Change in Anglicanorum coetibus Complementary Norms

Amendment to Apostolic Constitution Complementary Norms Emphasizes Mission to Evangelize

We recently received some very good news from Rome that our Holy Father, Pope Francis, approved on May 31, 2013, a significant modification to the Complementary Norms for Apostolic Constitution, Anglicanorum coetibus, which establishes and guides the work of the Ordinariate.

The modification addresses a particular question of who is eligible for membership in the Ordinariate.  Here is the modification in the Complementary Norms:

5§2:  A person who has been baptized in the Catholic Church but who has not completed the Sacraments of Initiation, and subsequently returns to the faith and practice of the Church as a result of the evangelizing mission of the Ordinariate, may be admitted to membership in the Ordinariate and receive the Sacrament of Confirmation or the Sacrament of the Eucharist or both.

In communicating this modification, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stresses that the objective criterion of an incomplete catechesis is the baptized Catholic who lacks one or other of the Sacraments of Initiation (Confirmation, reception of the Eucharist).  Catholics may not become members of the Ordinariate “for purely subjective motives or personal preference.”

I certainly welcome this development, which further establishes our place in the work of the new evangelization.  Our primary mission remains the reconciliation of Christian people coming from the Anglican tradition who are seeking full communion with the Catholic Church.  Particularly in North America, with large percentages of “unchurched” peoples, it is inevitable that we will encounter those who have no formal ecclesial relationships but who are seekers of truth.  The Great Commission thus becomes more and more the heart of our work.

The episcopal conferences of Canada and the U.S. have been generous and enthusiastic in their support of us in the Ordinariate, as co-workers of the Gospel.  It is heartening indeed to have this formal encouragement from the Holy See.

So let us renew our efforts to commend the Gospel to all people!

– Msgr. Jeffrey Steenson

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to Change in Anglicanorum coetibus Complementary Norms

  1. Pingback: Change in Anglicanorum coetibus Complementary Norms | Catholic Canada

  2. EPMS says:

    While this theoretically widens the net, the typical age for first communion and confirmation in the Catholic church is 8-10.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      EPMS,

      You wrote: While this theoretically widens the net, the typical age for first communion and confirmation in the Catholic church is 8-10.

      The practice varies widely from place to place, as national or regional episcopal conferences have wide latitude to set the policy on normal age for both confirmation and first communion. Here in the States, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has set a very wide range “to be further determined by the diocesan bishop” — with the consequence that practices vary widely from one diocese to the next. And in any case, there are two fundamental models.

      >> One model seeks to retain the original order of the sacraments of initiation, placing confirmation between baptism and first communion. This model was followed everywhere until Pope Pius X decreed that children who have obtained use of reason, normally presumed to be at the age of seven years, should be admitted to holy communion even though not yet confirmed. Proponents of this model tend to place confirmation and admission to communion at a very young age — the age of eight to ten that you cite, and sometimes even younger.

      >> The other model regards confirmation as the embracing of the mature faith of a Christian adult and the acceptance of the responsibilities that accompany such a mature faith even though this breaks the original order of the sacraments. Proponents of this model tend to defer confirmation until sometime in high school, typically at the end of tenth or eleventh grade (approximately the age of sixteen or seventeen), while admitting children to first communion at the end of first or second grade (approximately at the age of seven or eight).

      In places that have adopted the second model, many children drop out of Christian formation completely somewhere between fifth and tenth grades due to schedule conflicts and other demands on their time. Also, the proponents of this model often place substantial barriers in the form of requirements for service projects, retreats, etc., ostensibly to develop and manifest mature Christian faith as prerequisites for confirmation. A significant number of high school students elect not to complete this formation because they simply don’t have time. And with both models, there are many children who are baptized as infants in keeping with family custom but never brought for catechesis and sacramental preparation because their parents are not “practicing” the faith, and there are also a significant number of children who are raised in other Christian denominations after being baptized in the Catholic Church due to unexpected changes in their family circumstances — perhaps the death of the Catholic parent in a mixed marriage, after which they are raised in the church of the non-Catholic parent, or adoption by a non-Catholic family, for example.

      The bottom line here is that this new provision is much more extensive than you might think.

      Norm.

    • Fr Gerard says:

      Actually, the typical age for Confirmation in the Roman Catholic Church is 14 and above. A number of dioceses have it lower and a handful have returned it to the traditional pattern of being before Holy Communion (so at about 7 years of age).
      It is an interesting thought that Catholic parishes typically count all those who are baptised as parish members whilst Anglicans seem to base membership on Confirmation.

  3. Rev22:17 says:

    Deborah,

    The new text, from Msgr. Steenson’s statement: 5§2: A person who has been baptized in the Catholic Church but who has not completed the Sacraments of Initiation, and subsequently returns to the faith and practice of the Church as a result of the evangelizing mission of the Ordinariate, may be admitted to membership in the Ordinariate and receive the Sacrament of Confirmation or the Sacrament of the Eucharist or both.

    This insertion actually does not reflect a change in actual practice, established on “Day One” with the reception of former Anglican bishop John Broadhurst, now a monsignor, back into the full communion of the Catholic Church on 01 January 2010 to initiate formation of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. Msgr. Broadhurst was baptized in the Catholic Church but subsequently raised in the Church of England due to a change in family circumstances.

    The insertion nevertheless does provide useful clarify as to the intent of the references to “sacraments of initiation” in the preceding section.

    Norm.

  4. Andrew Jordan says:

    Does anyone else find it maddening that that our little group, numbering around 1000 in the U.S. and Canada, is fine tuning how to exclude people from joining? You would think we have millions of people.

    Perhaps we can also have an unofficial count, like with the illegal immigrants. The ghost members! People who come to church every Sunday, but cannot be on the books.

    • Ioannes says:

      You 1,000 Catholics, if good and faithful, are preferable to an entire country’s worth of “Nominal Catholics.”

      I sympathize with non-parishioner, “ghost” members. My family is like that. (There’s no canon law requiring registration anyway.) People aren’t not gonna like me anyway. And they’re not gonna change anything on the account of me being a Mrs. Beamish.

  5. Little Flower says:

    May I propose a third model for Initiation?

    Infant Baptism, Paedo-Communion until the age of reason, Confirmation at the beginning of puberty (middle school), and then readmission to the Eucharist after a couple of years of faithful discipleship.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      Little Flower,

      You asked: Infant Baptism, Paedo-Communion until</b? the age of reason, Confirmation at the beginning of puberty (middle school), and then readmission to the Eucharist after a couple of years of faithful discipleship. (boldface in original)

      You can propose anything, but there’s no guarantee that the Vatican will buy into it.

      But with your proposed model, the more fundamental question is what would justify withdrawal of communion from those who have already been allowed to receive it.

      With regard to alternative models of Christian initiation for children, though, the episcopal conference of the Philippines made an interesting proposal about three decades ago. They actually proposed to defer baptism until children reach the age of reason, and then to have children complete the full Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (obviously, adapted to their age) culminating in baptism, confirmation, and first communion at the Easter Vigil. The Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, received the proposal and, surprisingly, did NOT raise theological objections that might have shot it down completely. Rather, he replied that it was not opportune to implement such a practice at that time, without excluding the possibility of doing so in the future.

      Norm.

      • Ioannes says:

        I never heard of this. I was only aware that before a certain point in time (Probably before !-VATICAN 2-!) My parents received the sacrament of Confirmation after Baptism. Then, they got catechized, and received Penance and the Eucharist.

        Maybe if the Anabaptists got to hear such a proposal and the reaction from the CDF, they would get interested and not think people still pay priests to forgive sins or something. Still, we want Anabaptists to become Catholics, not Catholics to become Anabaptists. The problem isn’t so much “Rebaptism” so much as “Well, let’s allow people to live in sin for a while, so they can take it out for a test drive.”

        You know, because eventually cohabitation and premarital sex… “ain’t much of a big deal, according to the Vatican.” Just you wait. (Or well, a lot of you may be already dead, and I would’ve become an old man by the time they start “allowing” cohabitation before matrimony.) You know, because an infant isn’t in mortal danger of Hell because they’re infants and not able to know right from wrong, the same way no one -really- goes to Hell because they don’t know right from wrong, which is why a lot of atheists aren’t going to Hell nor any Muslims- nooo, sir. Original Sin does not exist, the real sin is “ignorance” I guess! Everyone goes to Heaven after all, let’s never go to church again and do whatever we want. It sounds so easy, but it doesn’t sound like Jesus Christ.

  6. EPMS says:

    In any event, the real focus of the modification seems to be that the Ordinariate is not meant to be trying to attract lifelong Catholics who are looking for more traditional worship or better music. I have the impression, possibly erroneously, that Anglican Use parishes such as Our Lady of the Atonement draw a significant percentage of their membership from this contingent. The focus should be 1) former Anglicans 2) the unchurched. It should not be about the Novus Ordo and the esthetic of worship in the typical Catholic parish.

    • Little Flower says:

      Does this have any bearing on non-Anglican Protestants (Methodists, Lutherans, etc) who were reconciled before the Ordinariate existed? Are they allowed to be full members?

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Little Flower,

        You asked: Does this have any bearing on non-Anglican Protestants (Methodists, Lutherans, etc) who were reconciled before the Ordinariate existed? Are they allowed to be full members?

        In the Roman legal tradition that constitutes the foundation of Catholic ecclesial law, permissive laws are always construed broadly while prohibitions and restrictions are always construed narrowly, consistent with “the mind (intent) of the legislator.” As it pertains to formal membership in the ordinariates, this practice has a couple consequences.

        >> 1. Since the Methodist Church spun off the Church of England, the Vatican probably would construe phrases such as “those who came from the Anglican tradition” to include former Methodists.

        >> 2. Those who were received into full communion through the “Anglican Use” personal parishes established under the “pastoral provision” are therefore of the “Anglican tradition” and thus could enroll in the ordinariates.

        Those who come from the Lutheran tradition or from other Protestant traditions not affiliated with Anglican Christianity, who have no connection to the so-called “Anglican Use” parishes, however, enrollment in the ordinariate, an ordinariate parish, or an “Anglican Use” parish established under the pastoral provision is not an option.

        Having said that, I think that the Vatican would be open to establishing personal parishes, and even ordinariates, for those who come to the Catholic Church from the Lutheran and Reformed traditions whenever there are sufficient numbers.

        Norm.

    • Stephen says:

      I think that the distinction being drawn between members of an Ordinariate, and those who attend an Ordinariate (or, for that matter, an Anglican Use) parish is perhaps a trifling distinction that is of no moment to most Catholics, of whatever flavour. I’m an outsider, and cheerfully acknowledge my ignorance in this matter, but it seems to me that a “cradle Catholic” can attend an Ordinariate liturgy, and take full part in an Ordinariate parish, including voting for, and being elected onto, the parish pastoral council. Subject to a proforma approval by the diocesan bishop, two life-long Catholics can marry in an Ordinariate parish, if they can demonstrate a practical connection thereto. One would imagine that a priest of one of the Ordinariates does not require extensive paperwork to be completed before he buries the non-ordinariate dead.

      Could someone who knows these things please explain to me what a common-or-garden Catholic can and cannot do in relation to an Ordinariate? As far as I understand, the list of prohibited activities seems to have but one commandment: Thou shalt not cause thy name to be inscribed upon a piece of paper declaring thyself to be a member of an Ordinariate if thou art not a former Anglican.

      What else?

      • EPMS says:

        Only a member of the Ordinariate can sit on an Ordinariate parish council. Other issues are subject to pastoral discretion, as Stephen points out. But from the Church’s perspective there is not much benefit in having lifetime Catholics, or previously received Anglicans for that matter, leave a diocesan parish to attend an Ordinariate parish. It sets up a competitive model that the Church has always resisted.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Stephen,

        You wrote: I’m an outsider, and cheerfully acknowledge my ignorance in this matter, but it seems to me that a “cradle Catholic” can attend an Ordinariate liturgy, and take full part in an Ordinariate parish, including voting for, and being elected onto, the parish pastoral council.

        Actually, one normally must be a formal member of any parish (that is, reside within its territory or, in the case of a personal parish, fit its field of membership) to serve on its parish council — but diocesan bishops can circumvent this in diocesan parishes by designate all parishes in his diocese as personal parishes that can accept anybody who lives within the diocese as a formal member. In my diocese, the parishes now seem to be both territorial and personal — meaning that anybody can formally enroll as a member of any parish within the diocese. A person who cannot join an ordinariate, however, cannot enroll as a formal member of any parish thereof and cannot take on any role therein that requires formal membership.

        You wrote: Subject to a proforma approval by the diocesan bishop, two life-long Catholics can marry in an Ordinariate parish, if they can demonstrate a practical connection thereto.

        No, technically not — but, again, there is a work-around. Note that (1) most ordinariate congregations are using the church building of a normal diocesan parish and (2) most of the ordinariate clergy have concurrent appointments as parochial vicars of the diocesan parishes that host the respective ordinariate congregations. Thus, two diocesan Catholics can celebrate their marriage in the place where the ordinariate worships with a presbyter of the ordinariate presiding, but it would officially be a marriage in the diocesan parish rather than in the ordinariate parish and the presbyter of the ordinariate who presides officially would be doing so as a parochial vicar of the diocesan parish.

        In the case of ordinariate congregations that have their own church buildings, the matter is considerably more complicated. It’s not clear that diocesan bishops will grant dispensations for celebrations of weddings between diocesan Catholics so routinely.

        You wrote: One would imagine that a priest of one of the Ordinariates does not require extensive paperwork to be completed before he buries the non-ordinariate dead.

        The rules that apply to weddings also apply to funerals. Where the ordinariate congregation shares facilities of a diocesan parish, there’s no problem. Where an ordinariate congregation has its own facilities, diocesan bishops probably will not grant permission very readily.

        Norm.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        EPMS,

        You wrote: But from the Church’s perspective there is not much benefit in having lifetime Catholics, or previously received Anglicans for that matter, leave a diocesan parish to attend an Ordinariate parish. It sets up a competitive model that the Church has always resisted.

        Actually, those who previously came to the Catholic Church from the Anglican tradition are fully eligible to join an ordinariate and an ordinariate congregation if they wish to do so. It is entirely their individual option. And if they elect to join an ordinariate, their spouses and children also may do so.

        Having said that, there actually is compelling reason for diocesan pastors to encourage individuals who previously came into the Catholic Church from the Anglican tradition to join the ordinariate and its local congregation. There’s no question that many of the ordinariate congregations are quite fragile due to their small size and that the addition of those those previously received into the Catholic Church would strengthen the ordinariate congregations and make them more sustainable. And in most cases, the numbers who would leave any one diocesan parish are sufficiently few so their departure would not substantially weaken the diocesan parish. Thus, such transfers really would serve the greater good in most cases.

        Norm.

    • Ioannes says:

      I actually agree with this. It’s more important to save people than to fuss about the complaints made by people who are obedient already anyway. But eventually, when you have people already “in” the Church as a result of their conversion, questions must be asked about what is being said and done and how things are being said and done- because they ARE connected with Salvation, because Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, Lex Vivendi. Fail in this, and people leave. People don’t care about what they don’t know. They don’t care about meaningless things that should have meaning. People who have matured in their faith don’t need play-acting, they need the real thing.

      Rituals are not just “Aesthetics”- they are ordered by actual theological principles and mirror the microcosm of an ordered universe as it is presented in the sacred space and sacred time of the Ritual, known as the Mass, or the Liturgy. Layers and layers of teaching and history codified in the actions, actions that are not mere perfunctory motions, or worse, a form of charlatanry and “magic” tricks like the Hellenic pagans who use technology to make people think Zeus is talking to them. Liturgical dance and all sorts of innovations in the Mass are spiritually related to those pagan charlatans because they have abandoned any objective law to follow and do whatever they want, well intentioned as it may be. (And don’t even say “But Vatican 2 states this” because the Second Vatican Council said a lot of things, and many people selectively choose what they want to enforce- it was designed that way, because of the people who have already infiltrated the Church- that’s another matter.)

      See, that’s the problem with Novus Ordo. “It’s all about aesthetics” which means “all about the senses” -it’s is a false premise, because one cannot really say it’s a Ritual when there’s no characteristic of a Ritual present. Everything is sloppily done, because the Novus Ordo is made to be easy, when the Mass should NEVER be easy. You might as well give priests a mask with face of Jesus Christ on it to wear during Mass, and start baking bread in the shape and texture and taste of flesh and flavoring wine so it tastes like blood.

      Sure, God can hear what’s in your heart whether in Latin, English of all sorts, and Japanese, or whatever. But how will you speak to God? Why bother speaking if God knows everything? God knows you love Him, why bother express it? If God knows “you’re a good man” then why bother converting at all? If God does not need your prayers and Masses or anything you do, why bother doing anything at all? What use is a Church with her rituals, if they’re all somehow irrelevant? At the center of the Church is the Ritual, that is the Liturgy, the center of which is the Eucharist, which we must do in memory of Christ. Without the Eucharist, the Church is an NGO. An atheistic charitable organization. Full of good will, but not a trace of the Living God.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Ioannes,

        You wrote: See, that’s the problem with Novus Ordo. “It’s all about aesthetics” which means “all about the senses” -it’s is a false premise, because one cannot really say it’s a Ritual when there’s no characteristic of a Ritual present. Everything is sloppily done, because the Novus Ordo is made to be easy, when the Mass should NEVER be easy. You might as well give priests a mask with face of Jesus Christ on it to wear during Mass, and start baking bread in the shape and texture and taste of flesh and flavoring wine so it tastes like blood.

        You would be a lot more credible if you would distinguish between the proper celebration of the current ordinary form of the Roman Rite and the abuses that you describe. The abuses are not, and never have been, authorized by any competent authority — and they really do deserve to be condemned as the egregious sin that they are. But your criticisms have no bearing on the current ordinary form.

        Having said that, true liturgical dance actually is authorized as an authentic expression of our faith — but it is also reverent and worshipful. I don’t dispute that dance that is neither reverent nor worshipful, and thus constitutes abuse, has occurred in many places. In the tradition of ecclesiastical law, however, one does not deny legitimate practice in order to stop abuse.

        Norm.

      • Stephen K says:

        [quote] “Why bother speaking if God knows everything? God knows you love Him, why bother express it? If God knows ‘you’re a good man’ then why bother converting at all? If God does not need your prayers and Masses or anything you do, why bother doing anything at all?”[end quote]

        From time to time I am struck by turns of phrase or statements that at first glance purport to make a point but which on closer analysis may be misconceived or infelicitously expressed. If we take the first question, it implies that God’s knowledge is related to our speech, our desire to speak, the object of our speech. The connection is not obvious to me. The relationship of the concept of divine omniscience and human action is in fact at the core of the knotty problem of free will and destiny, and those solutions which make knowledge a determinative cause fail to properly characterise the relationship – namely, that there is little or none. Knowledge causes nothing on the plane of the will. Traditional philosophical psychology – as taught in traditional seminaries – would have them as different and distinct faculties.

        There are a couple of problems with the second question. First, from one side, no-one who is not God knows what God knows, and it is venturing where angels fear to tread to assert with complete confidence that what any of us might feel towards God is love or a love that is adequate in any sense. Secondly, from the other side, even were it the case that (a) we could properly say we love God, and (b) correctly say God knows we love God, as anyone with experience of the challenges of relationship, as child or parent to parent or child, friend to friend, spouse to spouse, lover to lover, love needs expression on all planes and verbalisation – an integral and defining dimension and faculty of humans – is critical to the nurture of love. The verbalisation of love is a very important element of love itself. And if we adopt the view that we think God knows we love God, then it becomes, I think, even more imperative, that we tell God we love Him.

        Different problems afflict the third question. There is indeed an important issue in this whole question of conversion. What is usually meant of course by conversion in this context is a decision to formally affiliate with a particular “other” religion. In a spiritual sense, of course, “conversion” is the turning around from sin and self-worship etc. To deny or imply that this conversion is only co-extensive with the first, and in a particular sense, only co-extensive with an affiliation with the Roman Catholic Church, would, in my opinion, be too narrow a view, considering that most people remain affiliated with the accidental religion or culture of their birth.

        We really have to grasp the nettle of the problem of birth. If God truly willed everyone to be a Roman Catholic, His creative dispensation resembles nothing so much as a cruel, capricious regime, where the vast majority of humans are doomed to go to Hell from the get-go. The Calvinist doctrine of predestination hovers too close to those condemnations of heresy or ignorance. If, on the other hand, all are reconciled to Christ by Calvary, then we have to apply more thought to what is ultimately an unfathomable mystery of grace.

        Our fourth question also applies a faulty causal analysis. God, being God (in the Anselmic sense) certainly does not need anything, including prayers and Masses. But I always thought that the recognition of dependency upon a creative sustaining God by humans would demand that humans give expression to that, whether God needed it or not. The term “latria” implies duty. Duty does not depend on the object’s need, but on the existence of a particular kind of relationship. Whether the relationship is one entirely a product of human imagination or a discoverable reality is beside the point: the fact that one feels subordinate and indebted etc is enough to ground the response.

        I do not, of course, fail to see that these questions appear to have been posed in a rhetorical way, as if characterising the kinds of questions that might be thought to follow on from taking positions like discounting prayers and Masses. I do not know of any person with any religious or spiritual sensitivity who would in practice cease saying, or trying to show, love to God. But they are worth teasing apart, I think, to seek a better and more accurate comprehension of the issues.

      • Ioannes says:

        1. If the Pope can be forgiven for calling some faithful Catholics “Pelagians” you’ll forgive me for disagreeing with how some traitorous “catholics” conduct their liturgies. I am quite sincere about what I ask, if people dismiss the importance of right worship (orthodoxy) and right practice (orthopraxy) as pharisaic.

        2. All that I know, is that God knows all things. (Job 37:16, Psalm 147:5, Matthew 10:30, Hebrews 4:13, 1 John 3:19-20, 1 Samuel 2:3, and many more.) What I know about how it affects my Free Will is that while what I am able to do is based upon my own will, this freedom is a part of the Will of God, which is bound to His Infinite understanding and knowledge of all things. I don’t claim to know what God knows, but what I know is that God is not ignorant of anything. And so, He knows who is a good man and a wicked man from all Eternity, way after the fact that the man has been damned to Hell or received to Heaven or even before he was conceived and born, because from all Eternity He judges us when we leave this crude, physical state of being, and sustains us from the moment we were born and throughout every moment we exists, for indeed God is Existence- He Is that Is. By this level of understanding, no man can judge another man. But a man can judge another man’s actions, because God gave us Laws. Just because Jesus Christ came and even fought the Pharisees and Men of the Law of Moses does not mean we are free of laws like we’re suddenly lawless anarchists. Jesus IS the Law; from Him we derive Law and they have meaning. Leave Christ out, and the Law is changeable according to the whims and preferences of sinful man, whose fallen nature inclines him towards sin, though he is not yet beyond redemption. It was true for the Pharisees in the days of the Lord, it is true for the Pharisees in the ugly churches with female pseudo-priests who support abortion and homosexuality.

        3. God knows everything, even before we say a word, because he knows even the heart of the mute or the mentally ill. But say and chant the words because God gave you the mouth to speak and pray, the will, and the understanding. And so the question becomes “How do we think” and “How do we say” because it is already a given fact that one ought to believe if one knows and recognizes the Truth, and one ought to say if one has the capacity, and while -how- we ought to think, perhaps I’ll never get to the bottom of, what one says ought to reflect what one believes and wills; how one says it is as important as it being said. It’s the way you have to pray. The prayer that comes from the heart is directed towards God. This is a concern for people who are engaged in prayer, to make a link between a mind that understands, even if it is so little, and the heart the loves and believes, even if it so imperfect. Between the faculty that thinks and the will that loves, when it is connected is not a human achievement, but could only come from God.

        4. This is not something that is experienced in the “Novus Ordo” -why-? because it’s obviously manufactured. It’s manufactured! It’s as unnatural and stilted, pretentious, and disjointed as a work of “Modern Art”. I’m not sure how many of you studied Modernism, but it’s a giant gesamtkunstwerk, a total “Work of Art” from your furniture matching your house, matching your car, matching your ideology, matching your religion, matching your relationships, all of which are influenced by industrialization and manufacture. -Influenced by Materialism- you understand now, why the ugly churches match the ugly polyester chasubles, the ugly missal with the ugly songs and the ugly ideologies that gravitate towards them? It’s -gesamtkunstwerk- and so it is plastic and -campy- (When the usage appeared, in 1909, it denoted: ostentatious, exaggerated, affected, theatrical, and effeminate behaviour, and, by the middle of the 1970s, the definition comprised: banality, artifice, mediocrity, and ostentation so extreme as to have perversely sophisticated appeal.- Read Susan Sontag’s “Notes on Camp”)

        5. But it moves beyond aesthetics: the people who were behind such “aesthetic” movements are outright homosexuals or their supporters/sympathizers. Let’s not kid ourselves at the state of seminaries in the 60’s and 70’s. And let’s not pretend that there are NO homosexual bishops who espouse homosexual culture. For even Pope Francis admits they are still a force strong enough to have a “gay lobby” they can shut up anyone they want, like an effeminate man slapping cockroaches to death. I don’t have to tell you what’s happening in the United States and in the World, right now either.

        Let’s not even compare the Novus Ordo to the Mass of St. Gregory. Are we comparing Bugnini and Paul VI to Sts. Basil, Chrysostom, and Pope Gregory?

      • Ioannes says:

        And, Norm,

        Don’t talk so misleadingly as if the the ROMAN Catholic Church allows Liturgical Dance, as if everyone is an Ethiopian Catholic. The exceptions don’t make the rule, Norm. And people in the West have no business talking about “Liturgical Dance” and if they do, they’re diabolically inspired for bringing division and confusion, of glorifying the punishment inflicted on Mankind for their sin at Babel.

        And even if there is “Liturgical Dance” allowed,

        There’s a difference between this, which takes place OUTSIDE the church, AFTER or BEFORE Mass:

        and this, which all the effeminate love for its flamboyance and takes place in the holy place at a holy time (The Lord’s Prayer at Mass) thus polluting it with autolatry:

      • Stephen K says:

        A propos the idea of liturgical dance: I think Norm makes a valid distinction between reverent and irreverent dance. And I think just because dance is not a liturgical choreographic that has formed part of the liturgical tradition in the West it means that it should never be part of it or could not be part of it. Music is an element that is not necessary to the celebration of a Eucharist but it may enhance it and take various forms. It can also be considered beautiful in itself but ultimately distracting to or incongruous with prayerful participation (I have in mind here some non-liturgical works by Mozart or Beethoven, but under certain circumstances, even polyphonic works by e.g. Victoria etc can be detracting elements). I think we have to be wary that our liturgical demands are not grounded solely on cultural prejudice and unfamiliarity.

      • Ioannes says:

        Stephen K

        Chant and Music has been a part of worship since the time of the Temple. DANCE was not. Even if King David danced, it was -outside- the Temple, -outside- the ritual context.

        Dance if you want, don’t do it during Mass.

        Don’t even accuse “Cultural Unfamiliarity and Prejudice” I’m plenty familiar and suited to judge what I know and see, and what I see is unworthy. What makes me judge of it unworthy? Because I am a worshiper. I know how I worship God, what role I play as a layman in the context of the liturgy, and I know my place and the priest’s place. NONE of it involves dancing, or prancing about the Sanctuary. In fact, this is enough reason why there ought to be rails in the sanctuary.

        What is -prejudicial- is the assumption that there should be liturgical dance merely because there is a presence of different cultures in a parish. I remember a conversation between a Japanese prelate and an Italian one: “The chasuble to us is what the Kimono is to you” but the Japanese prelate retorted: “The pajamas to us is what the kimono is to you.” which illustrates the sort of ignorance and presumption of clergy in trying to “inculturate” the Mass. The process of which, loses the mysterious aspect of the Mass in favor of pleasing people in the pews to show how “tolerant” and “diverse” the church is- It becomes an entertainment that which starts off as a spectacle. And that’s not the point of the Mass. That is -never- the point of the Mass.

        Dance does not, cannot, and will NEVER belong to the Roman Church regardless of how many homosexual clerics and “worship directors” or their sympathizers approve of it!

        The Latin tradition is sober and masculine. It exhibits Roman virtues (the word ‘virtus’ contains the root ‘vir’ which means ‘man’). It is not effeminate. It does not worship with the round-about, effeminate, foreign, PAGAN way of dancing. It says the black, and does the red, and it is straightforward. There is no emotionalism in it. All this business of liturgical dance is a symptom of an emasculated church, an effeminate church that is on its way to disintegration as it turns away real men who see their lives as a battle, a struggle against the Evil One, a competition like athletes who impose upon themselves a rigorous discipline for the eternal wreath of Salvation. Liturgical Dance, along with many, many, many other issues linked to an effeminate culture is the reason why you don’t have vocations in the Novus Ordo. At least from men who don’t see the priesthood as a chance to wear a nice dress and play-act on a stage with an audience.

      • Stephen K says:

        Ioannes, I guess your response boils down to four arguments: that dance has no place in the Catholic liturgy because (1) Jewish dance always occurred outside sacred precincts; (2) people often misunderstand the significance of other customs; (3) liturgical dance is mere spectacle and entertainment; (4) liturgical dance is effeminate, foreign and pagan and is promoted by or symbolises homosexuals who like to dress up.

        Considering that I was suggesting that dance – like singing, reciting, reading, processing, lighting candles, even making the sign of the cross – could be reverent or irreverent depending on how they are done, I am afraid I fail to see the relevance of (1) or (2). If something is done reverently, I fail to see how it can be condemned so sweepingly. I think I suggested that just because liturgical dance had not been part of the Catholic custom, it did not mean that it could not ever eventually become part of it, at least on principle. Anything that is ever done or incorporated in a new ritual is either a “continuation” of an older custom, a contemporary vernacular adoption or expression, or a deliberately crafted new design. The passage of time and widespread usage make all three a “tradition”. They cease to be traditions when they fall into disuse for a significant period of time.

        As to (3), I think this simply reflects a failure to distinguish between reverent or appropriate forms and irreverent ones. As is well attested, even Tridentine masses can be irreverent and often were hastily and irreverently celebrated or inattentively attended, by priests and laity respectively. On the other hand, many people attend gorgeously performed Solemn Masses to hear and be uplifted by the polyphony or ceremony: their desire to be uplifted may often be indistinguishable, psychologically speaking from what we might consider being entertained.

        As to (4), its reckless nature speaks for itself. Effeminacy is not the same as Femininity or Femaleness. Both men and women love to dance socially, and there was nothing effeminate about Gene Kelly and Leslie Caron dancing in Paris. Moreover, liturgical dance is, as far as I am aware, often performed by females, not males, and the promotion of female participation is not generally symptomatic of homosexual culture. On the contrary, in my experience, the sanctuaries of traditional liturgy are often populated by a considerable proportion of effeminate or homosexual men which I fear turns your criticism on its head. Indeed, the predilection for “dress-up” can be found in all kinds of context and at all levels of the official Church, particularly amongst those promoting traditional worship.

        And, in any case, I think your criticism is irrelevant. Homosexuals will have been in the Church since the beginning and there will have been, unknown to us, holy priests, bishops and Popes and laity who were homosexual. They have a right to be Christians as you do. The catalogue of sins and failures is open to each and every one of us. What counts, surely, is whether a person reflects upon their condition and tries to serve justice and compassion (to name just a couple).

        I am myself not interested in promoting liturgical dance, but I really don’t see why you find it so difficult to consider the concept of liturgical dance as simply another human form that is not intrinsically unsuitable for worship, but may simply be currently untraditional. You are perfectly entitled to dislike liturgical dance but you fail to demonstrate, in my view, that everyone else should also do so.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Ioannes,

        You wrote: 1. If the Pope can be forgiven for calling some faithful Catholics “Pelagians” you’ll forgive me for disagreeing with how some traitorous “catholics” conduct their liturgies.

        I rather agree with you on the fact that “traitorous” people who call themselves Catholic are a scandal. The question, rather, is that of who is “traitorous” — those who are obedient to the Lord’s will, communicated through the magisterium, or those who ignore it and instead do their own thing. Here, it matters not whether “their own thing” is some innovation implemented without proper sanction or blithe continuation of prior practice when the duly constituted magisterium has directed reforms. Either way, it is abject disobedience to God’s will, as communicated clearly through the magisterium of the church, and thus constitutes SIN.

        You wrote: … “Novus Ordo”…

        You would do your credibility a big favor by expunging this term, which literally means “new order” and nothing more, from your vocabulary. It has no official sanction as a designation for the current ordinary form of the Roman Rite. Rather, it is typically frequently employed by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and its followers to disparage what the magisterium has commended, and thus exposes the schismatic tendencies of those who use it.

        You wrote: … you understand now, why the ugly churches match the ugly polyester chasubles, the ugly missal with the ugly songs and the ugly ideologies that gravitate towards them?

        There is NOTHING WHATSOEVER in the current ordinary form of the Roman Rite that directs construction of “ugly churches” or use of “ugly polyester chasubles” or “ugly songs” or that admits “ugly ideologies” (by which I presume that you mean ideologies that are foreign to Christian faith). In fact, one can celebrate the Tridentine liturgy in exactly the same churches and vestments, with exactly the same songs, as the current ordinary form. This fact is clear proof that the problem in many parishes is NOT the current ordinary form, but rather the utterly clueless clergy who don’t know how to celebrate any form of the liturgy correctly.

        You wrote: Are we comparing Bugnini and Paul VI to Sts. Basil, Chrysostom, and Pope Gregory?

        Are you not aware that the revision of the missal in the 1960’s actually incorporated texts written by St. Basil (the anaphora known as “Eucharistic Prayer IV” actually being a translation of the Coptic “Egyptian Anaphora of St. Basil”), and probably also by St. John Chrysostom and Pope Gregory?

        You wrote: Let’s not kid ourselves at the state of seminaries in the 60′s and 70′s. And let’s not pretend that there are NO homosexual bishops who espouse homosexual culture. For even Pope Francis admits they are still a force strong enough to have a “gay lobby” they can shut up anyone they want…

        Ah, you misconstrue the pope’s remark badly. Very few of the officials in the Vatican are bishops or cardinals. The overwhelming majority, and thus those who would constitute the preponderance of the so-called “purple mafia” of whom the pope spoke, are simple presbyters and monsignori — not bishops — and their decisions are subject to ratification by the cardinals and bishops who are formal members of the respective dicasteries, very few of whom other than the prefect (or equivalent) and secretary actually work in the Vatican.

        You wrote: Don’t talk so misleadingly as if the the ROMAN Catholic Church allows Liturgical Dance, as if everyone is an Ethiopian Catholic.

        No, there are other places where liturgical dance is used routinely in the Roman Rite — including (1) much of southern Africa and (2) the Pacific Islands. It probably also is used, depending upon tribal tradition, in many communities composed predominantly of indigenous Americans.

        You wrote: There’s a difference between this, which takes place OUTSIDE the church, AFTER or BEFORE Mass…

        Are you sure that “this” is not part of a mass celebrated out of doors, either by a congregation that does not have a church or by a parish with a church that’s too small to accommodate the attendance for that particular liturgy?

        You wrote: Even if King David danced, it was -outside- the Temple, -outside- the ritual context.

        This reflects a gross misunderstanding. David actually danced before the arc of the covenant, meaning that it was in the place where the Israelites had gathered to worship, before there was a temple — and he was not exactly wearing elaborate vestments at the time, either. Rather, he was dressed in his “birthday suit.”

        You wrote: I’m plenty familiar and suited to judge what I know and see, and what I see is unworthy. What makes me judge of it unworthy? Because I am a worshiper.

        No, you obviously are not suited to judge what is worthy when you pass judgement that is not consistent with the judgement of the magisterium.

        You wrote: I know how I worship God…

        My guess would be that you worship in a spiritual straightjacket of your own making that limits your options, and thus that you probably worship very poorly.

        The Catholic Church admits a variety of styles and practices in worship, not all of which are the same as yours. The fact that a style or practice is not the same as yours, therefore, does NOT mean that it is improper or unworthy.

        You wrote: It says the black, and does the red, and it is straightforward.

        You need to reread the red. “[Doing] the red” correctly is much more complex and nuanced than you think.

        Norm.

      • William Tighe says:

        “(the anaphora known as “Eucharistic Prayer IV” actually being a translation of the Coptic “Egyptian Anaphora of St. Basil”)”

        Hardly. Do you ever consult original sources, or do you just write whatever you have “heard tell?” (*) As I write this, I have taken down from my shelves, on the one hand, my copy of the OF Missal and, on the other, *Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed* by R. C. D. Jasper and G. J. Cuming (1990, The Lituirgical Press: third edition), as well as, for comparison’s sake, *Twenty-Five Consecration Prayers, with Notes & Introduction* by Arthur Linton (London, 1921: SPCK) — both of which contain the “Egyptian Anaphora of St. Basil.* If you had ever read this anaphora, which manifestly you have not, you would see that “Eucharistic Prayer IV” is a prayer from which chopped, filleted, sliced and diced bits from the Basil anaphora have been mixed with newly-composed stuff, and the order of some of the bits rearranged in the process (e.g., the epiclesis being moved from after the Words of Institution to before them). The late curialist Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, furthermore, in his dreary and depressing, but informative, memoir, *The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975* (1990, The Liturgical Press), tells the reader that while there was a proposal for EP IV to be a straight translation of EgyBas, the liturgist Cipriano Vagaggini (whose writings which I have read are a compendium of bad history and unfounded speculation; thank God that his proposals for “reforming” the Roman Canon were rejected by Paul VI), who was a member of the commission drafting the new EPs, made such a fuss about how having an epiclesis after the Words of Institution would “confuse the faithful,” that the commission abandoned its initial intention and produced the mangled thing that is the current EP IV (just as EP II is a mangled version of the EP attributed to Hippolytus the antipope).

        (*) I have not forgotten your strange claim a couple of years ago that the earliest version of the Roman Canon which we possess dated to the 12th Century – a claim that could be made only by someone who had never heard of the Bobbio Missal (Seventh Century) or the Stowe Missal (early-mid Eighth Century).

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Professor Tighe,

        You wrote: Do you ever consult original sources, or do you just write whatever you have “heard tell?” (*) As I write this, I have taken down from my shelves, on the one hand, my copy of the OF Missal and, on the other, *Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed* by R. C. D. Jasper and G. J. Cuming (1990, The Lituirgical Press: third edition), as well as, for comparison’s sake, *Twenty-Five Consecration Prayers, with Notes & Introduction* by Arthur Linton (London, 1921: SPCK) — both of which contain the “Egyptian Anaphora of St. Basil.* If you had ever read this anaphora, which manifestly you have not, you would see that “Eucharistic Prayer IV” is a prayer from which chopped, filleted, sliced and diced bits from the Basil anaphora have been mixed with newly-composed stuff, and the order of some of the bits rearranged in the process (e.g., the epiclesis being moved from after the Words of Institution to before them).

        My copy of the “third revised edition” of Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed by R. C. D. Jasper and G. J Cummings shows a copyright date of 1987 and printing by Pueblo Publishing Company, New York, and the comparison was with the original (1969) ICEL translation of the Roman Missal.

        And yes, there was some (relatively minor) rearrangement and rewording to bring it into conformance with Roman spirituality. In comparing these texts in English, we must remember three salient points.

        >> 1. The text in Prayers of the Eucharist is a direct translation of two source texts, whereas the text in both English translations of the Roman Missal are translations of the Latin text. No translation is ever flawless.

        >> 2. Jasper and Cummings identify two source texts for this anaphora, the earlier of which was both newly discovered at the time of their work and incomplete, and then explain that they use it for the later part of their translation into English. It’s not clear that this text was available to the commission for the reform of the liturgy in the 1960’s, but they might have used the later edition or even the edition in the current Coptic Rite, in any case.

        >> 3. There’s also a question of methods of translation — and literal translation does have its deficiencies. At the time of the preparation of the current Roman Rite, the method of “dynamic equivalence” was generally preferred. This is likely a source of disparity between the current ordinary form of the Roman Rite and direct translations of the source texts.

        Having said that, the following differences are readily apparent.

        >> 1. The original epiclesis, over both the bread and the wine and the people, actually is split into two, with the epiclesis over the bread and the wine being moved before the institution narrative and the epiclesis over the people remaining in its original position.

        >> 2. The words of institution are replaced with the Roman form.

        >> 3. The “mystery of faith” is added, as in the other anaphoras of the Roman Rite.

        >> 4. There is some massaging of the wording, in particular to conform to the Roman form of the opening dialog, to integrate the institution narrative with the Roman form of the words of institution, and to conform the intercessions to Catholic sensibilities.

        But overall, the present text in the Roman Rite tracks the original very closely.

        You wrote: The late curialist Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, furthermore, in his dreary and depressing, but informative, memoir, *The Reform of the Liturgy 1948-1975* (1990, The Liturgical Press),…

        I actually found Bugnini’s work to be anything but dreary and depressing. Rather, it was a very interesting read!

        You wrote: I have not forgotten your strange claim a couple of years ago that the earliest version of the Roman Canon which we possess dated to the 12th Century – a claim that could be made only by someone who had never heard of the Bobbio Missal (Seventh Century) or the Stowe Missal (early-mid Eighth Century).

        You are severely misrepresenting my earlier statement, which pertained to the “Roman Canon” in its present form. There is, to be sure, a continuity with earlier versions of the “Roman Canon,” but each of the paragraphs stating intentions that end with the now optional clause “Through Christ our Lord. Amen.” are later insertions not present in the older forms of the “Roman Canon.”

        Norm.

      • Ioannes says:

        Norm, you wrote:

        1. “My guess would be that you worship in a spiritual straightjacket of your own making that limits your options, and thus that you probably worship very poorly.”

        And my guess is you think falling down to the ground and convulsing and being “Possessed by the Holy Spirit” is a normal and spiritually beneficial form of worship. That somehow, worshiping man-made things such as culture and ideology is not idolatry. The Apostle Paul wrote, advising us to work out our own salvation in fear and trembling, not mania and spiritual delusion. This “Straightjacket” you hate so much is borne out of fear of God and His Church who is not only comprised of the living on Earth, but those alive in heaven. The asceticism of my “Straightjacket” will save me, because I struggle, and to struggle means to confront the difficult things presented by God, which is the least we can do, since God Himself bore such struggle for our sakes. Without it, it should come as no surprise that “Women Priests” and other blasphemous, liberal practices should be considered normal practice of the Catholic Church- or rather, what is popularly believed to be the Catholic Church, the “acceptable catholic church”.

        You better work hard and quickly, whatever it is you and your generation plan to do with the Church, through bad teachings and bad liturgy, through various clerics who preach nonsense at the pulpit, and through internet theologians, because when you are all gone, we will work equally hard to undo any damage done. When you are all gone, this is what will happen to your children and grandchildren, those who remain in the Church still go to church, and those that subscribe to “The Wide Path to Salvation” mentality will stop going altogether. That wide path is reflected by how people pray and worship God. Call us “Pharisaical” or “Snobby” or “Elitist” it does not, at least, contradict what Jesus Himself said. While we were tasked to spread His Truth to the ends of the world, there is no such thing as easy evangelism; people will reject more than accept. But Jesus never said to make things easy and acceptable, did He? When there is no struggle, there is comfort. You say “be comforted in Christ”, but that is only so while being devoured by lions. beheaded by Muslims, and slandered by the real Latter-day Pharisees who make a giant show in their flamboyant worship while hating those who are “stuck in the past” and would not make a spectacle in the sanctuary.

        2. “[Doing] the red” correctly is much more complex and nuanced than you think.’

        Which is why it is not done at all, or done sloppily. Priests who think they don’t have to follow the rules anymore, because they’re out of seminary? Priests who think they can take it easy, and limit their duties to “Social Justice” rather than do what priests must do perfectly: To offer a sacrifice not just in words, but thought, action, and spirit, his everything. But, you know, “sacrifice” now is such a loose term. The “pastor” of the L.A. Cathedral would like us to open up our wallets and purses to make a “sacrifice” (because we’re a “priestly people”, you know!) I could be not going to church and that would be a giant sacrifice, wouldn’t it? Getting rid of tradition would also be a giant sacrifice! What larger sacrifice than to get rid of God from our lives! And that is precisely where being careless and loose leads to. God did not break Job. At Golgotha, Christ was not broken, not a bone! And so, why be effeminate and cowardly as to shirk from doing the red -not just correctly- but perfectly, all the time, every time? “Because it’s too hard” no, being beheaded by Muslims is harder. Witnessing to the faith when everyone already thinks you’re crazy or ignorant is harder. Beware of priests who belong to a circle of accepting and welcoming “Faith Community” because they are unprepared. They are, to be charitable, parasites upon the Mystical Body of Christ. Take up your Cross, your “straightjacket”, your instrument of salvation!

        3. “The Catholic Church admits a variety of styles and practices in worship, not all of which are the same as yours. The fact that a style or practice is not the same as yours, therefore, does NOT mean that it is improper or unworthy.”

        The Roman Church ought to follow Roman ways. I’m not saying the Ukrainians should speak Latin, or the Melkites should shave. In fact, I am opposed to Latinization of those Churches, and in favor of nurturing and growing their traditional practice- that’s what made me interested in the whole Anglicanorum Coetibus business in the first place, and why, had the Anglicans not been a part of the Roman Ritual Church, I would have supported them anyway- if they are still Catholics. Their practices are allowable, because they are doctrinally and historically sound and have developed organically, not artificially, such as in the experimentation done by the Bugnini circle, and the support they have from the School of Bologna during the 60’s and 70’s. I do not deny that the Ethiopians can dance, at least at the processional- if that’s the tradition of their particular ritual church. Not so much when “Tradition” means “We’ve been doing it for 40 years.” and ESPECIALLY not when it means “We’ve gotten rid of the old Mass because it was hard and stupid and unpopular and no one really speaks Latin anyway.” – Those people ought to be thrown off the Tarpeian Rock, or, to be more charitable, confined to monasteries and ecclesiastical prisons as they await the rest of the duration of their now-dwindling natural lifespan.

        3a. “Are you sure that “this” is not part of a mass celebrated out of doors, either by a congregation that does not have a church or by a parish with a church that’s too small to accommodate the attendance for that particular liturgy?”

        Because I’m not ignorant of what Ethiopian clergy (The person under the red umbrella in that video) wear outside and inside their churches. I’m also aware of the contextual events that occur within the Divine Liturgy. If there is dance (the woreb) it does not take place in the sanctuary, nor at any other time than after the Liturgy or before. But let us not presume that there are no liturgical abuses in their churches either, clerics who think they know “What St. Yared really meant”.

        3b. Will you dance in front of Jesus Christ, who bleeds and suffers? Did the Blessed Virgin and St. John wildly “praise the Lord” by dancing at the sight of His open wounds? If Christ at Mass is not the very same Christ who was Crucified at Golgotha, then there is no connection with His Sacrifice and the Church He supposedly established, and your bread and wine are dead and invalid. Liturgical dancing during Holy Mass is forbidden by Canon Law within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Do you deny this? If you do not, you have no case for it, or there’s something sinister in your insistence in it being allowed, at least outside Africa where there is a different cultural, traditional connotation with dance. Cardinal Arinze, an African, speaks on the matter-: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rJFdmmqj_s

        I’m not talking about Africa, when I talk about liturgical dance, I talk about Here, in the United States, in the Roman Catholic Church. I don’t care what they allow elsewhere, they are not allowed here, and if they are, those who promulgate these dances are the spawn of Satan. At the very least, there ought to be a clarification and justification on what law is it permissible that the liturgy contain the dance- because as far as I know, Canon Law is clear how there are no dances in the liturgy.

        Maybe next time, you ought to go to church dressed only in a loincloth or a penis sheath and say how “They allow this in Papua New Guinea, Africa and the Amazon.”

        4. “Are you not aware that the revision of the missal in the 1960′s actually incorporated texts written by St. Basil (the anaphora known as “Eucharistic Prayer IV” actually being a translation of the Coptic “Egyptian Anaphora of St. Basil”), and probably also by St. John Chrysostom and Pope Gregory?”

        By “incorporation” you mean mutilation. Of course, I can surgically attach body parts and remove some from an imperfect but healthy human being. What makes that person not a stitched-up abomination escapes me. Likewise, meddling around with the Liturgy of St. Gregory, slowly developed by Pope St. Pius V, and the Soon-to-be Pope St. John XXIII is not something to be taken lightly. What Bugnini and Chupunco and their gang did with the Mass is like the action of Dr. Frankenstein- people who were trained in the anatomy of a sacred thing given by God, mutilates and perverts it. It is no longer the liturgy of St. Gregory. It’s something else.

        5. ‘There is NOTHING WHATSOEVER in the current ordinary form of the Roman Rite that directs construction of “ugly churches”…..clueless clergy who don’t know how to celebrate any form of the liturgy correctly.’

        Do you not understand that all these things are symptomatic of something larger!? Of course it’s not going to be written in some document, that’s why it’s called ‘The Spirit of Vatican 2’! It’s the mentality that can look at a totally innocent statement and turn it into something incredibly, immensely evil, and “ugly x” are just the symptoms. Even the sexual abuse scandals, the homosexual conspiracies- they’re all symptoms. But if there’s medicine offered, it is rejected because it is bitter and believed to be poisonous. People want it sugar-coated, watered down, and painless. That’s what churches are nowadays- the physician has become a social worker or a cheerleader. What has caused this? It’s easy to say “Vatican 2”, really, because there were plenty of clergy who didn’t attend the Council and were formed before it that were already willing to stop reciting the “Anti-Modernist Oath”- those priests who did not really believe that. And, I do concede that homosexuals were safer in seminaries back then because no one questioned the priest, no one gossiped. Oh, but Lord help me when I question actual questionable practices at Mass, and assert that something is wrong!

        6. “You would do your credibility a big favor by expunging this term, which literally means “new order” and nothing more, from your vocabulary. It has no official sanction as a designation for the current ordinary form of the Roman Rite. Rather, it is typically frequently employed by the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and its followers to disparage what the magisterium has commended, and thus exposes the schismatic tendencies of those who use it.”

        It’s called “Novus Ordo” from when it first appeared in 1969, when it was called “novus Ordo Missae”- I could call it a whole bunch of things, but they’re not that charitable. Calling it “The Mass of Pope Paul VI” sounds like it has so much authority but I might as well call it “Bugninian Mass” Now, the anniversary of the end of the SSPX-Vatican talks had just passed, and I am immensely disappointed at the SSPX for their refusal to be reintegrated to the Church, to actually have been allies of Benedict XVI- judging from how his trust was betrayed with the Vatileaks scandals, and the sort of people who are now rejoicing that he’s out of the way, the SSPX was probably the closest the pope had to allies. And now, I’m thinking that maybe the SSPX isn’t so bad after all- if they were in schism, they would’ve had their own Pope by now. “Canonically Irregular” seems more correct, since there are no excommunicated bishops, are there? The only reason why the SSPX would be in bad standing is because they’re basically 1. Misrepresented by people like you, 2. Misrepresented by people like me, 3. Hated by people who elected to the papacy someone who describes traditionalists as “Stuck in the past” 4. As stubborn as the Orthodox. (Boy, lemme tell you- if the SSPX hadn’t elected a pope already, it’s also a surprise they didn’t become a “Western Rite Canonically for super-duper-reals Orthodox Autocephalous Church Under the Auspices of Moscow, Third Rome/Constantinople, Second Rome.” or something like that)

        At the very least, Jesus Christ is present at the Words of Institution- and that’s probably the one reason I still go to church, no matter how the rest of the Mass seems disjointed, commonplace, and borderline sacrilegious.

        This condescending comment about what would give my credibility a big favor probably comes from your own arrogance about what you think you know and presume everyone thinks about you because of the “information” you offer. You have no position in the church that gives you any sort of authority or credibility over the things you spout out. (If you do, don’t you have a traditional community to destroy, or something? Any liturgical dance seminar to give talks at?) If anything, I’m equal to you in the internet, with our pious opinions. For as much as you claim you are a theologian, a canonist, a deacon, a “presbyter” or a bishop, then I’m actually the Pope of Rome (Proving that Pope Francis is secretly a traditionalist!). The only person here that I’ll probably trust with his title and authority, aside from our very, very, very patient blog host, is Dr. William Tighe, and even then- anyone with a brain would cross-check what anyone said over the internet.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Ioannes,

        You wrote: And my guess is you think falling down to the ground and convulsing and being “Possessed by the Holy Spirit” is a normal and spiritually beneficial form of worship. That somehow, worshiping man-made things such as culture and ideology is not idolatry.

        No, you have the wrong person here.

        You wrote: The asceticism of my “Straightjacket” will save me….

        No, unfortunately, it won’t. Rather, the only thing that will save you, or me, or anyone else is our acceptance of forgiveness of our sins through the death and resurrection of our Lord — and recognizing his Lordship means submission of our lives to his authority. There is nothing that you, or I, or anyone else can do that will save us.

        Oh, and did I mention that the one true God communicates his divine will, at least in part, through the magisterium of his church, which is one holy, catholic, and apostolic? The ultimate discernment of what is and is not acceptable in worship rests with that magisterium and NOT with you, or me, or any other individual member.

        You wrote: Without it, it should come as no surprise that “Women Priests” and other blasphemous, liberal practices should be considered normal practice of the Catholic Church- or rather, what is popularly believed to be the Catholic Church, the “acceptable catholic church”.

        Here, you are horribly confused. The magisterium of the Catholic Church has been quite consistent in rejecting such practices.

        You wrote: Liturgical dancing during Holy Mass is forbidden by Canon Law within the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Do you deny this?

        Having read the whole of the Codex Juris Canonici (Code of Canon Law) on various occasions, I can’t say that I recall that canon. But since you portray yourself as an authority on this, perhaps you can identify the specific canon to which you are referring?

        You wrote: I do not deny that the Ethiopians can dance, at least at the processional- if that’s the tradition of their particular ritual church. Not so much when “Tradition” means “We’ve been doing it for 40 years.”

        First, you are misusing the word “tradition.” Correctly, “tradition” is a source of divine revelation that complements scripture. Rather, an established practice within the church is correctly called a “custom” — and its effect is clearly spelled out in the Codex Juris Canonici. Canonically, a practice becomes a “custom” when a community follows it for five (5) years and attains the force of law when a community follows it for thirty (30) years. Also, note in particular Canon 27: “Custom is the best interpreter of laws.”

        But here, you are also wrong in assuming that liturgical dance in Africa is limited to the Ethiopian church. It is also prevalent in the Roman Rite in many African countries.

        You wrote: Do you not understand that all these things are symptomatic of something larger!?

        Yes — and I have said so quite consistently. The problem is that it takes time to solve the larger problem. If my archbishop were to remove every incompetent presbyter currently serving the archdiocese from active ministry summarily, he would have enough clergy left to staff about one or two percent of the parishes of the archdiocese — and the situation in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles may well be similar. The practical reality is that most bishops have to make do with the clergy that they have, in order to keep a reasonable number of parishes open, while trying to ensure that the current generation of seminarians receive better formation. The situation in most parishes will begin to improve only when clergy who receive better formation become pastors — and then it will take several years, and perhaps even a decade or two, for the affected parishes to recover from the deficiencies of their current pastoral leadership.

        You wrote: Of course it’s not going to be written in some document, that’s why it’s called ‘The Spirit of Vatican 2′!

        You seem to be “preaching to the choir” here. I have been pretty consistent in condemning the mistaken notion of “the spirit of Vatican 2” often employed a pretext for many abuses.

        You wrote: Maybe next time, you ought to go to church dressed only in a loincloth or a penis sheath and say how “They allow this in Papua New Guinea, Africa and the Amazon.”

        Or maybe you ought to go to mass on a so-called “Indian reservation” where a loincloth is the customary dress of the tribe.

        Yes, it’s accepted even in the United States!

        You wrote: People want it sugar-coated, watered down, and painless. That’s what churches are nowadays- the physician has become a social worker or a cheerleader.

        Rather, that’s a very widespread misconception among the clergy of some dioceses — and it’s the hallmark of parishes that are failing. In reality, most parishes where the clergy speak the unvarnished truth, often quite bluntly, are thriving.

        But there’s also another dimension to “sugar-coated, watered down, and painless” — and it involves many traditionalists. So long as one views the liturgy as something that the clergy does and the people observe, as many traditionalists to, it has little claim on one’s life. It is only when one comes to understand that the liturgy is the action of the whole church, both clergy and lay, as clearly articulated by the Second Vatican Council, that one has to invest one’s self in it, participating fully by making the responses proper to the whole assembly, singing the hymns, and even taking on a role of liturgical ministry in service to the community of faith (typically as greeter/usher, altar server, reader, cantor, choir member, musician, or extraordinary minister of communion) if asked to do so — and it is only then that the liturgy demands a real commitment of one’s life. Note the following text in the sacred constitution Sacrosanctum concillium on divine worship (boldface added, internal citations removed).

        26. Liturgical services are not private functions, but are celebrations of the Church, which is the “sacrament of unity,” namely, the holy people united and ordered under their bishops.

        Therefore liturgical services pertain to the whole body of the Church; they manifest it and have effects upon it; but they concern the individual members of the Church in different ways, according to their differing rank, office, and actual participation.

        27. It is to be stressed that whenever rites, according to their specific nature, make provision for communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful, this way of celebrating them is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private.

        This applies with especial force to the celebration of Mass and the administration of the sacraments, even though every Mass has of itself a public and social nature.

        28. In liturgical celebrations each person, minister or layman, who has an office to perform, should do all of, but only, those parts which pertain to his office by the nature of the rite and the principles of liturgy.

        29. Servers, lectors commentators, and members of the choir also exercise a genuine liturgical function. They ought, therefore, to discharge their office with the sincere piety and decorum demanded by so exalted a ministry and rightly expected of them by God’s people.

        Consequently they must all be deeply imbued with the spirit of the liturgy, each in his own measure, and they must be trained to perform their functions in a correct and orderly manner.

        30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.

        You wrote: And, I do concede that homosexuals were safer in seminaries back then because no one questioned the priest, no one gossiped.

        Yes, and this, too, is part of the current problem. There are some dioceses in which a “good ol’ boy” network of homosexual clergy gained control of the vocation office, the seminary, and the personnel board and actively recruited homosexual men into the ministry while doing everything in their power to discourage and to drive out seminarians who were not homosexual.

        But many such individuals actually gravitate toward traditionalism, where the security of cloister boundaries that were the altar rails in the church and the doors to the rectory shielded their private lives from public knowledge, providing cover for their lifestyles.

        You wrote: It’s called “Novus Ordo” from when it first appeared in 1969, when it was called “novus Ordo Missae”…

        No, it was informally called the novus ordo missae — literally, “new order of mass” — to distinguish between the Tridentine order of mass and the current ordinary form. But even this term was never an official designation for the current ordinary form of the order of mass. The term novus ordo was never official — and also never capitalized, indicating a proper noun (that is, official name).

        You wrote: Calling it “The Mass of Pope Paul VI” sounds like it has so much authority….

        Whether you like the fact or not, Pope Paul VI approved and officially promulgated the original editions and earliest updates of the current liturgical books for the ordinary form of the Roman Rite. Thus, their adoption and use rests on his authority.

        You wrote: Now, the anniversary of the end of the SSPX-Vatican talks had just passed, and I am immensely disappointed at the SSPX for their refusal to be reintegrated to the Church…

        I’m also disappointed, but I’m glad that the Vatican is standing firm with regard to acceptance of the whole of the dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium and the validity of the current ordinary form of the Roman liturgy.

        You continued: … to actually have been allies of Benedict XVI…

        I’m not persuaded that the members of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) were allies of Benedict XVI. In fact, to the contrary, they appear to have been a thorn in his side, forcing him to lay down the conditions of reconciliation. There is no doubt that Summorum pontificam has an overt political purpose — that of providing an option within the Catholic Church for traditionalists who were adhering to the SSPX, in the hope that enough adherents to the SSPX would return to authentic Catholic worship for the drop in collections to squeeze the SSPX financially.

        You wrote: And now, I’m thinking that maybe the SSPX isn’t so bad after all- if they were in schism, they would’ve had their own Pope by now. “Canonically Irregular” seems more correct, since there are no excommunicated bishops, are there?

        Neither excommunication nor an alternative pope is a necessary condition of schism, but the SSPX functionally does have its own pope. They just call him the “superior general” because they organized themselves as a “pious society” — meaning that lay people normally do not formally become members.

        As to their present state, I’m not aware of anything that has changed since Pope Benedict XVI spelled it out in the motu proprio Ecclesiae unitatem.

        4. In the same spirit and with the same commitment to encouraging the resolution of all fractures and divisions in the Church and to healing a wound in the ecclesial fabric that was more and more painfully felt, I wished to remit the excommunication of the four Bishops illicitly ordained by Archbishop Lefebvre. With this decision I intended to remove an impediment that might have jeopardized the opening of a door to dialogue and thereby to invite the Bishops and the “Society of St Pius X” to rediscover the path to full communion with the Church. As I explained in my Letter to the Catholic Bishops of last 10 March, the remission of the excommunication was a measure taken in the context of ecclesiastical discipline to free the individuals from the burden of conscience constituted by the most serious of ecclesiastical penalties. 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.

        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.

        The word “schism” means a state of absence of full communion, and nothing more. Thus, those who need “to rediscover the path to full communion” are clearly in a state of schism.

        You wrote: The only reason why the SSPX would be in bad standing is because they’re basically 1. Misrepresented by people like you, 2. Misrepresented by people like me, 3. Hated by people who elected to the papacy someone who describes traditionalists as “Stuck in the past” 4. As stubborn as the Orthodox.

        Rather, they entered into schism by the illicit, though valid, ordinations of four bishops without a papal mandate in 1987. Pope Benedict XVI said that they remain in schism, however, due to doctrinal errors, as indicated by the last quotation. In fact, Pope Benedict XVI restructured the pontifical commission Ecclesia dei, making it part of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, precisely because he outstanding issues with the SSPX are doctrinal rather than disciplinary.

        But having said that, the SSPX actually seems to be more stubborn — ah, perhaps “bull-headed” is more accurate — than any of our Orthodox brethren ever thought of being. Some of them seem to think that the Vatican will capitulate to their errors. Ah… don’t hold your breath, guys….

        For as much as you claim you are a theologian, a canonist, a deacon, a “presbyter” or a bishop…

        No, I never made any such claim. I do hold a degree in theology from a Catholic national seminary, though, so I just might know something… well, at least enough to be really dangerous….

        You wrote: … anyone with a brain would cross-check what anyone said over the internet.

        Indeed, please do cross-check what I say! I have tried to make that easy for you by providing links to the official English translations of the respective documents.

        Norm.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      EPMS,

      You wrote: I have the impression, possibly erroneously, that Anglican Use parishes such as Our Lady of the Atonement draw a significant percentage of their membership from this contingent.

      Yes, I think that there is a misconception here. The personal parishes and chaplaincies of the Anglican Use established under the so-called “pastoral provision” typically have substantially the same restrictions on formal membership as the ordinariates. Any member of the Catholic Church is free to assist in the liturgy and to receive the sacraments of reconciliation, eucharist, and anointing of the sick in those parishes, even routinely, but only those formerly of the Anglican tradition can become formal members.

      Norm.

  7. EPMS says:

    Members of an Anglican Use parish established under the Pastoral Provision of 1980 are considered members of the diocese in which it is located; would it not follow that any member of that diocese could join the parish? My understanding was that the ineligibility of many members of Our Lady of the Atonement for Ordinariate membership was one reason why that parish remained in the local diocese.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      EPMS,

      You wrote: Members of an Anglican Use parish established under the Pastoral Provision of 1980 are considered members of the diocese in which it is located…

      Whoa, back up a step. Each member of the Catholic Church is, by default, a member of the territorial parish and the territorial “particular church” (diocese or canonically equivalent entity) within which he or she lives. You may override that default by formally joining a personal parish or a personal particular church, but your membership reverts to the territorial parish or “particular church” without joining another.

      You continued: … would it not follow that any member of that diocese could join the parish?

      No. When a bishop establishes a personal parish for a particular group (those who came to the Catholic Church from Anglican Christianity in this case), only members of the respective group can formally become members of the personal parish. Of course, any member of the Catholic church may participate in its liturgical services and sacraments, and may act as a canonical “sponsor” for baptisms and confirmations.

      You wrote: My understanding was that the ineligibility of many members of Our Lady of the Atonement for Ordinariate membership was one reason why that parish remained in the local diocese.

      That seems very unlikely, as the parish was specifically erected for those who came to the Catholic Church from Anglican Christianity. If the parish were to move into the ordinariate, those baptized in the parish certainly would become persons who had received the “sacraments of initiation” in a “parish of the ordinariate” and thus would be able to move to the ordinariate with the parish since permissive laws are always construed broadly — and even if this were to require an indult, I sincerely doubt that the Vatican would withhold it. I also doubt that this was any more problematic for the Parish of Our Lady of the Atonement in San Antonio than for the Parish of Our Lady of Walsingham in Houston, which became the principal church of the ordinariate.

      Just over a year ago, when the announcement that the Parish of Our Lady of the Atonement in San Antonio would not move into the ordinariate at this time fueled a lot of speculation on the blogs as to why not, Fr. Christopher Philips posted a comment saying that all of the speculation was wrong. It subsequently came to light that the now former pastor of the Parish of Our Lady of Walsingham in Houston did not move to the ordinariate with the parish, and instead subsequently retired as a presbyter of the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston when a newly ordained presbyter of the ordinariate, Fr. Charles Hough IV, became available to take his place. This development certainly indicates that the status of the pastor and his retirement might have been one factor in the decision for the Parish of Our Lady of the Atonement in San Antonio not to move to the ordinariate right now. I suspect that the parish’s school also might have been a consideration, as the ordinariate’s headquarters remains pretty thinly staffed and does not have personnel tasked to support a school. But again, these are only considerations that might have influenced or swayed the decision. The truth will come out sooner or later — and until it does, I’m not persuaded that speculation by those of us who don’t have definitive knowledge is at all helpful or constructive. Right now, Msgr. Steenson, Fr. Hurd, and the rest of the staff of the ordinariate have their hands full with preparing incoming former Anglican clergy for Catholic ordination and incoming congregations for reception into full communion.

      Norm.

  8. EPMS says:

    Well, while conceding that we do ot know the exact reason why OLA did not join the Ordinariate (what the retirement of the pastor of OLW could have had to do with it eludes me, however) I reiterate that at least a third of the members, not just attenders, of OLA were not former Anglicans at the time the Ordinariate was erected. They were allowed to become members with the permission of the diocesan bishop. I refer you to the Parish Profile readily available on the web for verification.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      EPMS,

      You wrote: … (what the retirement of the pastor of OLW could have had to do with it eludes me, however)…

      Simple economics. The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham does not have the financial resources to support a retired pastor yet, but would assume the canonical obligation to do so by incardinating him.

      You wrote: … I reiterate that at least a third of the members, not just attenders, of OLA were not former Anglicans at the time the Ordinariate was erected. They were allowed to become members with the permission of the diocesan bishop.

      If that’s the case, the Vatican probably would grant indult(s) allowing the affected individuals to move into the ordinariate with their parish based upon this unusual circumstance.

      Norm.

  9. EPMS says:

    Thank you for the explanation regarding the rector of OLW. I am not familiar with the concept of Catholic dioceses with pension plans.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      EPMS,

      You wrote: Thank you for the explanation regarding the rector of OLW. I am not familiar with the concept of Catholic dioceses with pension plans.

      Most Catholic dioceses don’t have formal pension plans per se, but the Codex Juris Canonici (Code of Canon Law) requires each diocese to provide quarters and sustenance for its retired and disabled clergy, just as each religious order must take care of its elderly and infirm members. My archdiocese actually operates a “residence” that’s basically a nursing home for its infirm clergy, but most of the diocesan clergy continue to reside in a parish rectory as a “senior priest in residence” (though typically not in the parish of their last assignment before retirement), where they receive room and board. In this role, they typically have full faculties of a parochial vicar but no official duties, though they typically do assist the assigned clergy with the weekend mass schedules. The diocese to which they belong also pays them a pension out of its current revenues.

      The national or regional episcopal conference has the same responsibility for retired bishops, with primary responsibility falling upon the diocese that they last served. A retired bishop typically retains the faculties of an auxiliary bishop of his last diocese, but without responsibility, and typically assists with confirmations, ordinations for religious orders, and other episcopal functions — often even in other dioceses.

      Norm.

  10. Kathy O'Neil says:

    Just wondering if I read this correctly:

    “Catholics may not become members of the Ordinariate “for purely subjective motives or personal preference.”

    What? Excuse me? We are all people, so we are naturally “personal” and we exercise our God-given free will (preferences) in the direction the Holy Spirit guides us to do so (sometimes mysteriously). We trust we are being led in the the nurturing context of Mother Church, that is, the One, Holy, Catholic (universal), and Apostolic Church. These are the kinds of “sloppy” statements that turn people away from the Church…the Catholic Church…the Roman Catholic Church.

    There are many American Anglicans (along with their families) who have intentionally become solid Anglo Catholics from all ethnic backgrounds. My ethnic background is German, but English is my preferred language, to teach our children and to use school and worship. I know of many, many American “cradle” Roman Catholics whose Latin came alive for the first time when they experienced the marvelous English liturgy using the traditional English language of the Book of Common Prayer. The freedom to choose or make a “personal preference,” when it comes to religion is a great gift to all who come to this country. Folks forget that this freedom is supposedly even protected here in the United States by our Constitution. Thanks be to God (even though, it seems we are losing the protection of our religious freedoms when it comes to the choices(personal preferences) we make with our informed consciences). My point is that there are many groups of Anglican families yearning to be received back into their rightful place (into the Catholic Church) because of who they have been free to choose (personal preference) to be, namely, Anglo (English) Catholics. Their longing to finally be recognized as true Catholics (instead of “doing something WRONG!!”) once again in the Western Rite of Mother Church (the one protected by Papal authority with all Her reforms (Vat II), the one She was before Henry VIII said “I will be the head of the Catholic Church in England.” However, will this really happen via the COSP here in the United States? Only time will tell.

    This amendment isn’t helpful. It confuses and takes COSP in a wrong direction. Any amendment which skews the original intentions and Vision of the Anglican Apostolic Constitution, namely, that of UNITY with the Sea of Peter for groups of Anglicans, are unnecessary and are even potentially harmful to the intentional unity that the Apostolic Constitution wishes to globally spread for all English Catholics in the healing of schism.
    May God Himself get it back on track!

    To have our new Holy Father, Pope Francis, put forward an amendment to “emphasize” something that is NOT the purpose of the Apostolic Contstitution in the first place–namely, “Mission to Evangelize” simply adds haze and discouragement to those of us waiting to be formally recognized and received. Whose idea was this? Please! We continue to pray for a renewed vision of clarity in the leadership of COSP to the original intent of Anglicananorum Coetibus, to build up, and NOT MORE HARMFUL REVISIONS, which sabbatage and tear down the precious unity that exists and for which it protects..

    • Ioannes says:

      Welcome to the Roman Catholic Church. Good luck, and try not to attract unwanted attention, always smile, and show some enthusiasm when shaking peoples’s hands at the “Sign of Peace” that will eventually be put on your Anglican Use Mass.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Ioannes,

        You wrote: Welcome to the Roman Catholic Church. Good luck, and try not to attract unwanted attention, always smile, and show some enthusiasm when shaking peoples’s hands at the “Sign of Peace” that will eventually be put on your Anglican Use Mass.

        It’s actually already part of the Anglican liturgy. It simply occurs in a different place.

        But having said that, have you ever figured out the theological reason for putting it where it is?

        Do you suppose it might have anything to do with our Lord’s clear instruction in Matthew 5:23-24?

        “Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother or sister has something against you, 24 leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to them; then come and offer your gift.

        And how about I Corinthians 11:27-32?

        So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. But if we were more discerning with regard to ourselves, we would not come under such judgment. Nevertheless, when we are judged in this way by the Lord, we are being disciplined so that we will not be finally condemned with the world.

        Let us not forget that the persons sitting around us in church are part of the very body of our Lord of which we partake. If we cannot exchange the sign of peace with those who worship with us, we also ought not partake of communion from the same altar.

        Norm.

      • Foolishness says:

        We do not do the sign of peace in our Mass. I wonder how many other Anglican Use parishes or Ordinariate parishes omit the sign of peace?

      • William Tighe says:

        The “sign of peace” is optional, not required.

      • Ioannes says:

        Oh, but it is required! Jesus said so! What are you, a pharisee? Maybe you should stop living in the past? How I feel sorry for you that you don’t feel the love of God and don’t feel love for your neighbor! But God still loves you!

        Let’s all hold hands and make sure everyone feels welcome, not judged! Let’s talk about social justice, instead of the mass- that’s more important, right? After all, Jesus never said mass in the Temple! He hated the Temple! Temples are full of hypocrites, and the mass was a medieval invention of the chauvinistic patriarchy who wants to control everyone!

        Everyone should know that all are invited to the table of God! He/She is very generous and forgiving- so let go of those obsolete rituals, they aren’t necessary! Let God’s love be sufficient! 🙂 ❤ ❤ ❤ ❤

  11. Rev22:17 says:

    Kathy,

    You wrote: Just wondering if I read this correctly:

    “Catholics may not become members of the Ordinariate “for purely subjective motives or personal preference.”

    Rather, the question is whether you are understanding it correctly.

    Here, this does not forbid any member of the Catholic Church from assisting in liturgical services and other ministries, receiving the normal sacraments of daily Christian life (communion, reconciliation, and anointing of the sick), or even serving as a sponsor for baptism, confirmation, or reception into full communion, or even accepting employment in a ministerial position at a congregation of an ordinariate canonically erected under the norms of the apostolic constitution Anglicanorum coetibus. The issue is only canonical membership in the ordinariate — which means, for example, that one would seek ordination for the service of the ordinariate rather than one’s local diocese and that any matter normally needing a bishop’s approval would go to the ordinary rather than to one’s diocesan bishop.

    Note that this is the same practice that has long been in effect with respect to the sui juris ritual churches that are part of the Catholic Church. Living in the Archdiocese of Boston, I could easily assist in services at the Cathedral of the Annunciation, which is the cathedral church of the Melkite Catholic Eparchy of Newton — and I would be fully entitled to receive the sacraments of communion, reconciliation, and anointing of the sick there, but I cannot become a member of the Eparchy of Newton because I canonically belong to the Roman Rite and thus would remain a member of the Archdiocese of Boston even if I were to worship exclusively at the Cathedral of the Annunciation.

    In fact, the latest revision to the “complementary norms” provides clarity where there was ambiguity by stating explicitly that persons previously baptized in the Catholic Church who receive confirmation and/or first communion in a community of an ordinariate can become members thereof. The original version referred more ambiguously to “persons who receive the sacraments of initiation” — which also include baptism — in an ordinariate community.

    Norm.

    • Ioannes says:

      Norm, I really have no idea where you’re getting your information. With other ritual churches, you can change rites with the permission of the relevant bishops. I can write to my Latin Rite bishop and the Bishop of the Eparchy of ___ asking if I may change rites. (The bishops can deny, especially if it’s evident you want to get married then be a priest, for example, or you hate bishop ____ or something of that nature. But if you’re getting married to an Eastern Catholic, or your family’s Eastern Catholics, etc., they’d probably allow. Probably. )

      Can. 112 §1. After the reception of baptism, the following are enrolled in another ritual Church sui iuris:

      1/ a person who has obtained permission from the Apostolic See;

      2/ a spouse who, at the time of or during marriage, has declared that he or she is transferring to the ritual Church sui iuris of the other spouse; when the marriage has ended, however, the person can freely return to the Latin Church;

      3/ before the completion of the fourteenth year of age, the children of those mentioned in nn. 1 and 2 as well as, in a mixed marriage, the children of the Catholic party who has legitimately transferred to another ritual Church; on completion of their fourteenth year, however, they can return to the Latin Church.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Ioannes,

        You wrote: Norm, I really have no idea where you’re getting your information.

        Then you cite: Can. 112 §1. After the reception of baptism, the following are enrolled in another ritual Church sui iuris:

        1/ a person who has obtained permission from the Apostolic See;

        2/ a spouse who, at the time of or during marriage, has declared that he or she is transferring to the ritual Church sui iuris of the other spouse; when the marriage has ended, however, the person can freely return to the Latin Church;

        3/ before the completion of the fourteenth year of age, the children of those mentioned in nn. 1 and 2 as well as, in a mixed marriage, the children of the Catholic party who has legitimately transferred to another ritual Church; on completion of their fourteenth year, however, they can return to the Latin Church.

        For not knowing where I got my information, you seem to have found the relevant canon in the Codex Juris Canonici (Code of Canon Law). There’s a parallel canon in the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches).

        You wrote: With other ritual churches, you can change rites with the permission of the relevant bishops. I can write to my Latin Rite bishop and the Bishop of the Eparchy of ___ asking if I may change rites. (The bishops can deny, especially if it’s evident you want to get married then be a priest, for example, or you hate bishop ____ or something of that nature. But if you’re getting married to an Eastern Catholic, or your family’s Eastern Catholics, etc., they’d probably allow. Probably. )

        It’s not so simple. The permission from the Apostolic See (that is, the Vatican) of this canon is NOT the same as “permission of the relevant bishops” of your comment — though it would be even more unusual for the Apostolic See to grant permission if either bishop objects. But as a general policy, the apostolic see does not grant this permission unless there’s a compelling reason for doing so — and neither “I like the (whichever) liturgy better than the (some other) liturgy” nor “my canonical pastor (or bishop) is a real jerk” ever constitutes the requisite compelling reason. The Vatican is more likely to grant permission to somebody engaged in some ministry or missionary activity of another rite on a stable basis, especially if that involvement appears to be indefinite, but it’s not guaranteed even in that situation.

        Note, BTW, that the cases that do not require recourse to the Apostolic See (that is, the Vatican) for transfer to a different rite correspond directly to the exception for “members of families” in the “Complementary Norms” for Anglicanorum coetibus (boldface added, except first line in original).

        Article 5

        §1. The lay faithful originally of the Anglican tradition who wish to belong to the Ordinariate, after having made their Profession of Faith and received the Sacraments of Initiation, with due regard for Canon 845, are to be entered in the apposite register of the Ordinariate. Those who have received all of the Sacraments of Initiation outside the Ordinariate are not ordinarily eligible for membership, unless they are members of a family belonging to the Ordinariate.

        Norm.

    • Kathy O'Neil says:

      Thank you, Norm.

      So why can’t an individual person transfer their “canonical membership” if that is their “personal preference, and possibly the preference of their entire family?

      It seems (and this might hurt…and I’m sorry) that what we are saying is that even the Holy Spirit is bound by “canonical membership” rules which the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church have made for all of us. (Unless, of course, you go and discuss it with one of our fine bishops and then you may receive a dispensation.)

      Sorry, this just seems inconsistant with how we are suppose to believe about what it means to be truly a CATHOLIC (part of the whole, part of the fullness of the universal Church).

      If we believe that there is ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH, then wherever one goes in it, irregardless of ethnic association (i.e. Melkite) it will surely an EQUAL place to be CATHOLIC (in the truest sense….part of the fullness of the Church under Papal Authority. Therefore, your soul is safe there. If you wish to “canonically transfer” there, you should be allowed to do so, even if you don’t know why enough to explain it to some bishop supposedly “in control” of where you go. What happens if you simpy want (it is the desire of your heart!) to transfer there? We should spend more time rejoicing that folks ente or transfer or simply go into ANYof our earthly institutions that are dubbed Catholic for ANY reason and want to worship and participate in what the CATHOLIC CHURCH is doing there in that particular place, rather than making more and more rules about keeping people somehow “where they belong.” Wow–listen to that!

      Sorry, this will never work here in the United States. Our young people are very serious about how “religious freedom” is perceived and works out (or doesn’t work out) in our country. To them it includes our various ethnic expressions of the Christian Catholic Faith, however, with “them,” the Americans, not being left out! Right! Where is the ethnc American Roman Catholic Church? Oh, the one with the guitars, right? Big grin here. For American Catholics (especially the young ones….the ones who will build the future!) the ethnic piece is not the driving force. The fact that our great grandparents immigrated here from Germany does not mean that we need to find a German Roman Catholic Church with the option to use English or visa versa. No, we have missed the point here. What matters to the young people is the fact that contributions have been made to the fullness of the Catholic Church by the German people groups over the years, and that they are somehow part of that lineage and those wonderful contributions whether they realize it or not simply because they were naturally born into that particular ethnic group. Now we’re talking!! Thank God Vatican II has helped in this regard, in terms of, finally calling our Protestant brothers and sisters (i.e. Lutherans) even Christians, I think the term we must use is “separated brethren.” (not crazy about this one, but whatever!)

      My point is, we cannot remain sloppy about recognizing what is truly “Catholic” and what isn’t, and we must be very careful to be pastoral and consistant about that. If something has been dubbed “Catholic” then anyone, regardless of ethnic likeness or difference, should be free to transfer in or out of that place as the Holy Spirit guides them (with or without explanation!). Otherise, “those who are making the rules for us” in my humble opinion are once again overstepping their boundaries, and it becomes an abusive, oppressive use of power.

      So WHY is “canonical membership” like holdng on for dear life to one’s last dollar?

      Maybe that is all it is.

      Here in the U.S.A, we are totally about “religious freedom.” Since day one, American Roman Catholcs have always struggled with how to work that out in terms of all the denominationalism that exists. In fact, like it or not, being a Roman Catholic now, unlike the way it mostly was before, is also viewed as a “personal preference” in terms of associating with a denomination. It is an intentional personal choice now for everybody. In most cases here in the United States, it is no longer an ethnic or family driven association, although the family certainly provides much influence. All that we do in America is based on the freedom of the individual (person) to choose! Hear me on this. Freedom is EVERYTHING….and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it…and certainly Holy Mother Church is about freedom, isn’t She, or is She?

      So Vatican II helped this along, and we need to go further. The Catholic (universal) Church is not full until both Her lungs are back together. Why can’t Roman Catholics be honest about this? The Roman Catholic Church, or the “Western lung,” is the Church of Christ under the umbrella of Papal oversight and protection. That’s it. When the Roman Catholic Church speaks of ‘fullness,’ She sometimes forgets that “fullness” is something She cannot have (or even claim!) without the Others. How one enters it, in all reality is NOT JUST THROUGH ROME. Those who are into the Roman supremacy issues have trouble with this and push our Orthodox brethren farther and farther away. This must stop.

      My point is that here in America, one’s ethnic background doesn’t drive where/how they do/are Church. Using the word “Patrimony” doesn’t really register with our youth either. Most American youth understand that there is only ONE “Patrimony” of being a Christian, Catholic or Protestant, and that is the Patrimony of God the Father Almighty and Him alone. So we have much explainin’ to do and we should certainly get busy at it instead of adding “ammendments” to the Apostolic Constitution Complementary Norms. Boooooo!

      Let me get back to the point of this post. Getting back to this “amendment.” In my humble opinion, it should have never been made. It isn’t helpful and it was unncessary. To me, it seems more of a political revision instead of a “clarification.” I suspect more of these will be coming as the implimentation of Anglicanorum Coetibus continues to get skewed from something really wonderful and beautiful and right(recognition and reception of groups of Anglicans) to something else–something neurotic and political (mission to evangelize folks into becoming Roman Catholic). Very slimy. This is not what the Holy Father, Benedict XVI wanted, nor those who petitioned him to create it. This “being off track” is very sad to me , however, I believe all things are possible with God.

      “The Spirit and the bride say, “Come!” And let him who hears say. “Come!” Whoever is thirsy, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of Life.”

      Yes! And we must be careful not to add to this…”You can come here…but not there!”

      We must read further for context: “I warn everyone…if anyone adds anything….or takes words away…” Rev 22:18-21

      • Rev22:17 says:

        Kathy,

        You wrote: So why can’t an individual person transfer their “canonical membership” if that is their “personal preference, and possibly the preference of their entire family?

        It seems (and this might hurt…and I’m sorry) that what we are saying is that even the Holy Spirit is bound by “canonical membership” rules which the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church have made for all of us. (Unless, of course, you go and discuss it with one of our fine bishops and then you may receive a dispensation.)

        Nobody is saying that the Holy Spirit is somehow bound. The purpose of the canonical rule is to prevent “jurisdiction shopping” in which persons whose bishops (or other ordinaries) sanction them with canonical penalties flee to another jurisdiction to circumvent the sanction rather than addressing the issues that led to the sanction.

        But, again, any member of the Catholic Church is completely free to worship with any Catholic congregation. There are no barriers whatsoever.

        You wrote: Here in the U.S.A…

        Stop right there. The Catholic Church is NOT an American institution, nor is it a democracy, and it does not necessarily conform to American concepts and ideals. In the beginning of the Church, there were no overlapping jurisdictions for different rites or for other special groups. One acquired a bishop (and, later, also a pastor) by where one lived, and that was it. When the sui juris ritual churches returned to full communion, they were limited geographically to their historical regions of the world so their members had to turn to bishops and pastors of the prevailing rite when they migrated to other areas — and it was precisely because this proved to be deficient that geographically overlapping jurisdictions came into being and membership in a sui juris ritual church, or lack thereof, became a second determining factor.

        You wrote: In fact, like it or not, being a Roman Catholic now, unlike the way it mostly was before, is also viewed as a “personal preference” in terms of associating with a denomination.

        Yes, I’m well aware — and there’s actually a good side to this! It means that people, both Catholic and Protestant, have finally figured out that the faith of the Catholic Church is in fact Christian and that there a distinct religion called “Catholicism” simply does not exist. On that front, we’re actually making progress!

        You wrote: Yes! And we must be careful not to add to this…”You can come here…but not there!”

        Again, nobody is saying that “you can go here, but not there!” As a member of the Catholic Church, you can assist in any Catholic liturgy and receive the sacraments from any Catholic minister. Going to a parish of an ordinariate or a parish of a sui juris ritual church is no different than going to a parish located in a different diocese — in fact, that’s effectively what it is!

        Of course, the liturgy of such a parish might seem a little strange to those not accustomed to it.

        Norm.

  12. Kathy O'Neil says:

    Thanks again, Norm.

    You wrote: “Nobody is saying that the Holy Spirit is somehow bound. The purpose of the canonical rule is to prevent “jurisdiction shopping” in which persons whose bishops (or other ordinaries) sanction them with canonical penalties flee to another jurisdiction to circumvent the sanction rather than addressing the issues that led to the sanction.”

    It simply sounds like semantics to me. Using words like “to prevent” in my humble opinion is equal to a binding…or to be “somehow bound.” I could be wrong.
    OK….but isn’t this the exception rather than the rule? I mean, are there really a lot of persons who have been “sanctioned with canonical penalties” out there?” Wow, this is news to me. Yuck! It could simply be because typical RC churches have so many masses offered at different hours (it’s like 3 separate churches in one!) and so many folks freely come and go in and out of all of them that the pastors and priests sometimes don’t even know who is coming and/or going. In my opinion, this has always been an issue; however, what makes me sad is that the “pastoral care” of individual souls is so poor. Unfortunately, it is how some folks like it. Sometimes, people don’t really want priestly/pastoral care…”just give me my Eucharist, thank you very much!” Sad.

    Norm, I really do understand what you are saying, however, I don’t think it is working. It is an old model and a newer model based on some sort of real pastoral and relational care would probably work better. Ideally, each parishioner having a pastoral and spiritual director to discuss something that might come up which would cause a person to possibly want “to flee” as you have said. This is what “free people” do (i.e. typical American persons (by the way, this has nothing to do with the fact that America has a democratic system of government), they “try things,” until they feel they have found what they are looking for, especially if they are asking the Holy Spirit to lead and guide them. Systems based on fear try to prevent this.

    Also—what is wrong with “jurisdictional shopping?” Don’t get me wrong, I do understand the theory behind not doing it, and again, it is a theory based on fear or one’s own perception of what “is and isn’t the “right thing” or “fair thing” to do.” But, sorry, shop we will! We shop for everything! You will NEVER convince me that American dads and moms don’t “shop around” for the VERY BEST they can possibly give to their children. It is a lost battle, sorry. The old model doesn’t work here in the United States. One size doesn’t fit all or even most. We will shop and we will choose and so will our children and our grandchildren. It is part of the American formation (and it would behoove Mother Church to get creative and work with it, instead, of trying to squelch it) like it or not, and it isn’t going away. That is why people from other countries come here. They like the freedom “to shop” and they like choice. Sorry. I don’t think it is something to be afraid of, but then again I am not trying to flee right now because some sort of, what do you call it, “canonical penalty.” Maybe I should watch out… the Vatican could be watching!

    You wrote “But, again, any member of the Catholic Church is completely free to worship with any Catholic congregation. There are no barriers whatsoever”

    The “barrier” is the fact that I am not allowed (free!) to have my “canonical membership” transferred to a specific place (under Papal authority—Roman Catholic) that I determine (personal preference of self/and/or family) to be where I—or my spouse) would like to have “my” (belonging to me!) “canonical membership” permanently (at least for the next year or so!) to preside. This is NOT freedom. Sorry.

    You wrote: “The Catholic Church is NOT an American institution, nor is it a democracy, and it does not necessarily conform to American concepts and ideals”

    Yes, I agree with this, and I never said that it was an “American institution” or “a democracy.” If anything what I was trying to stress in my last writing, was the concept (and I truly hope that it isn’t just an “American concept” but rather a Biblical concept, which Mother certainly upholds) of FREEDOM. I was trying to make the point that one must realize that the Roman Catholic Church is indeed an institution which must function (and we pray that one day it will be assisted to function even more gloriously and triumphantly) WITHIN the American culture. Does She (the Church under Papal authority) understand the American values and is She creative enough to reach even Americans with the Gospel of Christ with the teaching authority Jesus gave to his apostles (episcopacy), and specifically, to Peter (Roman Catholic Church),to welcoming them too? Does She really want to acknowledge (or only condemn!) the cultural contributions of the American people as much as the Irish or the Greek people groups? Does She have a clue as to what these “American” contributions (charisms) even are?
    I have noticed much anti-American (like anti-Semitism) going on from those who really hate the “American Church” (whatever that is?). Most of these folks are the same ones who bash the majority of what Vatican II has contributed to Holy Mother Church. I don’t get it and it is disturbing. We have much work to do, and I trust that within our American democracy (what is left of it), we will have the freedom to choose to be potent CATHOLICS no matter what ethnic background we bring to the “fullness of the whole,” and even if that ethnicity is American. We should not be discriminated against (especially within Mother Church) within our own country.

    I apologize in advance for any offense or distress I have caused. Maybe I am completely off track in all I have even said. Thank you for bearing with me and for your thoughtful replies.
    All I am trying to say is that Americans will demand new models (we see this in the Church Mergers) and Mother will bring them forth in time. There are no short cuts to the process. Throughout the history of the American people one can see we are a people who are honest and true, and we will not compromise–that is why we are the red, white and blue.

    You wrote: “….both Catholic and Protestant, have finally figured out that the faith of the Catholic Church is in fact Christian and that there a distinct religion called “Catholicism” simply does not exist.”

    Well, again, these are words and semantics. We are ALL very sloppy in our speech. Educated Americans will not put up with sloppy speech. We need to work very hard to say what we mean and mean what we say. Again, a hindrance to this has been the “pirated” use of the word “Catholic”, and primarily by those under Papal authority ( Roman Catholics). We have all surrendered to use the word “Catholic” to be synonymous with Roman Catholic instead of it’s true meaning (being “part of the whole,” or “part of the fullness.” ) Roman Catholics have never been comfortable confessing that they too are part of, have contributed to the hateful divisions extant within Holy Mother Church. This is just the honest truth. I am still intrigued by the fact that at one point in Church History there were two Popes. Wow. Roman Catholics have trouble seeing the WHOLE CHURCH including and embracing OTHERs outside of themselves (i.e. the Orthodox, Anglicans). And why is this? She too must repent of Her un-Biblically/Traditionally supported acts of supremacy or neglect which keep the Others away or from moving towards Her. Thanks be to God, this is getting healed with precious, surgical instruments like Anglicanorum Coetibus (that is, if it the Vision can survive and it doesn’t somehow get amended(revised!) to death, to be simply another “tool” to be used to promote “Roman Catholic Supremacy”).

    In this day, Norm, with these “canonical membership” rules, how can one who has thought it all through and wishes to be united with the “undivided” church of the early centuries, be a “canonical member” of anywhere specific. In fact, that is why most American youth, after they get educated, DONT! They see the tug-a-war, the squabble, the hostility, and they walk away from it. Why do we have to choose between Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, the historic Anglican Way, or being a “Separated Brethren?” How does one explain this to the children? Which wonderful bishop will step up to the plate and take a truly ecumenical person under His protective umbrella? (Pope Francis, Bartholomew, Duncan, Newton, Entwistle, etc.) Can the good bishops agree to share the person since they are so “Kosher” and refuse to divide on the things historical that are dwindling down to be so small now? Maybe the person simply needs to go be a part of a religious order, so to be outside all of the “canonical juridiction” goobley gook. See what I mean? Who will rescue this person? And what if it isn’t a person, what if it is a whole family (husband, wife and children)? See the dilemma we have created. Having a vision like the Mother Superior of the Servants of the Sacred Cross (www.thesacredcross.org), gives hope, however, that community now is being severely persecuted (actually bullied!). Another sadness. If only Bartholomew, the Ecumenical Patriarch, could somehow be put in charge and be the watchdog of those Sisters, stepping up to the plate and putting an end to the horrible accusations the community has had to bear over the past year mostly by, well I dare not say, else I may receive my first “canonical penalty.” My prayer is that that Community would flourish and give birth to many new communities just like it!

    You wrote: On that front, we’re actually making progress!”
    Yes, the Church has a history. The “progress” to which you refer is due precisely to all of the various reforms (yes, the reforms to the reforms!) which have been made up to the present time realizing that there is One Church. It seems, more than ever now, especially with the 1994 publishing of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, that there is a moving towards a fuller and healthier Christian-relatedness between being Protestant (protesting against anything that perverts or isn’t held by the universal Catholic Church) and the Roman Catholic jurisdictions (those Churches officially recognized as being under the protection of the Magisterium Overseen by Papal authority). There has been more honesty about working with models that have worked in the past, for instance, the Evangelical Protestants. Seems like there is a shared goal of protecting what Mother Church teaches and incorporating all of this in what the Roman Catholics are now suddenly calling the “New Evangelization,” which, as we know, is what the Evangelicals (i.e. Billy Graham, vacation bible schools, etc. ) have pioneered and been DOING and excelling in for years and years and have set the precedence to follow. Thanks be to God.
    You wrote:”… you can assist in any Catholic liturgy and receive the sacraments from any Catholic minister. Going to a parish of an ordinariate or a parish of a sui juris ritual church is no different than going to a parish located in a different diocese — in fact, that’s effectively what it is!

    Right. But what if folks don’t want to “assist?” Are they free to actually BE THERE (not as “assistants,” but as free and equal CATHOLICS?)– ”canonically transferred,” being there on a more permanent (regular) basis? No! I’m saying, therefore, one is not free in this. Unless one goes and gets “special permission” where some very good reasons are extant, according to some bigger bishop, and not just because” it is the leading of the Holy Spirit within my heart, this is where I (and my family) want to be” —one is not free to “live” there. “You can come here (only to help!)….but you are not free to stay here…you can just work here when we need you.” What is this nonsense? Maybe we would be a healthier Church if we learned to rotate and not compete against each other so much! That’s what they do on EWTN!

    • William Tighe says:

      This post seems to be redolent (although in an unclear and verbose way) of the heretical and un-Catholic idea of a “divided Church” comprising Catholics, Orthodox and Orthodox Anglicans. There is no basis for such a view in Catholic ecclesiology, nor, for that matter, in the documents of Vatican II. At the very least it would behoove Kathy O’Neil to “read, mark and inwardly digest” the following Vatican documents:

      http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

      (Dominus Iesus -2000; see esp. its ch. 17)

      http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070629_responsa-quaestiones_en.html

      (“Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine of the Church” – 2007)

      http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_28051992_communionis-notio_en.html

      (Communionis notio – 1992)

      Taking them all together, a reader will readily see that “the Catholic Church” (meaning, that “communion of local churches in communion with the Church of Rome”) is the sole “subsistence” of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and that, as such, she has no “sisters.” “Sister churches” refers, strictly speaking, to local churches in communion with one another, and with the Church of Rome. By extension, and since the Catholic Church recognizes that true local churches with “valid Orders” can exist outside the communion of the Catholic Church (for example, among the Orthodox, the Oriental non-Chalcedonian Orthodox, the Polish National Catholic Church, among others, but not including Protestant or Anglican “ecclesial communities”) these churches can be termed “sister churches.” Strictly speaking, again, though, it is not “the Orthodox Church” that is regarded as “a sister church,” but “the Orthodox churches,” meaning the various local Orthodox churches (or other churches which the Catholic church recognizes as having “valid Orders”) that, joined together, form local jurisdictions and, in some cases, patriarchates that, taken together, comprise what is called “the Orthodox Church.” Thus, the (Greek Orthodox) Diocese of Patras, say, and the (Roman Catholic) Diocese of Allentown are true particular (local) churches and so can be said to be “sister churches.” (Each church is said, Communionis notio, 17, to be “wounded” by the divisions; Patras because of its severance from the See of Peter, and Allentown because schism “hinders the complete fulfillment of [the Catholic Church’s] universality in history.”)

      • Stephen K says:

        Whilst you are perfectly correct, William, in saying that Kathy’s position runs counter to and outside the official self-concept of the Roman Catholic Church, you were unnecessarily wrong in trying to put her down by accusing her post of being unclear and verbose. On the contrary, Kathy’s protests or grievances came across very clearly to me and she had quite a lot and important things to say. It was useful for you to have provided the links to relevant documents, but your dismissal of her post the way you did does you less credit, which is sad.

      • Kathy O'Neil says:

        Thank you, William, for your reply and for these links. Also, may there be an anathema on any heresies I have committed in my thoughts and writings before, here and after.

        It is a shame that some sort of Ecumenical Counsel couldn’t be called tomorrow, to meet, review and refine these Western formulary documents for the benefit of Mother Church (I agree with you, Mother doesn’t have “Sisters,” although sometimes it seems we have a very powerful “Auntie” around who seems to thrive on “Sibling rivalry,” and who wishes to oftentimes “pull rank” on Mother!).

        Maybe there will be a Third Vatican Counsel someday, especially since so many years have gone by and much necessary work has been done and still remains to be done.

        Thank you for your admonition to “read, mark and inwardly digest” these documents. I especially enjoyed (because I found it to be most illuminating) the 2007 document addressing “Responses.” I think more and more “Responses” are needed and trust they will be welcomed, without having to re-nail some sort of 95 Thesis to some Church door.

        Reading these particular documents truly has been a helpful exercise for me; however, I do come away from it with a sense of sadness. As I read them over, I am struck with how hard it is to be consistent from one “formulary document” to another ‘formulary document.” One can understand why certain folks are led away (or astray!) to cry out to the Holy Spirit, “Just give me Sola Scriptoria!” I can also see how to an Orthodox believer the wording of these documents might still be somewhat problematic(in terms of intentional clarity recognizing their “Orthodoxy” as being truly “Catholic” (and intentionally NOT) Roman Catholic, and I would have to agree with them.

        For instance, one title is, “The Church, A Mystery of Communion,” but then so much Western definition and interpretation is provided in the formulary that it makes one wonder if the Western Church is being honest about truly declaring something to be “A Mystery!” Can Roman Catholics live with any kind of real “mystery” at all? Where is the mystery? This is a known weakness of the Western Church, where there seems to be some sort of neurotic compulsion (fear) to specifically define and interpret what and how someone is supposed to think and believe about something, even if it is supposed to be “a mystery.” This doesn’t help the Church in the long run, and only further blurs the reality of how the Western Church has also contributed to our hateful divisions. I wish the “Western lung” could be honest about Her tendency to Self-appoint Herself, in isolation of Others to “nail” something on the proverbial “head,” when it is not Her place to do so. It is this behavior of Hers alone that oversteps sacred boundaries of conscience.

        More sadness comes from wondering how these documents ever get reviewed or processed for accurate interpretations without the availability of Ecumenical Counsels at this point in time?

        It would behoove you, William, to re-read these very documents yourself, only this time using a high-lighting marker to mark those places where supremacy language is used and where the speech of the Vatican is presumptuous and in need of further clarification. Indeed, some of the language used within these documents, at this point in time could be re-framed, that is, if there is the intention to be truly relevant and to be positioned to appropriately implement the solid pastoral care of souls over the next several years. This seems paramount for the survival of the Western Church. Do ordinary folks, especially Roman Catholics, really know and understand what is being said in these documents? How are these concepts broken down and accurately communicated to our children without perversion? Seems like all of us (especially those who teach the RCIA courses!) could use a refresher course in some of these Vat II formularies so relevance and unity can be more supremely addressed, instead of so many supremacy discussions about supremacy.

        For instance, you have said:
        “Taking them all together, a reader will readily see that “the Catholic Church” (meaning, that “communion of local churches in communion with the Church of Rome”) is the sole “subsistence” of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church and that, as such, she has no “sisters.”

        Well—I am “a reader” and I certainly don’t “readily see” or necessarily agree with what you are saying here. In fact, I think this kind of presumptuous speech isn’t very helpful to the unity of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church! Introducing expressions like “sole subsistence” needs to be marinated in much prayer and the intentional meanings of such words needs to be addressed in the context of some sort of Ecumenical Counsel, so none of the precious souls who are supposed to be part of the “fullness of the Catholic Church” aren’t left out. Woe to them who do this! There are no short cuts to this. Sorry.

        Again, in my humble opinion, which is very limited, there seems to be more interest in what we are now calling “New Evangelization.” One could wonder, what exactly is being “evangelized,” that is, the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ or Second Vatican Counsel documents, such as these, which are said to supposedly be the key to assuring true and honest “renewal of Roman Catholic ecclesiology. Well, maybe we need both, the former giving precedence to the latter, and there is much work to do!

        May God continue to help me think for myself and pray to the Holy Spirit for illumination, knowing that man-made formularies coming out of only one “lung” of Mother Church are always in need of further processing and clarification.

        I am also thankful, as an educated American Christian, that l I can truly live with the mystery of Mother (Catholic/Universal/Undivided) Church and be honest in my discussions with and about Her.

        I look forward to the day of getting Mother’s “lungs” truly back together again along with the rest of Her needed Bodily systems and functions. Using this metaphor instead of the “sister” metaphor speaks louder to the relevant issues at hand and without rhetorical confusion.

        Thanks again.

        “The revelation of Christ will continue to be “the true lodestar” 100 in history for all humanity: “The truth, which is Christ, imposes itself as an all-embracing authority”. 101 The Christian mystery, in fact, overcomes all barriers of time and space, and accomplishes the unity of the human family: “From their different locations and traditions all are called in Christ to share in the unity of the family of God’s children… Jesus destroys the walls of division and creates unity in a new and unsurpassed way through our sharing in his mystery. This unity is so deep that the Church can say with Saint Paul: ‘You are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are saints and members of the household of God’ (Eph 2:19)”. “ John Paul II, encyclical Letter Fides et ratio

      • Kathy O'Neil says:

        A typo: Please forgive my double negative. The correction is here:

        “……so none of the precious souls who are supposed to be part of the “fullness of the Catholic Church” are left out.”

      • Stephen K says:

        Kathy, a solid response from you. You touch on a very central point that is mostly overlooked or not appreciated in the kinds of rabbinical-like disputation that characterises much religious blog commentary, in particular by traditionalists who appear to insist on viewing everything about faith or religious or moral practice through the prism of juridical analysis and selected documentary authority: the notion of God, faith and even the Church as mystery. Mystery, etymologically, means “secret”, something above human intelligence” [cf. Liddell & Scott p.523] and thus cannot be so circumscribed. It appears some think mysteries are things to be defined and demystified, rather than lived with or accepted as unresolvable in this life. .Your reference to “two lungs” is very appropriate. The notion that anything about God can be fixed hard and fast, even within the inner dynamics of faith, rather than simply a working hypothesis or clinical remedy, seems to be me to be a kind of unintentional idolatry.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      Kathy,

      You asked: OK….but isn’t this the exception rather than the rule?

      Yes, it’s the exception — but like most rules, it was written to address a real situation that arose a long time ago. Perhaps some flexibility would be a good thing, but canonical jurisdiction is a matter that simply does not affect most members of the Catholic Church on a day to day basis.

      You wrote: It could simply be because typical RC churches have so many masses offered at different hours (it’s like 3 separate churches in one!) and so many folks freely come and go in and out of all of them that the pastors and priests sometimes don’t even know who is coming and/or going.

      Actually, most members of the church tend to assist in the same mass in a habitual manner except when travel or the timing of some event requires deviation from their normal routines. In greeting parishioners leaving church at the end of mass, the pastors get to recognize the regulars.

      Having said that, a parish having more than one mass on a Sunday is not an ideal situation. Rather, the ideal would be for one mass in each parish on a Sunday. The reality, however, is that, except in rural areas, most parishes have too many parishioners to accommodate with just one mass — their worship spaces simply are not big enough.

      You wrote: In my opinion, this has always been an issue; however, what makes me sad is that the “pastoral care” of individual souls is so poor.

      Yes, this is a serious issue. The typical Catholic parish is much larger than most congregations of other denominations, so the pastors simply cannot get to know all of their parishioners well enough to provide the sort of ministry of which you speak. There are several concepts being tried to solve this in various places, but it takes time to train people to implement them.

      You wrote: Ideally, each parishioner having a pastoral and spiritual director to discuss something that might come up which would cause a person to possibly want “to flee” as you have said. This is what “free people” do (i.e. typical American persons (by the way, this has nothing to do with the fact that America has a democratic system of government), they “try things,” until they feel they have found what they are looking for, especially if they are asking the Holy Spirit to lead and guide them. Systems based on fear try to prevent this.

      I don’t see the connection. There is nothing here that prevents a member of the church from asking a presbyter of a different canonical jurisdiction to serve as a spiritual director, for example.

      You wrote: Also—what is wrong with “jurisdictional shopping?”

      Everything.

      >> Suppose somebody decided to sue a person living in Florida, but they brought the suit in a court located in Alaska. The effect would be to make the cost of travel to appear in court so prohibitive that the person living in Florida would spend a fortune just travelling to and from the court proceedings. Is that fair to the person living in Florida?

      >> Suppose a patent holder suing an alleged infringer were free to bring the case in a court that has a strong precedent of summarily dismissing challenges to the validity of a patent rather than the court that would normally have jurisdiction, which takes such patents more seriously. Is that fair to an alleged infringer who believes the patent not to be valid?

      Even in the United States, our laws define the jurisdiction of each court very precisely as to geographical locale and subject matter. If you wish to bring suit, you must do so in a court that has jurisdiction over the matter.

      Note that this does not prevent you from exercising your rights as a citizen in another jurisdiction. But if you live in Missouri and work in Kansas, you still have to pay taxes on the income earned in Kansas to the State of Missouri because you remain subject to its jurisdiction as a resident and citizen.

      You wrote: Again, a hindrance to this has been the “pirated” use of the word “Catholic”, and primarily by those under Papal authority ( Roman Catholics).

      Ah, there’s a semantic problem here. A significant number of people who are “under Papal authority” but NOT Roman Catholics — to wit, all of the members of the sui juris ritual churches of non-Roman rites. This includes Coptic Catholics, Chaldean Catholics, Melkite Catholics, Ruethenian Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, Armenian Catholics, etc. The term “Roman Catholic” properly refers only to the canonical members of the Roman Rite — a proper subset of the Catholic Church.

      You wrote: I was trying to make the point that one must realize that the Roman Catholic Church is indeed an institution which must function (and we pray that one day it will be assisted to function even more gloriously and triumphantly) WITHIN the American culture.

      Ah, yes and no. Jesus said that we are to be in the world, but not of the world — meaning that we can never subjugate our Christian faith to “worldly” ideas that are not compatible with it.

      Of course, from a pastoral standpoint, we do have to respond to changes that take place around us. We also can welcome cultural elements — styles of music, forms of artistic expression, etc. — that are compatible with the gospel.

      Every December, the National Shrine of Our Lady of La Salette hosts a “festival of lights” spanning several acres. During this time, they have a public display of over a hundred crèches from all of the cultures within which their missionaries have been active — and it’s quite interesting to see the diversities of styles and cultural expressions of the same basic scene. But of course, the central elements of the scene — Mary, Joseph, the infant Jesus, the shepherds, the magi, and the animals — are present in all of them.

      You wrote: But what if folks don’t want to “assist?” Are they free to actually BE THERE (not as “assistants,” but as free and equal CATHOLICS?)…

      Again, I think that you misconstrued the word “assist” in this context. If you don’t assist in the celebration of the mass (by singing, making the responses and indicated gestures, and assuming the prescribed postures, and perhaps even serving as a musician, cantor, reader, greeter, or extraordinary minister of communion), what do you do? If you are present in church during a liturgical celebration, you can either assist in the celebration or observe the celebration.

      Well, perhaps there’s a third option — you can ignore (sleep through) the celebration.

      You wrote: Maybe we would be a healthier Church if we learned to rotate and not compete against each other so much!

      Part of the purpose of the rules about transferring from one jurisdiction to promote collaboration rather than competition.

      Of course, the other reality is that it’s often difficult to cooperate with those who are clueless — those whose efforts, though well intentioned, do more harm than good to what’s supposed to be the common mission. And as you can tell from other comments on this web site, there are a significant number of Catholic clergy who fit this description.

      Norm.

  13. EPMS says:

    This discussion has taken a number of fascinating directions, I concede. But the fact remains that Mgsr Steenson’s letter saw this new change in norms as an exciting evangelical opportunity, and this theme has been taken up elsewhere. Yet according to NCRonline, 91% of Catholics born and baptised before 1960 were subsequently confirmed. This is the demographic overwhelmingly represented in Ordinariate parishes. Even for those born post 1982 and baptised in a Catholic church, the confirmation rate is 69%. So there is opportunity here, but nothing spectacular. Most people who left the church in early adolescence did not do so because they found the liturgy in poor taste.

    • Ioannes says:

      If only I waited a year before being confirmed, I would’ve been a member of the Ordinariates. But I’m not bitter about that, truth be told. This change in Anglicanorum Coetibus is exciting for some, but we have yet to see anything really dramatic to make any buzz, right? So far, it’s just a statement of intentions, nothing yet on results.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      EPMS,

      You wrote: Most people who left the church in early adolescence did not do so because they found the liturgy in poor taste.

      You are right.

      The reality is that they left because they found their parish, its shoddy liturgy, and the even shoddier preaching by their clueless clergy to be utterly irrelevant to their lives.

      And that is precisely the problem that we need to fix. It starts with making our parishes places where teenagers and young adults experience welcome by people who care about them, about their situations, and about their experiences, both in life and in the parish, and that support them through the many challenges that they face in life beyond the parish.

      Norm.

      • EPMS says:

        Norm, you have certainly identified the key to the retention of young people in any Catholic parish. But the Ordinariate is a niche marketer which seems to be still looking for its niche. It appears that the supply of “dissident Anglicans” wishing to become Catholic has been tapped out. Uptake from members of the ACC/TEC has been negligible. There are many former Anglicans who became Catholics before the existence of the OCSP, but as I have said before, encouraging Catholics to jump to another Catholic jurisdiction doesn’t really constitute evangelism. The addition of those baptised but not confirmed in the Catholic church as possible members is not really enlarging the field very significantly. The unchurched are out there in huge numbers, certainly. But surely the main source of membership was supposed to be “groups of Anglicans”, or at least individual Anglicans, and they don’t seem very interested.

  14. Dn John says:

    “Those who come from the Lutheran tradition or from other Protestant traditions not affiliated with Anglican Christianity, who have no connection to the so-called “Anglican Use” parishes, however, enrollment in the ordinariate, an ordinariate parish, or an “Anglican Use” parish established under the pastoral provision is not an option.”

    The latest change to the Norms indicates that those who are incompletely initiated into the Catholic Church (baptized, but not confirmed) are eligible to join the Ordinariate and complete their initiation there. Since all who are baptized in other Protestant traditions are in a “real but imperfect communion with the Catholic Church”, it would seem that they too are incompletely initiated: validly baptized but not fully in communion. Therefore the recent norms (applied liberally according to the norms of canon law) should also extend to other Protestants.

    If such a Protestant is married to a fully initiated Catholic, then the Catholic too (and in fact the entire family) can join the Ordinariate when the Protestant member is received and fully initiated.

  15. EPMS says:

    A baptised person who “converts” to Catholicism from any denomination through an Ordinariate parish has always been eligible to join the Ordinariate, as have such a person’s spouse and children, even if they were already fully initiated Catholics. This new provision changes things only for those who were baptised, but not confirmed, in the Catholic Church.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      EPMS,

      You wrote: A baptised person who “converts” to Catholicism from any denomination…

      That is self-contradictory. A person who is already baptized as a Christian cannot “convert” to Christian faith, and thus cannot “convert” to the Catholic Church. Rather, such a person may only “come into the full communion” or “be received into the full communion” of the Catholic Church.” The “General Instructions” in the Rite of Reception of Baptized Christians into the Full communion of the Catholic Church are quite explicit about this.

      You wrote: This new provision changes things only for those who were baptised, but not confirmed, in the Catholic Church.

      Actually, the new provision does not change anything since there is no change whatsoever in the law itself, as promulgated in the apostolic constitution Anglicanorum coetibus. “Complementary Norms” cannot modify or derogate from the law in any way, but rather simply clarify implementation of the actual law. The misperception of a change in the law, however widespread, is evidence of the previous ambiguity giving rise to authentic misunderstanding and thus the need for the clarification.

      Of course, if the ordinaries and their clergy held this misunderstanding, that misunderstanding would have guided their actions. Thus, there’s no doubt that the clarification will bring about a real change in pastoral practice!

      Norm.

  16. EPMS says:

    Norm, I put converted in quotation marks for your benefit. And your contention that the modification to the Complimentary Norms changed nothing will be news to the many commentators who heralded this as a major evangelisation offensive.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      EPMS,

      You wrote: I put converted in quotation marks…

      Yes, I noticed.

      But it’s still theologically wrong.

      You wrote: And your contention that the modification to the Complimentary Norms changed nothing will be news to the many commentators who heralded this as a major evangelisation offensive.

      Canonically, it changed nothing. The law is Anglicanorum coetibus. The nature of “complementary norms” is such that they cannot in any way modify or derogate from the law itself. They can, however, explain what the law itself allows and clarify procedures to do what the law allows. Thus, what changed is the explanation of the law rather than the law itself.

      Note, however, that there was also clear precedent in this matter, established by the reception of now-Msgr. John Broadhurst, who was baptized in the Catholic Church but subsequently raised and catechized in the Church of England, back into the full communion of the Catholic Church on 01 January 2011 and his subsequent ordination as a Catholic presbyter on 15 January 2011 to become one of the first members of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham.

      That said, I am not suggesting the change in the “Complementary Norms” for the implementation of Anglicanorum coetibus were without effect. It’s clear that, prior to the clarification provided by this change, there was considerable confusion and misunderstanding — and the misunderstanding was so pervasive that it apparently extended even to the leadership of the ordinariates. Thus, “I don’t think that we can do this!” — essentially a refusal — became “We can do this!” on the street.

      Norm.

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 )

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