Can anybody throw any light on this?
A few days ago I received a four-sided document headed Understanding why the Ordinariate is not Catholic, and 'signed' Fidei Defensor.
It is literately written and demonstrates quite a bit of knowledge. It could be American, but I think it more likely to be English. Its thesis is that the Ordinariate is a plot to protestantise the Catholic Church by introducing Liturgy which is Protestant and based on the 39 Articles.
The writer's thesis is undermined radically by the fact that she or he is unaware that the Ordinariate Rite of Mass was made more 'Catholic' than the Novus Ordo ...; partly by including a great deal of material from the 'Tridentine Rite' of S Pius V; partly by completely forbidding all the post-Vatican-II Eucharistic Prayers, at least on Sundays and Feast Days. (Only the ancient Canon Romanus may then be used. No Anglican Eucharistic Prayers are ever allowed at all.)
After Ordinariate clergy started to become manifest in the Mainstream Church, complaints were indeed heard about the singing of the Angelus or of a Marian Anthem after Sunday Mass ... or about "the Latin (sic) stuff at the beginning" [the Kyries] ... et alia talia ...
But such things are not commonly thought of as coming from the 39 Articles ... at least, not directly ...
17 comments:
From my observation of comments over the past few years, criticism of the Ordinariate for being "Protestant" generally emanates from those who fear the theological orthodoxy and liturgical traditionalism of the Ordinariate. In other words, the accusers are "spirit of Vatican 2" liberals. They despise all groups who hold fast to Tradition, but the Ordinariate are a particular irritant, beause they represent an adddition from outside to the opponents of the liberal programme. Ironically, these critics are the very people who are more than comfortable with "internal" trends to protestantise the Church. So, the criticism is generally nothing more than a useful insult which is not believed by those who make it, but is intended to hurt those at whom it is aimed.
There is another possibility. The Sede Vacantists do not like the Ordinariate either -- paradoxically, for somewhat similar reasons to those mentioned above. In fact they don't like any traditionalist group within the Church probably because they give the lie to the narrative that the Church in union with Rome is entirely hopeless and corrupt and has abandoned Tradition. So, the source of the document could possibly be found in such quarters either.
The text is from this web site: https://acatholicland.org/
perhaps not coming from the XXXIX other than in S. John Henry Newman's demonstration that they are in compliance with the Council of Trent in Tract XC? The joy of Patrimony!
Éxcellent ripóste. There are times when prevaricátion and lengthy argúment has no place.
Would it be póssible for you to post the dócument recéived? Or perhaps anóther recípient might oblige?
You will see how simple it is to adopt stress accents in vulgar lánguage as in Latin, to assist those with odd émphases.
I share your puzzlement at this author's analysis. The only elements of the Ordinariate Mass (OM) which could possibly be construed as more "Protestant" are the General Confession, which omits the invocation of the Saints (although I think the OM includes the Roman Confiteor as well) and the Prayer after Communion which refers to the "spiritual food" of Xt's mystical body and blood. Personally, apart from the beauty of the Cranmerian language, I don't think there is any need for these two elements (or the Prayer of Humble Access) as they merely duplicate what is already present in the Novus Ordo and EF.
In his comment above, Paulusmaximus has summarised the position pretty well. Many of the clergy (especially bishops) of the mainstream Catholic Church in England apear to be sceptical, even condescending and contemptuous, towards the Ordinariate. They are uncomfortable with the Ordinariate's attachment to, and, in the Ordinariate Use of the Roman Rite, revival of, traditional Catholic prayers, devotions and practices swept away after Vatican II.
It is absurd to accuse the Ordinariate of trying to protestantise the Roman Liturgy; it was the "Spirit of Vatican II" reformers (many of whom are ignorant of, or choose to ignore, the actual documents of Vatican II) that protestantised the Roman Rite in creating Paul VI's missal of 1970. Once could almost say the some of the reformers wanted to jettison centuries of Catholic Tradition and create a new religion that might be termed "Vatican Two-ism".
I think that the Ordinariate is a wonderful thing, and that it provided an authentic path to healing one of the worst ruptures in Christian unity.
I have always been of the opinion that the English have never really taken to Protestanism, and seem to have an instinct for the Catholic thing. This is only apparent when one comes to understand that English opposition to the One True Church has always been based on a carefully fostered hatred of what people have been lead to believe is the "Roman" Church. Centuries of propaganda have indeed led to such atrocities as the Gordon riots, and some startling cases of invincible ignorance, but even Newman had to make his journey of faith one step at a time.
Only a small part of the English people have went in for the more extreme sort of Protestantism, after all. And, the extreme Protestants were rejected by the majority of people, who thought of them as killjoy fanatics, best to be avoided. Apart from mostly rural holdouts, many Scotsmen have embraced Presbyterianism, but Presbyterianism is a dead dog, without vitality, or and sign of real life- outside of Northern Ireland, at least. But Scotsmen are not Englishmen, after all. The Welsh, too, are not English, and represent a large segment of the non-conformist Protestantism in Britain. Then there are the Methodists- who were really a response to malfeasance in the established church, got off to a good start, and now seem to have abandoned Christianity alltogether. They will soon be gone, leaving nothing but a collection of hymns.
Recent developments, of say, the last 80 years or so, have created a crisis in the Church of England, making the prospect of continued membership untenable for the believer, yet with seemingly nowhere else to go.
Looking at female clergy and rampant modernism, a person cannot take comfort in the continuous legal possession of a see by a Church of England bishop, and simply say that he belongs to THE church. If he is honest, then he is challenged, and that challenge must forment in him a powerful magnetism in the direction of Rome.
With the establishment of the Ordinariate, Good Pope Benedict cut the Gordian Knot, in as bold a fashion as Alexander! An authentic "media res', so to speak, if you will forgive the pun, not the Corporate Reunion that was never possible, nor making people strip to the waist and swim alone the waters of the river Tiber, but a practical solution that allowed communities of Christians to see the truth, and enter into full communion with the one flock.
To be in the ordinariate is to BE Catholic. It is not some "middle way", but an integral part of the whole, no more seperate from us than a Maronite, or a Ukrainian. It is good to behold!
Longinus has beaten me to it. The site makes interesting reading. The author seemingly a seer living in Ramsgate, called Angela Anne Mary St John (Angela Margaret Mary Searles) Apostle of the Lord.
A search on https://www.easywhois.com/ revealed the owner of acatholicland.org to be one Angela Searles of Kent. A search on her name then turned up this: https://acatholicland.org/the-westcliff/
Longinus, thank you for the link. From a quick look through the site it appears that Its intent is to have us study the Apocalypse and prepare for the Second Coming to take place as soon as 2032. Her account of her 1992 vision of the Apostles and the message spoken to her by Jesus at the Westcliff in Margate is at the link given by Mr. DiLorenzo, above.
With regard to the possible present location of Angela Margaret Mary Searles, a search for Angela Searles on 192.com shows a certain 'Angela M M Searles' living in Ashford, Kent.
I remember reading some years ago an article in the Latin Mass magazine criticizing the Anglican Use on the grounds that one should have nothing to do with the heretic Cramner, beautiful prose or no beautiful prose. The (possibly) holy maid of Kent, mark 2, seems to be stating the same thesis albeit with less urbanity.
Arthur,
You might appreciate this fascinating talk by Prof. Alec Ryrie on how the English learned to hate Catholics. It is only one of many enthralling talks he has given about the Reformation under the Gresham College banner - all available for free on YouTube.
https://youtu.be/1vLdToJ1YdM
Excellent observations by all those commenting above, especially Paulusmaximus and Arthur Gallagher. The Ordinariates are a great blessing as well as a civilized, gentle road for Protestants who wish Catholicism without the horrors foisted by the Novus Ordo or some of the harmless but lachrymose extra-liturgical practices of devotional pre-Vatican II Catholicism. For me the English Mass of the ordinariates has been---in addition to the most venerable apostolic Latin mass codified by Trent, in which, for years before Benedict XVI came to the rescue, I took spiritual shelter---a luminous source of joy. While the Tridentine mass has often excellent traditional music, the apathy to music on the part of too many priests and congregations left me always with a sense of a missing spirituality I once again found in the ordinariate parish. I think that apathy (at times downright hostility) stems from a serious lack of musical formation and totally unwarranted prejudices (such as the ahistorical absurdity that "singing is what Protestants do"); or perhaps a wrong-headed reaction to the schoolmarm-like insistence in many Novus Ordo parishes on very tasteless, often barely singable compositions which are both ugly and uninspiring, if not downright heretical. The ordinariate has offered many of us, again, Catholicism with beauty and reverence, with a true sense of transcendence. God be praised! One humble reservation, however: why not do away with Communion in the hand altogether (or use the lovely practice of intinction, as currently observed in some but not all ordinariate parishes). Although communion in the hand may have a solid Anglican pedigree, let us not forget its historical origins in the Protestant denial of the Real Presence, a denial which many believe with good reason furtively lurks in the background of the practice in the Novus Ordo innovation. It is not pure coincidence that the present undeniable decline in Eucharistic faith and devotion worldwide and the practice of communion in the hand have had a strange synchroneity. No, the gifts of the ordinariates to the Universal Church are many and glorious---so evidently glorious that we are perfectly justified in asking why, if the vernacular Pauline Mass of 1970 was so desirable and needed, our ecclesiastical fathers could not have done something similar to what the ordinariate fathers have done: use the noble translations of the traditional Mass (available in every extant hand missal) with perhaps some minor adaptations---and leave the appointments and other pious practices in God's holy temple alone. I think the answer lies in the penumbras of a different and perhaps sinister vision of the church.
Since becoming a Catholic many years ago I have not received the Precious Blood at Holy Communion, which was the universal custom, as far as I am aware, before Vatican II. Most members of our congregation receive the Precious Blood from the lay person in charge of the chalice, and I have observed some people, still clutching the Host, dip It in the chalice. I don't know where this practice originated - it was certainly not an Anglican custom. Unlike Coradcorloquitur, I find it quite horrible.
The practice of intinction, as I have witnessed it, is done by the priest, not the communicant, which, I believe, is more reverent than communion in the hand as the priest must do the dipping of the Host. I agree that if the communicant does it, it becomes less than edifying---but I find communion in the hand, in whatever form, unedifying. And, just for clarification rather than argumentation, Scribe, every time you received the Host since your conversion you were, according to defined Catholic doctrine (against the Hussites and per the magisterial declaration of Trent), receiving the Whole Christ: present totally in Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity in every part of either the Sacred Host or the Precious Blood.
To get back briefly to the subject of communion by intinction---which I mentioned in my earlier comment in passing and which Scribe, understandably finds "quite horrible" in the way he witnessed it as self-intinction: the Church teaches officially in "Redemptionis Sacramentum" (#104) that communion by "self-intinction" is never allowed. The priest must himself administer the dipped Host; the communicant is to receive the Sacrament, then, on the tongue---a good way to avoid communion in the hand. What Scribe seems to have witnessed and horrified him (as it would me) is the abuse of self-intinction. Is anyone surprised to find this abuse in Novus Ordo celebrations? I am not, as "abuse" is the Novus Ordo's middle name.
Post a Comment