persons. It is not a state of organisations per se. A group can only be in schism if all its members are, but “Eccesia Dei Adlicta” never says that. On the contrary, from 5c of that motu proprio and the fact that only five individuals are mentioned as having participated in a schismatic act, it is quite evident that the S.S.P.X is not in schism.

    This claim of yours is farcical: “This [i.e. schism] intrinsically requires some sort of organization”. If that were true, no single individual could fall into schism, something clearly denied by the general application mentioned in Canon 751. Then we get this gem: “the penalty carries with it immediate suspension of orders”. No, sacramental orders are inscribed in the soul and are indelible. Moreover, again, you assume the point to be proved: a priori fallacy of reasoning at its best. While the act of the six was schismatic, it was not sufficient to complete an act of schism, as no jurisdictions or claim of ordinary jurisdiction was made. Since the six are not schismatics, therefore, nor are those who obey them. They might be wrongfully disobedient, but they are not schismatics. Then you fail to address the several declarations of the P.C.E.D. that there is no formal schism. Who should be believe? The President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei or ‘Norm’. When you cannot deal with my distinctions, you then resort to arbitrary claims of ‘doublespeak’. Do you know the distinction between a formal and a material state? Obviously not. They might be schismatics in a non-canonical informal sense here, in the sense that they are de facto separated from papal authority. But if the schism is not formal—if it is not a canonical schism in the sense of Canon 751—then there are no canonical effects. The only canonical effects proceed from having consecrated bishops without a papal mandate. There might be other canonical consequences attached to clerics who act without faculties, but that is beside the point. That flows from the suppression of the Society in 1975 and the suspension a divinis of 1976.

    You have no idea why Bishop de Castro Mayer was not declared to be excommunicated, unless you can read the minds of dead popes.

    Then you write this: “Yes, and that danger clearly would not exist, so there would have been no need for such a warning, if there were not a formal schism.” No, that interpretation is false. He could be warning them not to fall into a formal schism by attempting to erect jurisdictions and then adhere to them. The P.C.E.D. has made it very clear in one statement in particular. I will have to search to find it for you. It said essentially what Cardinal Castrillón said but with more precision, and it was released in February or March of 2009. It said that the consecrations were a schismatic act and that they incurred a danger in that one could fall gradually into schism by “imbibing” (their word) a schismatic mentality. But this is only a description of what might happen over time, given past examples. Certainly the leaders and the vast majority in the S.S.P.X have not fallen into schism because they do not deny papal or episcopal authority in principle and do not claim to adhere to their own ecclesial jurisdictions. In fact, they all pray for the Pope and the local Bishop in the Ordinary of the Canon at each Mass they offer.

    Then you write this: “I’m not so sure that the current pope [sic] would agree with that statement.”Well, I am. In the dispute with a certain Archbishop Müller of Regensburg in 2009, Bishop Fellay said publicly that the Pope had told Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos that “he [the Pope] did not believe” that they were in a state of schism. But who are the Pope and the President of the competent body in this matter next to ‘Norm’?

    The I.B.P.? You don’t know who they are? The Institute of the Good Shepherd. They left the S.S.P.X to come under obedience in 2006. Your point about the F.S.S.P. is risible. Its members had left legitimate authority many years before the time of the consecrations and had been operating without faculties. When these people were reconciled, they were not asked to make a Profession of Faith. Every schismatic, heretic and apostate must make such a profession before he can exercise ministry in the Church. Where are you coming from? Moreover, how long one has been in schism, a second or a lifetime, is immaterial; and the I.B.P. priests, six in number in 2006, were NEVER asked to make a Profession of Faith, as are ALL schismatics upon reconciliation. How do you explain that inconvenient little fact, Norm.

    Your ignorance on marriage law is also troubling. We are writing here about the validity of supposedly CATHOLIC marriages. There must be Catholic witnesses. Schismatics are not Catholic witnesses.
    Doctrinal errors pertain to heresy, not schism. So your point there is—pointless. Doctrinal error does not make one a schismatic; it makes one a heretic. My point about John Paul II’s statement stands. He merely pointed to the root of schismatic act—one which did not cause formal schism—as doctrinal.
    I’ll answer the part of Msgr. Steenson separately.

    P.K.T.P.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      Peter,

      You wrote: Norm, are you a canonist? Obviously not.

      Correct, I am not a “canonist” — but the Catholic Church does not use that title, so it has no meaning.

      I also am not a canon lawyer, but I do have both (1) some training in canon law and (2) regular contact with a canon lawyer, with whom I discuss issues to which I do not know the answer.

      You wrote: It is not a state of organisations per se. A group can only be in schism if all its members are, but “Eccesia Dei Adlicta” never says that. On the contrary, from 5c of that motu proprio and the fact that only five individuals are mentioned as having participated in a schismatic act, it is quite evident that the S.S.P.X is not in schism.

      Wrong. When a bishop enters into schism, he takes those who continue to follow him into schism with him. In the “Great Schism,” all of what we now know as the Orthodox Communion followed the Patriarch of Constantinople into schism. The difference, in the case of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), is that the organization is a “pious society” of which only clergy are formally “members” rather than a diocese whose “members” encompass both clergy and laity.

      You wrote: Then we get this gem: “the penalty carries with it immediate suspension of orders”. No, sacramental orders are inscribed in the soul and are indelible.

      In that case, perhaps you would like to speak to Pope Benedict XVI about fixing the Codex Juris Canonici (Code of Canon Law) promulgated by his predecessor.

      Can. 1333 §1. Suspension, which can affect only clerics, prohibits:

      1/ either all or some acts of the power of orders;

      2/ either all or some acts of the power of governance;

      3/ the exercise of either all or some of the rights or functions attached to an office.

      Yes, the orders are indellible, but the canonical censure forbids their exercise. Further, Pope Benedict XVI affirmed this as regards the clergy of the SSPX in the motu proprio Eccesiae unitatem.

      4. … However, the doctrinal questions obviously remain and until they are clarified the Society has no canonical status in the Church and its ministers cannot legitimately exercise any ministry.

      You wrote: Moreover, how long one has been in schism, a second or a lifetime, is immaterial; and the I.B.P. priests, six in number in 2006, were NEVER asked to make a Profession of Faith, as are ALL schismatics upon reconciliation. How do you explain that inconvenient little fact, Norm.

      Not having been there, I don’t know what was or was not done.

      But I do know that anybody received back into full communion during a mass would have made a profession of faith as part of the reception during that mass. Perhaps you missed it.

      You wrote: Your ignorance on marriage law is also troubling. We are writing here about the validity of supposedly CATHOLIC marriages. There must be Catholic witnesses. Schismatics are not Catholic witnesses.

      Again, the present (1984) Codex Juris Canonici carves out explicit exceptions to this norm.

      Norm.

      Norm.

      • Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

        Norm, your real problem is that you want the S.S.P.X to be in schism, even though the Pope, according to Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, and I quote, “does not believe that they are”, and the President of the P.C.E.D. said that they are not. The Orthodox went into schism for the reason John Paul II warned of in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta: they came to adhere to a formal schism. You do not automatically enter into schism with a Bishop unless he be a diocesan bishop who has set up or claims to continue a juridical structure. The Society bishops have never claimed to have done that. They are not bishops of sees, unlike the Orthodox; they are only episcopi vagantes. Your error: false analogy. It’s a standard fallacy of reasoning.
        The Church does not use the term canonist? Of course she does. The Canon Law uses such ordinary terminology all the time. Compare Canon 17 for proof of this right *in* the Code.

        Next, like a real amateur, you confuse the powers of orders with the right to their use. These are two completely separate categories. You go fishing in the Code in the hope of finding a text that will bite. It only bites the fisherman. Then you find that you can prove a point about the exercise of ministry which I never disputed or would want to dispute. A classic ignoratio elenchi. That’s another classic fallacy. You manage two over just two paragraphs. That’s quite an achievement. On the right of use of clerical powers, the Society claims a right arising from a case of necessity. This is not some vain invention but a standard canonical argument. It definitely did apply in the case of some Eastern European prelates who were consecrated bishops (for example) without papal mandate behind the Iron Curtain in the 1940s and 1950s. Some of these bishops are still alive today, and Rome recognises their former cases of necessity. You could consult Cardinal Korec about it. He’s one of them. Of course, the fact that such an argument is there does not mean that the Society case is legitimate. Pope Benedict XVI has responded shortly to this argument of Ecclesia supplet. He said that it can no longer apply because he is trying to address the problem in the Church. On another occasion, however, he said that the argument has a certain force in the case of some countries in Europe.

        The Internet is full of people like you. They want something to be true and think that they can make it true by quoting whatever they can find. The P.C.E.D. has competence in this matter, not you, and it has said on several occasions that there is no formal schism. Did you get that? The Pope told the President of the P.C.E.D. that he does “not believe” that there is a schism. But that’s not good enough for you. In trying to argue for the Pope, you disagree with his own position.

        On the I.B.P. and F.S.S.P. and on marriage, your ignorance is astounding. These objections are not mine but have been raised time and time and time again by others. I merely repeat them. If Society clerics were considered by Rome to be schismatics, their marriages would not be treated as valid by the ecclesiastical courts (e.g. in cases of anulment) and, when their priests reconcile with Rome, each would be required to make a profession of faith. There is no formal schism, and your vain attempt to create one is useless. It may be the case that some of them have fallen into schism by imbibing a schismatic attitude but the law does not assume that of anyone unless it becomes manifest. That is a matter of natural justice.

        What you need is a valid argument against the S.S.P.X. There most certainly is one but you have failed to find it, and you won’t find it by fishing in the Code or on the net. Write to me privately at and I will tell you want it is. They you will know what to say on blogs when dealing with S.S.P.X supporters. I am not an S.S.P.X supporter, although I do sympathise with the Society.

        P.K.T.P.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Peter,

        The Orthodox went into schism for the reason John Paul II warned of in Ecclesia Dei Adflicta: they came to adhere to a formal schism.

        Here, you are missing a very significant nuanc. In order to “adhere to” a formal schism, there must already be a formal schism to which to adhere.

        So what event, do you suppose, created the formal schism in the first place? Do you suppose that it might have been the mutual excommunications/anathemas that the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople pronounced against each other in 1054 AD?

        You wrote: You do not automatically enter into schism with a Bishop unless he be a diocesan bishop who has set up or claims to continue a juridical structure.

        I’m not so sure that this is true, but doesn’t a religious society have a juridical structure of its own?

        You wrote: The Canon Law uses such ordinary terminology all the time.

        Really? Where?

        Here are the references that I find pertaining to officials of tribunals (boldface added).

        [Can. 1420] §4. Both the judicial vicar and adjutant judicial vicars must be priests, of unimpaired reputation, doctors or at least licensed in canon law, and not less than thirty years of age.

        [Can. 1421] §3. Judges are to be of unimpaired reputation and doctors or at least licensed in canon law.

        Can. 1435 It is for the bishop to appoint the promoter of justice and defender of the bond; they are to be clerics or lay persons, of unimpaired reputation, doctors or licensed in canon law, and proven in prudence and zeal for justice.

        Can. 1483 The procurator and advocate must have attained the age of majority and be of good reputation; moreover, the advocate must be a Catholic unless the diocesan bishop permits otherwise, a doctor in canon law or otherwise truly expert, and approved by the same bishop.

        Note that the terms “doctor” and “license” here respectively refer to pontifical academic degrees of Doctor of Canon Law (JCD) and Licenciate in Canon Law (JCL).

        You wrote: Compare Canon 17 for proof of this right *in* the Code.

        Okay.

        Can. 17 Ecclesiastical laws must be understood in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their text and context. If the meaning remains doubtful and obscure, recourse must be made to parallel places, if there are such, to the purpose and circumstances of the law, and to the mind of the legislator.

        No mention of “canonists” there, either.

        The Codex Juris Canonici (Code of Canon Law) does provide for “chapters” of “canons,” but their function has nothing whatsoever to do with canon law. Note the following canon.

        Can. 503 A chapter of canons, whether cathedral or collegial, is a college of priests which performs more solemn liturgical functions in a cathedral or collegial church. In addition, it is for the cathedral chapter to fulfill the functions which the law or the diocesan bishop entrusts to it.

        You wrote: Next, like a real amateur, you confuse the powers of orders with the right to their use.

        No, I fully understand the difference. Rather, it is you who misconstrued my earlier use of the term “suspension” — which is the precisely the term used in the Codex Juris Canonici. I quoted the precise canon in an earlier post, so there’s no need to quote it again.

        You wrote: On the right of use of clerical powers, the Society claims a right arising from a case of necessity.

        The pope is the ultimate authority on church law. When the pope has determined that a supposed “necessity” does not exist, there is no basis to claim otherwise.

        You wrote: The Internet is full of people like you. They want something to be true and think that they can make it true by quoting whatever they can find.

        I’m amazed that a “Traditionalist” like you would take a page from the playbook of the political left: that of accusing one’s opponent of doing precisely what one is doing, even though one’s opponent is not doing it. Political “liberals” do that all the time.

        Norm.

  14. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Norm, your points on Msgr. Steenson are confused.
    First of all, ordinariate groups do not celebrate Mass. Mass is celebrated by a priest with the assistance of others, whether or not they belong to any territorial or personal community or to a mixture of such communities. The New Mass in English is not proper to the ‘Ordinariate community’ and yet Msgr. Steenson does not attempt to restrict its celebration by Ordinariate priests.
    Mr. Cavanaugh has correctly pointed out that, a careful examination of Msgr. Steenson’s words shows that he is not forbidding his priests from offering the Traditional Rite of Mass in Latin *as* Ordinariate priests; however, he is clearly discouraging it and in an inconsistent way. He says that the proper idiom of Ordinariate Masses is neither Latin nor vulgar English but sacral English. He then proceeds to recommend the New Mass in vulgar English while he discourages very emphatically the ancient Latin Mass. The ancient Latin Mass is part of the Anglican patrimony because it is the Mass from which that patrimony proceeded in the first place. The New Mass per se (i.e. except insofar as it comes from the Traditional Latin Mass) is not part of that patrimony, for it was composed in committee in 1970.
    The ambiguity in Msgr. Steenson’s statement lies in a deliberate omission. If the local bishop has supervisory power over the T.L.M. [viz. from Canon 838] when an Ordinariate priest offers that Mass outside an Ordinariate sacred place, at the invitation of a non-Ordinariate Parish Priest or proper pastor (cf. Art. 5, S.P. and also passages in U.E.), under whose supervision are those powers exercised when an Ordinariate Parish Priest says the T.L.M. in his own Parish church, for example, or in a church in which he is a rector or proper pastor (e.g. chaplain)? The answer is that the powers would be exercised by Msgr. Steenson himself, since there is no derogation from this in A.C. or in its Complementary Norms (vide esp. Articles I, III, IV of A.C.). So why does he not say this? It is because he is discouraging his priests from exercising their general RIGHT to offer the T.L.M. qua priests of the Ordinariate. He does not say that his priests are forbidden; rather, he says that the T.L.M. is not properly celebrated there and is not “integral” to the Anglican patrimony. On that, he is dead wrong. Of course it’s integral. The prayerbook did have a source.

    I interpret this discouragement as being more than a recommendation. It looks to me more like a threat or a warning; otherwise, why mention it publicly? There will naturally be the fear in some quarters that the liberal establishment in the American episcopate has asked Msgr. Steenson to discourage the T.L.M. Why would this liberal establishment act in such a dastardly way? It is because they fear the universal jurisdiction of Msgr. Steenson within the U.S.A. In effect, Ordinariate priests can circumvent those Latin bishops who have obstructed the T.L.M., men such as Bishop Pepe of Las Vegas. Really, this is all quite silly. There are only about a dozen Ordinariate parishes so far anyway, most no doubt situated in populous sees. More than 145 of the 176 Latin sees in the U.S.A. already have every-Sunday Traditional Latin Masses. My complaint here is not on behalf of Latin Mass supporters: we hardly need the Ordinariate priests in the U.S.A. My regret is more over the way these statements attempt to obstruct the rights of Ordinariate priests. They are our brothers. They are Catholic priests. Leave them alone! Let them be! The ancient Latin Mass is there to help their piety and, as priests of the Latin Church, they have a general right to offer Mass in Latin: “The Eucharistic celebration is to be carried out either in the Latin language or in another language, provided the liturgical texts have been lawfully approved” (Canon 928).

    P.K.T.P.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      Peter,

      First of all, ordinariate groups do not celebrate Mass. Mass is celebrated by a priest with the assistance of others, whether or not they belong to any territorial or personal community or to a mixture of such communities.

      Really?

      The pope seems to see this a bit differently. From the current General Instructions to the Roman Missal (boldface added):

      16. The celebration of Mass, as the action of Christ and the People of God arrayed hierarchically, is the center of the whole Christian life for the Church both universal and local, as well as for each of the faithful individually…

      And again:

      91. The Eucharistic celebration is an action of Christ and the Church, namely, the holy people united and ordered under the Bishop. It therefore pertains to the whole Body of the Church, manifests it, and has its effect upon it. It also affects the individual members of the Church in different ways, according to their different orders, offices, and actual participation. In this way, the Christian people, “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people,” expresses its cohesion and its hierarchical ordering. All, therefore, whether they are ordained ministers or lay Christian faithful, in fulfilling their office or their duty, should carry out solely but completely that which pertains to them.

      You wrote: The New Mass in English is not proper to the ‘Ordinariate community’ and yet Msgr. Steenson does not attempt to restrict its celebration by Ordinariate priests.

      It’s true that the ordinary form of the Roman Rite also is not part of the Anglican patrimony, but two pastoral considerations do recommend in favor of permission for its use in the congregations of the ordinariates.

      >> 1. Some of the congregations coming into the Catholic Church through the ordinariates apparently have been using the current ordinary form of the Roman liturgy for many years. It does not make sense to tell them that they can no longer do so

      >> 2. There is also the reality that members of the ordinariate will sometimes be in situations where the mass will be celebrated according to the ordinary form. Such situations may arise, for example, when they participate in events sponsored by the local diocese in which they are operating or when clergy of the local diocese who are not familiar with the Anglican liturgy provide pastoral services in the absense of their clergy. The best way to prepare members of the ordinariate for such situations may well be to use the ordinary form of the Roman Rite occasionally — perhaps for a few weeks for people to learn it, then perhaps monthly or quarterly to refresh memories — in each ordinariate community.

      But I expect that celebration of the approved Anglican form of the liturgy (currently the Book of Divine Worship as modified) will be the normal practice of most ordinariate communities.

      You wrote: The ancient Latin Mass is part of the Anglican patrimony because it is the Mass from which that patrimony proceeded in the first place.

      It is also a liturgical form that Anglican congregations have not used at all for over four and a half centuries. As such, it is not really part of their tradition/patrimony.

      You wrote: The answer is that the powers would be exercised by Msgr. Steenson himself, since there is no derogation from this in A.C. or in its Complementary Norms (vide esp. Articles I, III, IV of A.C.). So why does he not say this? It is because he is discouraging his priests from exercising their general RIGHT to offer the T.L.M. qua priests of the Ordinariate. He does not say that his priests are forbidden; rather, he says that the T.L.M. is not properly celebrated there and is not “integral” to the Anglican patrimony.

      Here, it’s important to remember that the laws of the Catholic Church are governed by the principles of Roman law rather than the principles of our secular law here in the United States. Under our secular law, the law of a higher authority overrides the law of a lower authority — so federal law overrides state and local law and state law overrides local law. But under Roman law, a “particular” law always overrides a (more) “general” law, the theory being that the more local authority as a more complete understanding of the situation to which the particular law applies than the promulgator of the more general law. Thus, a law enacted by a bishop (or equivalent) to address a particular situation in his diocese (or equivalent) takes precedence over a law promulgated by either the pope or the respective episcopal conference. Further, in any hierarchical organization, the expressed wish of a higher authority is understood to be an order. So if the ordinary “advises” his clergy not to use the Tridentine form in liturgies celebrated for their ordinariate communities, that is pretty much the end of discussion of the subject.

      Norm.

      • Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

        Now we get more classic errors on the part of Norm. These relate to the nature of the Mass. Vatican II has tended to emphasise (some would say overemphasise) the communal aspects of Mass. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that the physical presence of a community is not essential to the Mass. This is admitted indirectly in Canon 906 by the very act of forbidding what must therefore be still valid: a priest is not allowed to offer Mass without a congregation “***unless there is a good and reasonable cause for doing this***”. But the real proof of my point, which you misread, lies in Section 1 of Canon 899. Christ offers Himself “through the ministry of the priest” alone at Mass. That is why the ministerial priesthood is distinct. Liberals in the Church don’t like that nasty little fact, which goes against their communalism (read communism).

        Your next two points on the Mass are inapplicable. The N.O. is the normal form of Mass only for those in the English Ordinariate, not in the American one. Your second example could apply with equal force to events in which Ordinariate priests wish to participate in events at which the T.L.M. is normally used, such as CIEL conferences or pilgrimages. You are fishing again. Moreover, the special event cannot make for a general rule, and yet Msgr. Steenson says directly that the N.O.M. may be used unrestricedly where faithful may prefer a more contemporary idiom.
        Then you argue that the T.L.M. has not been used in the Anglican patrimony for four hundred years. Wrong again. Are you ever right about anything? Ask some priests right here on this blog is this be true. The T.L.M. has been used by Anglo-Catholics, both in the Roman and the Sarum Uses, both in Latin and in English. There is even a Prayerbook published entirely in Latin! What has not been used over the last four hundred years in any continuous tradition is … the Novus Ordo. Msgr. Steeenson tries to find a way to let the N.O. in to the Ordinariates but not the T.L.M . He can’t find one.

        Your last paragraph is so astounding in your ignorance that I don’t know if I should even bother addressing it. It is hilarious. You have heard somewhere about the principle of subsidiarity and have massively misread it. First of all, I wouldn’t know about American secular law: the U.S.A. is a foreign country to me, one I don’t much like, so cut the “us” from your analysis. The particular liturgical laws of bishops cannot override papal decrees: higher laws override lower laws. Read Pastor Æternus! What you mean is that the lower authority is the one of first instance in ecclesiastical law. Your point simply does not apply here. It is irrelevant.

        No, advice is not command. You do understand the distinction, I hope. An Ordinariate priest could certainly stand on his right to offer the T.L.M. as an Ordinariate priest, perhaps as a Parish Priest in an Ordinariate community. The problem is that those priests who do stand on their rights tend to get persecuted for doing so, although the power of the ordinary to persecute them will depend on circumstances. In the Latin Church, when a priest has the temerity to prove his ordinary wrong at law, it is usually found that there is a sudden need for a new chaplaincy for inmates in comas at hospices or for prison chaplains in maximum security institutions. However, I don’t think that Msgr. Steenson has the manpower he needs to mistreat his priests, and I see no evidence that he is the sort of man who would do this. So far, I am told by reliable sources that he is a good man who would not do such things. I fear that what he is issuing is a polite warning and that it is coming from the liberal establishment in the U.S.A. You, Norm, being new to this, don’t seem to fathom how vile the liberal prelates are. You seem to have no idea. No worries. You will learn the lesson by direct experience to come. My only hope is that the worst of them will be gone over the next ten years. The ageing liberal prelates would appear to be on their way out.

        P.K.T.P.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Peter,

        Now we get more classic errors on the part of Norm. These relate to the nature of the Mass. Vatican II has tended to emphasise (some would say overemphasise) the communal aspects of Mass.

        Really?

        If you don’t accept what the pope wrote in the General Instructions to the Roman Missal, how about what the pope wrote in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (citations removed; whole section on Vatican’s web site)?

        The celebrants of the sacramental liturgy

        1140 It is the whole community, the Body of Christ united with its Head, that celebrates. “Liturgical services are not private functions but are celebrations of the Church which is ‘the sacrament of unity,’ namely, the holy people united and organized under the authority of the bishops. Therefore, liturgical services pertain to the whole Body of the Church. They manifest it, and have effects upon it. But they touch individual members of the Church in different ways, depending on their orders, their role in the liturgical services, and their actual participation in them.” For this reason, “rites which are meant to be celebrated in common, with the faithful present and actively participating, should as far as possible be celebrated in that way rather than by an individual and quasi-privately.”

        1141 The celebrating assembly is the community of the baptized who, “by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated to be a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, that . . . they may offer spiritual sacrifices.” This “common priesthood” is that of Christ the sole priest, in which all his members participate:

        Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that full, conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy, and to which the Christian people, “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people,” have a right and an obligation by reason of their Baptism.

        1142 But “the members do not all have the same function.” Certain members are called by God, in and through the Church, to a special service of the community. These servants are chosen and consecrated by the sacrament of Holy Orders, by which the Holy Spirit enables them to act in the person of Christ the head, for the service of all the members of the Church. The ordained minister is, as it were, an “icon” of Christ the priest. Since it is in the Eucharist that the sacrament of the Church is made fully visible, it is in his presiding at the Eucharist that the bishop’s ministry is most evident, as well as, in communion with him, the ministry of priests and deacons.

        1143 For the purpose of assisting the work of the common priesthood of the faithful, other particular ministries also exist, not consecrated by the sacrament of Holy Orders; their functions are determined by the bishops, in accord with liturgical traditions and pastoral needs. “Servers, readers, commentators, and members of the choir also exercise a genuine liturgical function.”

        1144 In the celebration of the sacraments it is thus the whole assembly that is leitourgos, each according to his function, but in the “unity of the Spirit” who acts in all. “In liturgical celebrations each person, minister or layman, who has an office to perform, should carry out all and only those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the norms of the liturgy.”

        This is precisely the doctrine taught by the magisterium of the Catholic Church, to which Anglicanorum coetubus stipulates that those coming into the Catholic Church to form ordinariates must adhere.

        You wrote: The particular liturgical laws of bishops cannot override papal decrees: higher laws override lower laws.

        No, that is utterly wrong. In particular, note Canon 20 of the Codex Juris Canonici.

        Can. 20 A later law abrogates, or derogates from, an earlier law if it states so expressly, is directly contrary to it, or completely reorders the entire matter of the earlier law. A universal law, however, in no way derogates from a particular or special law unless the law expressly provides otherwise.

        To understand how this works, you need only look at the holy days of obligation in your country. The universal law of the Catholic Church actually stipulates that twenty-two solemnities in the general calendar are holy days of obligation, but particular law promulgated by various episcopal conferences has reduced the number considerably — to five in most dioceses of the United States (six in the dioceses located in the states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska), three of which are automatically dispensed when they fall on Saturday or Monday, and to two (Christmas and Epiphany) in Canada.

        You wrote: No, advice is not command. You do understand the distinction, I hope.

        Yes, I understand the distinction — and I also understand the reality. When a bishop “suggests” to a pastor to handle a situation in his parish in a particular way, I can assure that it is NOT optional.

        You wrote: In the Latin Church, when a priest has the temerity to prove his ordinary wrong at law, it is usually found that there is a sudden need for a new chaplaincy for inmates in comas at hospices or for prison chaplains in maximum security institutions.

        I rather would have expected a sudden urgent need for a priest to celebrate mass for missions serving refugees in Sub-Sahran Africa or some other place where Christians are not readily tolerated. Can you say M-A-R-T-Y-R-D-O-M?

        You wrote: You, Norm, being new to this, don’t seem to fathom how vile the liberal prelates are.

        Rather, I understand full well. Perhaps you do not realize that I saw it close up while serving as a naval officer stationed within the Archdiocese of Seattle when Archbishop Raymond Hunthousen was wreaking havoc there.

        But I have also seen instances in which arch-conservative bishop have caused problems that were every bit as bad. I’m not aware of any liberal bishops who rejected the infallible documents of the Second Vatican Council, as Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre did, or who formed clerical societies to disobey the pope, as both Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antônio de Castro Mayer did.

        Norm.

    • wayfarer says:

      I’d like to reply to one of your points that you keep making, that the ordinary form of the mass is not proper to the Ordinariate. Unfortunately, the Congregation for Divine Worship disagrees with you, which is why Msgr. Steenson includes it in his statement. This is because in the original BDW, it allowed for the celebration of a Rite 1 “traditional” language liturgy, and a Rite 2 “modern” language liturgy.

      When the Ordinariates were created , they were told that since the ordinary form of the liturgy had been revised in such a way that the Congregation believes it to be substantially similar to the Rite 2 BDW liturgy, that Ordinariate communities have been instructed to use the OF rather than the Rite 2 liturgy found in the BDW.

      So, at least according to the Congregation, Ordinariate communites are given the choice to celebrate either Rite 1 BDW, or the revised ordinary form. Msgr. Steenson’s statement is simply a reflection of the instruction he and the Ordinariates were given by Rome. Thus, his statement that the OF is allowed in Ordinariate parishes is entirely appropriate, and in keeping with the direct instructions he was given.

      • Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

        Wayfarer:

        I was aware of your point about Rite I. I was referring to the point made by Msgr. Steenson in his comments. He writes or says that the proper idiom of the Ordinariates (referring to the Anglican patrimony) is not Latin and not vulgar English but specifically sacral English, and yet he later invites those who want vulgar English to attend Ordinariate Masses in accordance with the New Roman Mass. To clarify, the New Mass may be part of the B.D.W. but it is definitely not part of the Anglican patrimony, so, while he’s busy safeguarding his patrimony, I suggest that he discourage the use of the New Roman Mass and not discourage the T.L.M., which IS part of the Anglican patrimony; namely, as its root.

        Look, he’s trying to find a way to include the New Mass in conversational English while excluding the Traditional Latin Mass and yet, to justify this, he seems to be setting up an ideal of sacral English. The fact remains that, in law, he has no authority whatsoever to prevent his own Ordinariate priests from offering the T.L.M. as Ordinariate priests and in their communities. The right to supervise such celebrations does not belong to the local bishops; it belongs to him. While he does have a right to ensure that celebrants know the rubrics and can pronounce and understand the Latin words, those celebrants are not required at law even to inform him that they are offering that Mass.
        P.K.T.P.

  15. EPMS says:

    If I were Mrs Gyapong, I would comment “I rest my case.” But I would have omitted the ” alas ” in the previous comment. Silence is leaden, not golden, in this context.

  16. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Dear ‘Norm’:

    I don’t know who ‘Peter’ is. Just call me Mr. Perkins. Your endless quotes from the Catechism are a colossal ignoratio elenchi, yet again, since I never even suggested that Mass not a communal act. What I did write stands: the Sacrifice is effected by the priest alone and does not require the physical presence of a community. That fact is proved by the Canon I quoted. Were I wrong, a Mass said by a priest solo would not be valid. Canon 906 (not to mention common sense) proves otherwise.
    Your quotation of Canon 20 does not apply. Again, it does not prove the point you ascribe to it. Obviously, the law passed by a lower authority does not override a law passed by a higher one. For example, a local bishop cannot pass a law by his own authority which abrogates a papal decree or derogates from it. Your attempt to dispute this is insane. You are really trying my patience. Try reading Canon 331 if you cannot find the parallel passage in Pastor Æternus, which is also the Magisterium speaking. If you need a dictionary to look up the term ‘supreme’, just let me know. Only the Pope has authority which is supreme. Canon 333 §1: “By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only has power over the universal Church but also has pre-eminent ordinary power over all particular churches and their groupings.” Section 3: “There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgement or a decree of the Roman Pontiff”. It is true that, under the principle of subsidiarity, the lower authority is normally the authority of first instance, although the Pope also has immediate authority in each see (cf. Canon 332) and can always exercise it freely as well.

    The episcopal conference can only reduce the number of holydays of obligation because the supreme law of the Pope allows for this in the Code of Canons. This requires the PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE HOLY SEE: “However, the episcopal conferences may, with the prior approval of the Apostolic See, suppress certain holydays of obligation or transfer them to a Sunday” (Canon 1246, §2). Why are you wasting my time to point out the obvious to anyone who knows even the first thing about the law of the Church?
    Then you make another massive blunder. Nobody in the S.S.P.X has defied the infallilble pronouncements of Vatican II because Vatican II was ONLY infallible when it repeated previous Church teaching. Round and round the mulberry tree we go again with you. All the new teachings of Vatican II are NON-INFALLIBLE. Must I quote yet again the statement of the Doctrinal Commission at the Council, which was included with L.G. and approved by the Pope? Get it into your head: nothing new in Vatican II is infallible. That means that it is not impossible that there are even doctrinal errors in Conciliar documents. I’m not saying that there are any but there may be. Only the Magisterium can say so definitively. However, if faithful think that a conciliar document contradicts an infallible teaching, they are bound to follow the latter, not the former. And if they think that a conciliar teaching contradicts a non-conciliar authentic teaching which is also non-infallible, they are permitted to follow the latter and ‘withhold assent’ from the former. In addition to doctrinal error, there can also be serious expressive error in conciliar teachings, such that their ambiguity leads souls astray. Thirdly, there can be serious errors in translation (as there are in an important passage from Nostra Ætate) from the Latin to the *official* Church-approved translations. We are only bound in conscience to accept the Latin text and NOT approved and official vernacular translations.
    Unlike you, I do not assume that Msgr. Steenson will persecute those of his priests who offer the T.L.M. *as* Ordinariate priests. I think, rather, that he is warning them that this would displease him. With a kinder ordinary, it is more a matter of not being considered for promotion rather than having one’s current office removed or being assigned to a lesser office. I think that he is merely letting his priests know what he would prefer. Those who wish to do well in his Ordinariate would be wise, in general, to avoid displeasing him on as many matters as they reasonably can do. I have no reason to think that he is a nasty man who will do bad things, and I don’t think that. Still, I think that his priests should not feel pressured even a little to avoid celebrating the T.L.M. It is the root of their own liturgical patrimony. They should feel welcome to offer it in addition to Anglican Use Masses. Priests in good standing may normally offer three Masses on a Sunday and even five Sunday Masses if you count anticipated Masses. There is plenty of room for both. Some A.U. priests may want to offer the T.L.M. to advance their own piety in different ways. It is completely legitimate and entirely positive to do so.
    P.K.T.P.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      Peter,

      You wrote: Your endless quotes from the Catechism are a colossal ignoratio elenchi, yet again, since I never even suggested that Mass not a communal act. What I did write stands: the Sacrifice is effected by the priest alone and does not require the physical presence of a community. That fact is proved by the Canon I quoted.

      Oh, such doublespeak! Why can’t you just accept the fact that your statement is not consistent with the teaching of the magiserium of the Catholic Church?

      You wrote: That fact is proved by the Canon I quoted. Were I wrong, a Mass said by a priest solo would not be valid. Canon 906 (not to mention common sense) proves otherwise.

      This is not so conclusive as you suggest. The Codex Juris Canonici (code of canon law) is NOT a theological document.

      That said, there are two considerations that cut against what you suggest.

      >> 1. The General Instructions to the Roman Missal (GIRM) effectively forbids this by permitting only (1) a mass with a congregation, (2) a concelebrated mass, and (3) a mass a which only one minister participates. There is no provision whatsoever for a mass without a minister to assist the principal celebrant and to make the responses.

      >> 2. The anaphora (“eucharistic prayer”), which consecrates and transforms the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, begins with a dialog, and the nature of a dialog intrinsically requires two people. Thus, it would be impossible to pray the anaphora without the participation of a second person.

      So in any case, the question is moot.

      Obviously, the law passed by a lower authority does not override a law passed by a higher one. For example, a local bishop cannot pass a law by his own authority which abrogates a papal decree or derogates from it.

      No, this is not so obvious as you think. The Roman legal tradition is not the same as the English legal tradition in this regard. In the Roman legal tradition, particular law always takes precedence over general law.

      But please, do NOT take my word for this. Rather, go and ask the question of a canon lawyer, or even of the pastor of your local Catholic parish.

      You wrote: Try reading Canon 331 if you cannot find the parallel passage in Pastor Æternus, which is also the Magisterium speaking. If you need a dictionary to look up the term ‘supreme’, just let me know. Only the Pope has authority which is supreme. Canon 333 §1: “By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only has power over the universal Church but also has pre-eminent ordinary power over all particular churches and their groupings.” Section 3: “There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgement or a decree of the Roman Pontiff”. It is true that, under the principle of subsidiarity, the lower authority is normally the authority of first instance, although the Pope also has immediate authority in each see (cf. Canon 332) and can always exercise it freely as well.

      The fallacy here is a misapplication of the principle of subsidiarity. A Catholic diocese located elsewhere is not a “subsidiary” of the Diocese of Rome, nor is there a legal relationship of subsidiarity between the Roman See and another diocesan see. Rather, each diocese is a “particular church” in its own right, and the authority of a diocesan bishop is both ordinary and immediate, both (1) within his own diocese and (2) over his own subjects.

      It’s true that the Pope can override particular law if he chooses to do so — but he does so by reserving the matter to himself (or to “the apostolic see”). Unless and until he does so, particular law is what governs.

      But, again, please discuss this with a canon lawyer, or at least with the pastor of your local parish, before you respond.

      You wrote: Then you make another massive blunder. Nobody in the S.S.P.X has defied the infallilble pronouncements of Vatican II because Vatican II was ONLY infallible when it repeated previous Church teaching.

      Wrong. The dogmatic constitutions promulgated by the Second Vatican Council, Lumen gentium and Dei verbum, are intrinsically infallible by the very nature of a dogmatic constitution. Note that this is also what makes the dogmatic constitution Pastor aeturnus promulgated by the First Vatican Council infallible.

      You wrote: Must I quote yet again the statement of the Doctrinal Commission at the Council, which was included with L.G. and approved by the Pope?

      If such a statement were relevant to the understanding of Lumen gentium, don’t you think that the Vatican would post it with Lumen gentium on its web site?

      No, it’s not there — neither in the document itself (link above) nor in the index of documents of the Second Vatican Council.

      I don’t know where you are getting this nonsense, but it clearly is NOT from any Catholic seminary, school of theology, or theologican. If you are getting it from somebody in the Society of St. Pius X or from some other hard core “traditionalist” group, such individuals clearly are not competent Catholic theologicans.

      You wrote: In addition to doctrinal error, there can also be serious expressive error in conciliar teachings, such that their ambiguity leads souls astray.

      I don’t know to what supposed “expressive error” you are referring, but my experience in the past is that supposed “expressive error” is usually in fact deliberate double entendre — that is, multivalent wording in which all of the meanings are intended. The Word of God is both sacred scripture and the second persona of the trinity (that is, Jesus), the Body of Christ is both the People of God (that is, the Church) and the eucharistic Bread of Life, etc. It’s only when one understands both senses that one truly understands the theological teaching correctly.

      Note that this is also true of much contemporary liturgical music.

      You wrote: Thirdly, there can be serious errors in translation (as there are in an important passage from Nostra Ætate) from the Latin to the *official* Church-approved translations. We are only bound in conscience to accept the Latin text and NOT approved and official vernacular translations.

      Yes, it is true that, canonically, the Latin text is what binds if there is a disparity. Nonetheless, the Vatican’s translators vet translations of official texts into major vernacular languages very thoroughly, so the odds of a significant disparity in an English translation are petty slim.

      But having said that, what do you believe to be mistranslated in Nostra Aetate?

      BTW, note that I do not hold the declaration Nostra Aetate to be intrinsically infallible in its own right. Nonetheless, it clearly reflects the mind of the magisterium and thus guides correct understanding of No. 16 of Lumen gentium.

      You wrote: Unlike you, I do not assume that Msgr. Steenson will persecute those of his priests who offer the T.L.M. *as* Ordinariate priests.

      Rather, I doubt that the Monsignor will persecute anybody. You obviously mistook a tongue in cheek comment to be an assumption of intent.

      You wrote: I think, rather, that he is warning them that this would displease him. With a kinder ordinary, it is more a matter of not being considered for promotion rather than having one’s current office removed or being assigned to a lesser office. I think that he is merely letting his priests know what he would prefer.

      I doubt that this has anything to do with his preference. Rather, I think that it is what he was merely stating his opinion as to what will best serve the preponderance of the ordinariate communities, as is his prerogative as its ordinary. It seems unlikely that the ordinariates will receive communities that would warrant an exception, but I also think that Msgr. Steenson probably would agree to an exception if there is one.

      You wrote: Still, I think that his priests should not feel pressured even a little to avoid celebrating the T.L.M.

      Back up a step. When celebrating a mass with a congregation, every priest has an obligation to do what is best, pastorally, for that congregation. Here, Archbishop Pendergast’s efforts to learn the mass of the Book of Divine Worship so he could use it in the reception of the members of the present Sodality of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Ottawa are really exemplary. I doubt that anybody would have complained if he had simply celebrated the mass according to the present ordinary form of the Roman Rite, with considerably less effort, but he put the congregation’s needs first. I understand your fondness for the Tridentine form of the liturgy, but I doubt that any of the ordinariates will have any communities for which it would be an appropriate choice. Rather, I think that the approved Anglican form (currently the Book of Divine Worship) will be the norm in the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter.

      Now, when celebrating mass without a congregation, this consideration does not enter the picture.

      You wrote: Priests in good standing may normally offer three Masses on a Sunday and even five Sunday Masses if you count anticipated Masses.

      Well, not quite. A priest is not supposed to celebrate more than one mass per day unless there’s a pastoral necessity to do so. This generally excludes the celebration of a mass without a congregation on a day when a priest celebrates a mass with a congregation.

      But as Msgr. Steenson’s statement noted, clergy of the ordinariate are free to celebrate the Tridentine form of mass for a congregation of the local diocese that has requested it, provided that they first receive whatever training they may need to celebrate the Tridentine liturgy properly.

      Norm.

  17. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Norm writes this:

    So what event, do you suppose, created the formal schism in the first place? Do you suppose that it might have been the mutual excommunications/anathemas that the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople pronounced against each other in 1054 AD?
    The Pope excommunicated the Œcumenical Patriarch in 1054 not for consecrating a bishop without a papal mandate but specifically for schism per se. That did not happen in 1988. We’ve been through this.
    Next, you ask if the S.S.P.X has a canonical form. No, it is merely a non-canonical association of priests. The point is that the S.S.P.X has never claimed to create ordinary jurisdictions. This means dioceses and the equivalents mentioned in Canon 368.
    Your endless blather about the term canonist is hilarious. Canonists call themselves that all the time. I never alleged that they have some special named status or title. In English, we call them canonists or canon lawyers. It is not illegal to call them canonists, and that is what Canon 17 refers to in passing. Sorry, there’s no Vatican gaol where I can be detained for calling them canonists.

    No, you claimed in your earlier post that their powers of order (sacramental) were somehow removed by the excommunication. Then you confused the powers of order with their right of exercise. As I pointed out before, the right of exercise was NOT removed by the excommunication but by the suspension a divinis of 1976. One cannot lose what one has already lost.
    Then you write this: The pope is the ultimate authority on church law. When the pope has determined that a supposed “necessity” does not exist, there is no basis to claim otherwise”. You have obviously not seen Section 1 of Canon 144 (and just look at the references for Section 2! Marriage, Penance, Confirmation: all covered) on common error and positive or probable doubt, and while his authority in church law is plenary and supreme, it is not absolute, particularly owing to the fact that unjust ordinances do not make bad law; rather they fail to qualify as law at all (St. Thomas, Treatise on Law, Summa). First of all, the Pope has never ruled on their claim of a case of necessity. Secondly, they are covered by a subjective state in the New Code (ut supra, Canon 144). This is one of the lovely ironies of the situation. The S.S.PX. rejects the New Code and insists on the 1917. Under the 1917, they would have a very hard case indeed. Ironically, it is only under the 1983 Code that they may be off the hook. Fortunately for them, they are subject to the Code they reject!
    It is obvious from what you write that you are not conversant with the Society’s position on the case of necessity. It is a valid position, although not necessarily a correct one. However, the Pope has not judged it to be incorrect. Even if he were to do so, his word in a matter of law does not have the charism of infallibility. My own view is that the Society’s case was valid until 2000, when Rome offered the S.S.P.X a juridical structure but they rejected it. I won’t go into details here. Not worth my time. I do add, though, that in private commentary, the Pope himself once remarked that they may have a case in “some European countries”.
    P.K.T.P.

  18. Clive says:

    I can’t help but mischievously thank the Lord I was only an Anglo-Catholic in England and not in North America, and came into the Catholic church in Canada alone and long before the Ordinariates. It seems that there is a strong tendency among some of the ordinariate stakeholders to insert six legged creatures into themselves. What a spectacle. So, so very sad.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      Clive,

      You wrote: I can’t help but mischievously thank the Lord I was only an Anglo-Catholic in England and not in North America, and came into the Catholic church in Canada alone and long before the Ordinariates.

      If you are a former Anglican, I sincerely hope that you will check out an ordinariate community near you in due course. All Catholics who are former members of any Anglican body are eligible to become part of the ordinariates.

      You wrote: It seems that there is a strong tendency among some of the ordinariate stakeholders to insert six legged creatures into themselves. What a spectacle. So, so very sad.

      Msgr. Steenson seems to be making an effort to ensure that the congregations coming into the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, both here in the United States and in Canada, are rightly motivated individuals who will work together for the common good. Unfortunately, there are several frequent posters on blogs related to the ordinariates who seem to want to hijack the ordinariates to pursue various versions of a “Traditionalist Catholic” agenda, some of which might not be fully Catholic. I’ll refrain from pointing fingers or naming names.

      Norm.

      • Clive Packer says:

        Thanks Norm. Actually I did worship at the TAC Cathedral in Ottawa for about 18 months before becoming a Catholic, although I think before Deborah’s time there. I went to their reception service. But I’m one of those terrible Novus Ordo Forward In Faithers at heart. St Mary Wellingborough was my church in England, and we used the NO for Mass and the Divine Office for Evening Prayer and Benediction, with the very occasional BCP Evensong. I miss the hymns and the smoke but I’m not a liturgical traditionalist, merely uneasy with OOW etc.

      • Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

        Dear Norm:

        I’m not sure why one could name a name. If something already has a name, why give it a new one? If something already has a character, especially one steeped in value, why give it a new value–or disvalue. Anyway, the only programme that I would favour is a preservation of the Anglican patrimony. This includes the Traditional Latin Rite as its root in the Sarum Use and in the Roman Use: a patrimony will tend to include its origin. It also includes the King James Bible and the English Missal and the Anglican Missal and the Prayerbook tradition in its various national versions. It does not include a Mass concocted in committee by liberals more than 400 years after the 1535 separation.

        I wish Msgr. Steenson the best and I pray very hard for unity among the incomers. It would be best if all of them could be juridically united in the Ordinariates. May each personal Ordinary be animated by a true pastoral zeal for his people and a profound respect for Sacred Tradition and for the Anglican Patrimony. Some have been trying to hyjack the ordinariates and turn them into little more than Novus Ordo structures with a Prayer of Humble Access thrown in here and a bunfight and tea added there. I won’t name culprits or identify suspects.

        I hope that the Anglican Patrimony will be preserved under the leadership of Msgrs. Newton, Steenson and Entwistle. That would include the King James Bible, sacral English throughout the liturgy, prayerbook forms, the English or Anglican Missal as guides, the Traditional Roman Offertory and Canon from the English Missal. It would mean discouraging offering Mass according to the New Missal of 1970. Anyone who wants that, in any flavour, can get it here there and everywhere. It is omnipresent, like piped in music in shopping centres and liquor shops.

        P.K.T.P.

  19. Peter Karl T. Perkins says:

    Mr. Packer:

    Your perspective is an interesting one. As the dust settles on the ordinariates, the question becomes this: Will they become sites for the preservation and cultivation of an Anglican patrimony which is worth fostering, or, on the other hand, will they become merely places incoming Anglicans may enter if they cannot tolerate the liberalism in the Canterbury Communion? I am beginning to wonder what Rome’s plan is for them (or if she even has a plan). Are they only structures meant to be holding cells for Anglican refugees from the Canterbury catastrophe? The other option, the one I favour, is that they become places where an Anglican patrimony can blossom and develop in continuity with its roots in the Roman Rite and its Sarum Use and through its trunk in the cultural patrimony of Anglicanism. I suppose that there might be a compromise between these two ideals. The reason for a compromise is that not everyone is agreed on what comprises the Anglican patrimony. But I think that it is much more than tea and crumpets, and that we can make some concrete affirmations about it.

    P.K.T.P.

  20. EPMS says:

    Part of the answer will depend, I think, on whether the Ordinariate parishes grow, or whether they become merely holding tanks for a small number of Traditionalist Anglicans who needed some kind of support group to finally make their submission to the Holy See. Once the present Pope departs the scene, the Ordinariates will come up for review and this issue will be particularly acute.

    • Clive Packer says:

      As has been well documented there is a very significant difference between England and the other jurisdictions. Many Church of England parishes had been using the Novus Ordo for years and the patrimony consisted more of a musical tradition, a different approach to pastoral work, and a more dignified celebration of the liturgy, with incense and bells and so on. That’s my background. That kind of parish is where I found God in the first place as a young man of 22. The Ordinariate really only represents a change of management, and a safe place away from the innovations of the COfE, not any change in practice.

      In North America there is a totally different situation. The TAC incomers are devoted to their traditional liturgies, they have been independent of their former denomination for many years. I hope that Mgr. Steenson does indeed respect that and that the tradition may flourish. I recognize its value and beauty. The Latin Mass would make no sense to me in an Ordinariate setting, so I support Mgr. Steenson on that issue but I would hope that the TLM is allowed to grow and flourish in the wider church. I don’t think the Ordinariates should be hijacked in the name of that fight.

  21. EPMS says:

    “I hope that Mgr. Steenson does indeed respect [TAC incomers devotion to traditional liturgies] and that the tradition may flourish”. Part of the issue is that the TAC program wasn’t exactly “flourishing” to begin with and the North American TAC denominations, after 30+ years, failed to attract more than a few thousand members. Now the OCSP is starting out with a small fraction of this constituency; in the case of the ACCC, about 10 or 15%. What evidence supports the idea that it has potential for growth?

  22. Clive Packer says:

    EPMS: Ah, yes. One can have all the Latin and patrimony one wants, but if nobody’s in the pews, it profiteth nothing. And fighting in a public and nasty way over what that patrimony is, and the place of Latin in Anglicanism – in 2012! – seems likely to reduce the number of bums on seats, not increase it. It’s turned me right off the Ordinariate, that’s for sure.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s