Latin Mass banned in US Anglican Use Ordinariate

[Bennett_Augusti]

The Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (aka Traditional Latin Mass, Tridentine Mass, etc.) has been formally banned from the Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter (North American Anglican Use). Ordinariate priests may celebrated the EF/TLM in non-Ordinariate parishes/settings under faculties from the bishop of the territorial diocese.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I’m guessing this is so that TLM adherents won’t try to take over their “TLM ready” parishes.

 

[Bennett_Augusti]

? ? ?

 

[TimothyH]

“Banned” is hardly a charitable word to describe what is happening.

"We have therefore asked that the congregations of the Ordinariate follow this direction. Some of our clergy want to learn also how to celebrate according to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. They are certainly encouraged to do so, under the provisions of Summorum Pontificum and under the supervision of the local bishop, to assist in those stable communities that use the Extraordinary Form. But as the Extrordinary Form is not integral to the Anglican patrimony, it is not properly used in our communities. The Ordinariate will remain focused on bringing Christians in the Anglican tradition into full communion with the Catholic Church. We also are pleased that the Church has provided for the continuing use of the Extraordinary Form, particularly as a pastoral response to traditional Catholics, and regard all of this as a well-ordered symphony of praise to the Blessed Trinity."

Read More…

-Tim-

 

[Corki]

The Anglican Use parishes that existed under the 1980 provision already had a Latin version of their liturgy. It sounds like this notice is just to stick to what has already been approved for those parishes rather than “import” the EF Mass.

 

[triumphguy]

What’s the point of being an Anglican Use parish, if you are not going to use English?

Knowing quite a few Anglicans turned Catholic I would guess that the last thing they would want to see in their AU parish is a Latin Mass.

 

[malphono]

What’s the point of being an Anglican Use parish, if you are not going to use English?

Knowing quite a few Anglicans turned Catholic I would guess that the last thing they would want to see in their AU parish is a Latin Mass.

I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. There are, for example, more than a few Anglican communities that have used the Knox Missal for years. Plus one has to keep in mind that the AU Missal is yet to be fully formalized, and there is and has been interest in having an official Latin text available for use.

 

[jwinch2]

Here is a snippet from the actual text of the statement from Msgr. Steenson.

"The particular mission of the Ordinariate is to bring into the fuller life of the Catholic Church those enduring elements of the Anglican liturgical patrimony which are oriented to Catholic truth. This liturgical identity seeks to balance two historic principles – that Christian prayer and proclamation should be offered in the vernacular and that the language of worship should be sacral. This is what Anglicans understand when they speak of the prayer book tradition.

"The liturgy of the Ordinariate is superintended by an inter-dicasterial working group (of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW)). At the time the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter was established, the CDW provided important guidance for our liturgical use: The Book of Divine Worship Rite I should be amended to bring it into conformity with the Roman Missal 3rd edition, particularly the words of Consecration. For those congregations that prefer a contemporary idiom, the Roman Missal 3rd edition could be used.

“We have therefore asked that the congregations of the Ordinariate follow this direction. Some of our clergy want to learn also how to celebrate according to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. They are certainly encouraged to do so, under the provisions of Summorum Pontificum and under the supervision of the local bishop, to assist in those stable communities that use the Extraordinary Form. But as the Extrordinary Form is not integral to the Anglican patrimony, it is not properly used in our communities. The Ordinariate will remain focused on bringing Christians in the Anglican tradition into full communion with the Catholic Church. We also are pleased that the Church has provided for the continuing use of the Extraordinary Form, particularly as a pastoral response to traditional Catholics, and regard all of this as a well-ordered symphony of praise to the Blessed Trinity.”

The full text can be found here: usordinariate.org/on_the_latin_mass.html

 

[Semper_Zelare]

I read up on the Anglican Ordinariates from time to time.

The last time I did so, I learned that a Cathedral parish in Florida had joined the U.S. Ordinariate. But, I also caught a link very relevant to this thread, on Fr. Z’s blog:

wdtprs.com/blog/2012/07/anglican-ordinariates-and-the-extraordinary-form/

I wonder if this has less to do with Anglican heritage than simply the personal opinion of the Ordinary. This is really no different than a local Bishop disliking the Latin Mass… except his jurisdiction is geographically larger.

Reading through the comments, I saw that people were saying that Latin Masses are being said in parishes in the Anglican Ordinariate in the U.K. … interesting.

 

[jwinch2]

I wonder if this has less to do with Anglican heritage than simply the personal opinion of the Ordinary. This is really no different than a local Bishop disliking the Latin Mass… except his jurisdiction is geographically larger.

My gut reaction was that since the Ordinariate is so new that he is trying to get things rolling before allowing varying forms of the Mass to be said in AO parishes. In addition, with many Anglican communities looking to come into the Church, he may be trying to prevent them from thinking that they are going to lose their Angican tradition if a bunch of parishes start the EF of the Mass. The whole point of the Ordinariate and the Pastoral Provision before it is the retention of Anglican Patrimony while becoming Catholic.

In addition, as you noted, AO parishes will be set up well for the EF of the Mass. Perhaps he is trying to prevent a takeover of his parishes by Catholics who are disaffected with the Mass at their own parish and thus, are not really interested in being in the AO.

Peace,

 

[Semper_Zelare]

My gut reaction was that since the Ordinariate is so new that he is trying to get things rolling before allowing varying forms of the Mass to be said in AO parishes. In addition, with many Anglican communities looking to come into the Church, he may be trying to prevent them from thinking that they are going to lose their Angican tradition if a bunch of parishes start the EF of the Mass. The whole point of the Ordinariate and the Pastoral Provision before it is the retention of Anglican Patrimony while becoming Catholic.

In addition, as you noted, AO parishes will be set up well for the EF of the Mass. Perhaps he is trying to prevent a takeover of his parishes by Catholics who are disaffected with the Mass at their own parish and thus, are not really interested in being in the AO.

Peace,

I mean, I don’t know much about this. All I know is that post I linked to on Fr. Z’s blog (which is trustworthy to say the least).

This is the quote that Fr. Z posted on his blog, of another Catholic blogger describing his conversation with Msr. Steenson:
Fr. Z's blog:

When I [that blogger] met him in Orlando some months ago, Monsignor Steenson [head of the US Ordinariate] held nothing back in the expression of his enmity towards Catholic Traditionalism and the so-called Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. He said the Ordinariate should have nothing to do with** those people** (a paraphrase, but an accurate assessment of his attitude which was made quite clear). He even suggested that, simply because I had an affinity for the TLM that I should consider myself “out of communion” with the local Ordinary, Bishop Noonan of Orlando. ?!?] Quite taken aback, I assured the Anglican Ordinary that I was quite Catholic, despite my intense dislike (and often horror) of the institutionalized liturgical abuses found in Latin Rite parishes almost everywhere (and unfortunately in my home diocese) and my attachment to Catholic Tradition.

So, clearly the opinion of Msr. Steenson has something to do with this… if it is that strong. Couple this with, I believe, Latin Masses are being said in the U.K. Anglican Ordinariate.

Yes, there are plenty of logical reasons for a young Anglican Ordinariate to take this step- you listed them in your post. But, with a statement like that from a -]Bishop/-] Ordinary… you just don’t hear Church leaders use that strong of language on anything. There’s just no way that his personal opinion isn’t a big part of this, IMHO.

Again though, I’m not an expert. I’m just a Catholic laymen who puts the growth of the Anglican Ordinariate in my Rosary intentions. So I read up on it occasionally. At any rate, this move has so far been the most telling of what kind of man Msr. Steenson is.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The whole point of the Ordinariate and the Pastoral Provision before it is the retention of Anglican Patrimony while becoming Catholic.

That has been the consistent message and theme throughout.

The idea of having Mass according to either the EF or the OF, for that matter, should be equally surprising and unexpected.

 

[jwinch2]

I mean, I don’t know much about this. All I know is that post I linked to on Fr. Z’s blog (which is trustworthy to say the least).

This is the quote that Fr. Z posted on his blog, of another Catholic blogger describing his conversation with Msr. Steenson:

All that is there is the opinion of another blogger who is linked to on Fr. Z’s website. Fr. Z makes no claims of accuracy, etc. on said opinion. He in fact, says the following: I am sure that clarifications will be forthcoming. This basically means, we don’t know anything yet and we will have to wait and see. When you read the blog in question, it is apparent that this individual has been highly critical of Msgr. Steenson and the Ordinariate in general for some time. I’ve read it in the past and was very turned off. Are their issues? Probably, as there almost always are with something new like this.

So, clearly the opinion of Msr. Steenson has something to do with this… if it is that strong. Couple this with, I believe, Latin Masses are being said in the U.K. Anglican Ordinariate.

It is not clear at all to me. All there is to base that on is a claim from one person who says they had a conversation with Msgr. Steenson.

Yes, there are plenty of logical reasons for a young Anglican Ordinariate to take this step- you listed them in your post. But, with a statement like that from a -]Bishop/-] Ordinary… you just don’t hear Church leaders use that strong of language on anything. There’s just no way that his personal opinion isn’t a big part of this, IMHO.

What strong language? Like when he said this? We also are pleased that the Church has provided for the continuing use of the Extraordinary Form, particularly as a pastoral response to traditional Catholics, and regard all of this as a well-ordered symphony of praise to the Blessed Trinity.

Furthermore, you have absolutely no idea that his personal opinion had anything to do with this. To say that “there is just no way” that it didn’t is untrue. Again, you may be proven right in the future, but at this point, all that exists is one blog post by someone you do not know who seems to have a problem with how the Ordinariate has been handled for some time now.

Again though, I’m not an expert. I’m just a Catholic laymen who puts the growth of the Anglican Ordinariate in my Rosary intentions. So I read up on it occasionally. At any rate, this move has so far been the most telling of what kind of man Msr. Steenson is.

I would submit that you are making judgments on what kind of man Msgr. Steenson is based on the opinion of one blogger who you know nothing about. You may be proven right down the road, but at this stage, you have nothing to base this on at all. The likely, and charitable, interpretation is that he is doing his best and has logical reasons for handling things as he is.

I will leave you with the comments of someone who posted in response to one of the critical articles on the blog in question.

The real problem in America is that there are so many warring and litigious factions of Anglicanism, making up the so-called alphabet soup. Clergy training and formation in many cases leaves much to be desired, and self-appointed “bishops” and “archbishops” chase the purple despite being unqualified. Millions of dollars have been spent on legal fees in squabbles over property rights. The Chair of Peter certainly does not want all this to spill over into the Catholic Church. The Ordinary is quite correct to proceed with caution. He must get it right at the beginning…

…Mr Uher and his friends would do everyone a favour by staying away and letting the rest get on with it. These are early days in such a mind-blowing development. They should come back in a hundred years and see what has been achieved.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Eh. So that blogger has an opinion. He quoted a conversation he had with the man. What do people do just put words in people’s mouths?

It’s good enough for me.

But, I will abide by that last random comment you quoted on the bottom. Personally, if you’re going to quintuple quote my post and respond to it in 5 different ways I think you’re the one guilty of bringing the warring factions from Anglicanism into the Catholic Church.

You also accused me of judging others. That is between me and God. And so is a lot else that I’m done discussing with you. I hope I enlightened the discussion on this thread with my knowledge from Fr. Z’s blog. Fr. Z certainly enlightened me to what’s going on here.

When I say “there is just no way” you missed the IMHO which follows that. That is my opinion. So, it’s actually untrue to say that it’s untrue. Because that truly is my opinion. So… you’re the one speaking untruth. Not me.

 

[Semper_Zelare]

Again though, I’m not an expert. I’m just a Catholic laymen who puts the growth of the Anglican Ordinariate in my Rosary intentions. So I read up on it occasionally. At any rate, this move has so far been the most telling of what kind of man Msr. Steenson is.

See. I said I don’t even care about this. I pray for the growth of the Anglican Ordinariate at the end of every Rosary I pray, when I pray for the success of the initiatives of Pope Benedict XVI, and ask for the intercession of Blessed John Paul II for him.

That’s my only interest in this. And you go and ruin my day by posting a really uncharitable post about what I wrote. And you accused me of judging people.

I think the internet is terrible. We’re using 7% of the faculties for communication. So, I guarantee you that if I told you my post face to face you would not have responded the way you did online. IE: you misinterpreted through no fault of your own, because 93% of what I wanted to communicate I was unable to with text alone.

All I want to do is get to 1,000 posts on CAF and I’m done. Online communication is inferior. And I feel disadvantaged as a human being to be living in a time with the internet. How many of the saints used the internet? The vast majority did not.

Pax Vobiscum Hodie

You took the peace out of my day.

You said I was judging people. You said I was uncharitable. You said I didn’t know what I was talking about.

All I wanted to was contribute a link relevant to this thread. What are the odds that I stumbled upon a link about this topic a few days ago? Then you had to personally attack me

You ruined my day. I hate the internet.

 

[jwinch2]

Eh. So that blogger has an opinion. He quoted a conversation he had with the man. What do people do just put words in people’s mouths?

It’s good enough for me.

I personally prefer not to just take the opinion of one random blogger as to the state of the entire Ordinariate as it relates to Catholic Tradition.

But, I will abide by that last random comment you quoted on the bottom. Personally, if you’re going to quintuple quote my post and respond to it in 5 different ways I think you’re the one guilty of bringing the warring factions from Anglicanism into the Catholic Church.

I have no idea what you are talking about. What in the world does multi-quoting a post have to do with anything? I did so in order to address your comments clearly, nothing more.

You also accused me of judging others. That is between me and God. And so is a lot else that I’m done discussing with you. I hope I enlightened the discussion on this thread with my knowledge from Fr. Z’s blog. Fr. Z certainly enlightened me to what’s going on here.

I read Fr. Z’s blog myself from time to time. In this situation, Fr. Z renders no opinion at all that I can see. All he said is that he is sure that clarification will be forthcoming and that is it.

When I say “there is just no way” you missed the IMHO which follows that. That is my opinion. So, it’s actually untrue to say that it’s untrue. Because that truly is my opinion. So… you’re the one speaking untruth. Not me.

Yes, I did miss that. My apologies. However, it is my opinion, that your opinion represents an unfounded speculation. Prior to that you made the claims that it was clear that Msgr. Steenson’s opinion has something to do with this. That was not a statement of your opinion, but rather a statement of fact which you seem to have no evidence to support. In my previous post I even allowed that you may be proven right down the road, but that your position at this time is unfounded.

Just so you are aware, CAF has rules about making statements about the character of clergy or accusing them of some sort of misbehavior without proper evidence.

 

[jwinch2]

See. I said I don’t even care about this. I pray for the growth of the Anglican Ordinariate at the end of every Rosary I pray, when I pray for the success of the initiatives of Pope Benedict XVI, and ask for the intercession of Blessed John Paul II for him.

That’s my only interest in this. And you go and ruin my day by posting a really uncharitable post about what I wrote. And you accused me of judging people.

I think the internet is terrible. We’re using 7% of the faculties for communication. So, I guarantee you that if I told you my post face to face you would not have responded the way you did online. IE: you misinterpreted through no fault of your own, because 93% of what I wanted to communicate I was unable to with text alone.

All I want to do is get to 1,000 posts on CAF and I’m done. Online communication is inferior. And I feel disadvantaged as a human being to be living in a time with the internet. How many of the saints used the internet? The vast majority did not.

Pax Vobiscum Hodie

You took the peace out of my day.

You said I was judging people. You said I was uncharitable. You said I didn’t know what I was talking about.

All I wanted to was contribute a link relevant to this thread. What are the odds that I stumbled upon a link about this topic a few days ago? Then you had to personally attack me

You ruined my day. I hate the internet.

I did not call you uncharitable and I did not personally attack you. I suggested what I felt was a more charitable interpretation of the situation. That is all.

 

[triumphguy]

I don’t think that’s necessarily the case. There are, for example, more than a few Anglican communities that have used the Knox Missal for years. Plus one has to keep in mind that the AU Missal is yet to be fully formalized, and there is and has been interest in having an official Latin text available for use.

Having gone to a few masses at our local AU Church, and the ordinations (diaconal and presbyteral) of the priest, and having talked to many parishioners who became Catholic (many of whom I knew from before through my Anglican in-laws) I know that many did so not so much because they wanted to join the Roman Church, but because they did not like what was happening to the Anglican Church.

The last thing they would want to do is become more Roman than the surrounding Romans they have just joined.

Now some of the clerics may be a different matter.

 

[Ruthie_again]

All I want to know is - If an AU parish opens in my area of the USA, and I attend Mass there, will I get to sing “Jerusalem”?

Since I’ve heard that some English consider it an old crock, let me state for the record that there’s no sarcasm intended.

I love that hymn. It makes me choke up. But it is a wee bit England-centric…

For my fellow Americans who may not be familiar with it:
youtube.com/watch?v=qKDBGHmH7Hw

 

[triumphguy]

All I want to know is - If an AU parish opens in my area of the USA, and I attend Mass there, will I get to sing “Jerusalem”?

No sarcasm intended; since I’ve heard that some English consider it an old crock, let me state for the record that there’s no sarcasm intended.

I love that hymn. It makes me choke up. But it is a wee bit England-centric…

For my fellow Americans who may not be familiar with it:
youtube.com/watch?v=qKDBGHmH7Hw

That’s the whole point of the hymn!

“And did those feet in ancient times, walk upon England’s etc etc.”