A friend of mine, Colin Kerr of TheTheologyofDad created a blog aggregator for the Society of Canadian Catholic Bloggers that keeps a running blog roll updating posts by Catholic bloggers in Canada. It is always a source of interesting posts on a variety of subjects.
Surprise, surprise to come across this one listing several “traditionalist heresies” and finding that the controversy over Msgr. Steenson’s remarks on the Traditional Latin Mass is mentioned. My oh my did that controversy reverberate across the blogosphere. Here is one of those heresies from the blog Toronto Catholic Witness:
LiturgicismOnly the mass matters and that must be celebrated in Latin according to the Tridentine Rite. One of the more peculiar expressions of this came in response to Msgr. Steenson’s statement:“But as the Extrordinary Form is not integral to the Anglican patrimony, it is not properly used in our communities. The Ordinariate will remain focused on bringing Christians in the Anglican tradition into full communion with the Catholic Church.”This resulted in a flurry of blog and combox activity. Essentially this places a particular liturgy and its proper celebration above all other considerations. Enthusiasm for the Anglican Ordinariate faded quickly in some circles once it became clear that they were not going to be of much use in promoting the Tridentine Rite. It is quite appropriate for a group to be attached to a particular rite but that should never become an end in itself. Liturgy is a means of grace for the salvation of souls.
I’ve followed with bemusement some of the latest nonsense over at The Anglo-Catholic. There is a certain stripe of Anglo-Catholic (indeed, of Christian) that isn’t happy unless he’s feeling persecuted. Like the 39 Articles, Mgr. Steenson’s remarks about the Extraordinary Form are open to various interpretations! If he just means that the Extraordinary Form isn’t a distinguishing charism of the Ordinariates, then surely that’s fair? But if he has some idea that the EF is not available to the Ordinariates, or that he himself can deny it to priests under his jurisdiction, then he has simply misunderstood the Canon law on this point and can be ignored anyway. (Anglicanorum coetibus, 5, III: “III. Liturgicis haud exclusis celebrationibus secundum Romanum Ritum…” — and we know from Summorum pontificum that there are two forms of the Ritus Romanus.) In a way, I’m with Mgr. Steenson: I don’t care particularly how “traddy” the Ordinariates are. I want to know if they’re going to be ANGLICAN!
AnarchismThe crisis of authority in the Church leads some to believe that bishops are so corrupt that they are without authority and can be ignored. The most typical expression of this error holds that while a person is loyal to the pope, they have no obligation to obey those whom the pope has appointed. This form of bottom up anarchism is especially susceptible to those who have some dispute with their local ordinary. It has the advantage of allowing the person to proclaim their loyalty to the pope while denying the pope any effective means of governing or enforcing obedience in their local situation. This aberration holds to the pope’s teaching authority while denying him universal jurisdiction. The more extreme form of this holds that the pope himself is a heretic, imposter, freemason or otherwise disqualified from holding office, thus denying him both teaching authority and universal jurisdiction.