At the blog The Anglo-Catholic I read:
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.
I am sure that clarifications will be forthcoming.
And Benedict XVI remains the Pope of Christian Unity.
Loading ...
“Quasi modo geniti infantes…”.
Yesterday a heretic, outside of the communion of the Catholic Church, today an Ordinary. With very little formation. And already Monsignor Steenson is ready to join the club of those who repudiate the legitimate rights of Catholic Tradition recognized by the Holy Apostolic See?
So now those who nourish traditional doctrine and mores, and those who benefit from the traditional option among the many liturgical options avaliable to the Church’s faithful, should be considered “out of Communion?”.
It is ok to hold to an “Anglican patrimony” that has its difficulties in separating what is ok from what is due to the preferences of heretics of the caliber of Thomas Cranmer, but it is not ok to hold to the patrimony, even cultural, that the Church of Rome nourished and upheld for two millenia, and that greatly contributed to the salvation and santification of souls?
It is very bad when an ordinary, equivalent in law to a Bishop, who converted to the Catholic Faith less than five years ago and was only ordained a priest in 2009, already considers that he can openly question a provision of the law of the Church, enacted by the Pope, Her supreme legislator, that recognizes the traditional liturgy as one legitimate form of the Roman rite in force, that can be celebrated by all priests everywhere. So, there is no question of a break of communion with the Bishop.
The Bishop is the one who would be in breach of his duties of obedience, if he prevaricated or otherwise blocked the implementation of the general law of the Church, disobeying the directives of the Roman Pontiff.
I’d love to hear his views on miracles, Biblical inerrancy, papal infallibility, and how the Church compares to other religions too! I bet we’ll be in for a treat from this one!
I have had a long-time interest in Anglo-Catholicism, because of its adoption, in all aspects, of our liturgy and the fact of their ‘Mass’ celebrated both in the vernacular and by some Latin. Their ‘Mass’, and Anglo-Catholic prayer book being identical in almost every respect to the vernacular of our own. Some even utilised our own Missals in entireity. But that was the Anglo-Catholicism of pre-Vatican II years.
Come the NOM and coincidentally (?) the CofE Alternative Service Book (ASB) there was a somewhat, coming-together.
I have had the suspicion that perhaps the body of the Ordinariate is not actually Anglo-Catholic. Interestingly, in the UK, some Ordinariate clerics are moving towards their roots and seek to Celebrate the TLM. Pre-Vatican II Anglo-Catholics would possess a natural propensity towards the TLM and not the NOM or their own bowdlerised version thereof.
Some, in the Ordinariate, appear to be Protestants who are against Women ‘Priests’, et al, and are merely taking cover in The Church, but who remain Protestant.
Father this is perplexing and worrying, a source of consternation in regards to the Anglican Ordinariate. Thank you to Prof Basto for interesting comments. The spectre is potentially awful.
Rumsey.
Yet where does the good Monsignor get whatever he has that is Christian , if not from Catholic tradition ? There is nothing else that is orthodox i.e. truthful .
Pax et bonum .
From Our Lady`s Land of the Southern Cross .
Having just Googled “Msgr. Steenson”, I question whether he would fall into my Anglo-Catholic categorisation. Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to the US Episcopalian tradition relative to the Anglo-Catholic tradition outlined in my earlier posting. Do/did they have Confession and Benediction and celebrate an almost identical ‘Mass’ in earlier days?
It is interesting how Vatican II created a sort of convergence.
This topic is the subject of my doctoral thesis, which is on the Oxford Movement and the English Ordinariate with regard to liturgy and belief. I hope to enlarge it to a book at some time. It is daunting.
Now, it is important not to combine the histories of the three Ordinariates or the experience of liturgy within these Anglo-Catholic groupings. The issue is very complicated.
Firstly, one cannot compare the Australian, North American and English Ordinariates with regard to liturgy. The English Ordinariate priests have been mostly part of the the heritage of the Oxford Movement, which re-introduced such things as Benediction, Confessions, vestments, candles, and the entire smells and bells experience. This movement trickled down into the present day. The three layers of Anglicanism, including low church, middle, and high church allowed for such a heritage. And, the “Latin Rite” which developed kept ad orientem, for the most part. Some of the English Ordinariate priests said the TLM before becoming Catholic priests.
Secondly, the situation in the colonies was very different, as the Mass of Cramner was institutionalized early. However, some aspects of the re-introduction of Romanish ideals did affect North America. However, the Anglican-Usage, for example, which I attended in Houston many years ago, with ad orientem and a high church flavor, but in English, is not the Mass most of the Ordinariates in England were celebrating. One must remember as well as just as there are Evangelical Christians in America, there are Evangelical Anglicans, who would be more low church. These would be called in England “prayer-book” Catholics. The Oxford Movement did have some influence on America Episcopalians, but of the Anglo-Catholic variety. There is too much history for this post.
The same would be true for Australia. I would never look at these three Ordinariates as one, and neither did the Pope, responding to the needs of the local Anglicans. The three are distinct for a reason.
Lastly, the Ordinaries are in a difficult position. They must work with local bishops who may or may not be supportive of their group and heritage. The entire relationship of the Ordinariate and the Roman Catholic Church has yet to be grounded happily in some dioceses.
As to the quotation, I am frankly surprised and a bit dubious at the context, as my experience of the Ordinariate priests and the Ordinary here is that they are intelligent, polite, highly cultured, and open to the TLM. However, there are issues which need to be clarified. By the way, the Holy Father himself looks at every portfolio of every priest who is to be ordained in the Ordinariate. If we are not trusting in the Holy Spirit through this great man, we ourselves are not obedient.
I fully support this movement and thank God for His Holiness.
May I add that the majority of priest with whom I have spoken have NOT come in because of women priests or potentially women bishops, but because of the Eucharist, the awareness, the grace of the recognition of the Real Presence.
I find the blogger’s comments you posted regarding Msgr. Steenson dubious and I await the development of more facts.
I appreciate the education provided by Prof Basto and supertradmum. I certainly hope a correction of some sort is forthcoming whether it be Msgr clarifying or whomever moving to correct his attitude if it is referenced accurately.
Mr. Campbell has a history of posting unsubstantiated allegations against Fr. Steenson and the US Ordinariate in The Anglo Catholic site. At least one of those, announcing the utter failure (!?) of the Ordinariate have been deleted form the site. Therefore, I do not consider him personally a trustworthy source on issues regarding Fr. Steenson. There seem to be some personal issues at play there.
It’s hearsay one way or the other.
From a 2009 article:
While Father Steenson was a member of the conservative, traditional wing of the Anglican Communion, he said he would not define himself that way in the Catholic Church.
“For instance,” he said, “I don’t have any interest at all in the extraordinary rite,” the Latin liturgy often referred to as the Tridentine rite, “or in any move of retrenchment against the Second Vatican Council. Vatican II is the reason I was able to become a Catholic.”
“I am extremely happy with the church as I find it,” he said.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0901044.htm
I hate to say it, but up until 2007 Msgr Steenson was a bishop in the Episcopal Church, with such brother and sister bishops as Gene Robinson and Katherine Jefferts-Schori. What we have is a modern Episcopalian who only jumped ship decades after women’s “ordination” and other post-Christian eccentricities.
I know when I first became a Catholic 6 years ago, I strongly disliked the traditional rite. Now I’d go to it exclusively if I could. There’s a learning curve, and I hope Msgr. Steenson grows to appreciate Catholic patrimony as much as Anglican patrimony. Or more!
As the Ordinary for the North American Ordinariate and as the representative authority for all those priests and laity coming in, and as the Ordinary Form is the Novus Ordo, we should not be surprised if he is not a TLM advocate. That does not mean that he is against it or Rome. The quotation for the 2009 catholicnews site is much less adversarial and more personal than the A-C site.
As I noted above, some of the Anglo-Catholics are TLM fans, but not all.
It’s ALL hearsay, one way or the other.
I understand well the pain which we all feel when those things dear to us, most especially those pertaining to the Faith, are in some way maligned. At the same time I wonder if too often we (and I definitely include myself here) forget to presume the good in favor of hasty conclusions which help vent our overall frustration with the situation. For my part, I met Msgr. Steenson just a few weeks ago at an ordination for the Ordinariate. I found him to be a genuine, kind, and gentle man. When I told him that I was a graduate student in liturgy he seemed very enthusiastic, and when I told him that I was working on “mutual enrichment” and “recovering the treasures of the tradition,” he seemed positively ecstatic. I certainly didn’t get the sense that he was a huge proponent of the Extraordinary Form, but he clearly didn’t perceive me as some activist for it either. Since the author acknowledges that what we have is not a quotation but rather a paraphrase then I think we’re bound to suspend judgement and pray for both the Blogger and the Ordinary, and most especially for the faithful of the Ordinariate and the priests who serve them.
“I am sure that clarifications will be forthcoming.”
Not that that is stopping most of your commenters. In the Washington DC area, I have seen nothing but cooperation and good will between proponents of the Traditional Mass, and adherents of Anglo-Catholicism who have or are returning to Rome.
Yes, Horatius, it is all hearsay, if not something worse.
He hates the EF Mass, what more clarification do we need Father. Just like Micahel Voris showed us in his latest video.
Quote: “because I had an affinity for the TLM that I should consider myself “out of communion” with the local Ordinary, Bishop Noonan of Orlando”
“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.”
Enimity = HATRED!!!
Do these same Bishops speak out, so vehemently, against those like you showed in your last video, with the saxaphonist. No they don’t!!. Soon many traditional Catholics will get the message, that they are NOT wanted and will leave. Than Rome and it’s liberal rulers will face the devil and his persecution on their own. And they will not get the slightest help from a single traditional Catholic or Orthodox Chrustian. Than they will finally realize their failure.
I agree with acardinal and Horatius: the recollection posted is hearsay. There are no direct quotes and much surmising. I am a bit surprised, in fact, that such an unsubstantiated quote was posted here in the first place. And from this recollection (from a person we know not whose personal predilections we know not) it is rather precarious to pass judgement on Msgr. Steenson, especially judgments that assume (as RobertK’s) that he “hates the TLM”.
From my own time in the ACA before my conversion, there seemed to be a great love among Anglo-Catholics for the “TLM”, especially in its local variants, such as the Sarum and York Rites. There was also a love of the so-called “Knox” Missal and the 1549 Book of Common Prayer (which are both, essentially, English translations of the TLM). Our sacristy in the parish church where I belonged had these Missals in ritual editions and they were used.
I declare to RobertK: Enmity does not equal hatred. Otherwise Our Lord’s COMMAND to love our enemies is a contradiction. Enmity means being in a relation where the other must be resisted and fought against. One does not need to hate an enemy in order that emnity may exist.
Definition Minnesotan.
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q=define+enmity&qpvt=enemity&FORM=DTPDIA
http://www.answers.com/topic/enmity
I have been thinking about this all day. At first I panicked. Then after reading other posts & thinking some more I know this could be a simple misunderstanding. Often when the EF is mentioned people immediately think of SSPX or other groups and this could well have been the case.
Being a member of Our Lady of Walsingham parish in Houston I know there is deep sympathy for the EF among its members. Many of us seek out an EF Mass when unable to attend OLW.
There is a lot of hysteria in the Ordinariate. Let’s pray it dissipates quickly and that we can get back to the business of being better Christians and bringing others into the Faith.
The liturgy celebrated in U.S. Ordinariate churches uses the “Book of Divine Worship” approved by John-Paul II in 1993. The copyright page says:
Excerpts from The Book of Common Prayer according to the use of the Episcopal Church, 1928.
Excerpts from The Book of Common Prayer according to the use of the Episcopal Church, 1979.
Excerpts from the English translation of Missale Romanum: The Roman Missal, copyright © 1973, International Committee on English in the Liturgy, Inc.
All rights reserved.
It doesn’t seem unusual that Msgr. Steenson would prefer the Ordinariate’s own proper liturgy, just as a Melkite Eparch would prefer his own liturgy.
Here is part of a 2009 CNS interview with Msgr. Steenson:
The “Book of Divine Worship” is available online:
http://www.atonementonline.com/BODW.pdf
Bishop Noonan has the FSSP saying weekly TLMs in his diocese, so perhaps Monsignor is mistaken. http://www.parishesonline.com/scripts/hostedsites/Org.asp?ID=14131
Wouldn’t it be interesting if Msgr. Steenson was aiming to get the Sarum rite restored instead?
This doesn’t smell right. I’ve listened to the Msgr many times and he has shown no such attitude. I have a feeling this is not the whole story at all. It would be unwise to blindly start bashing people based on hearsay.
On the basis of Ignatius remark at 803am and subsequent observations about hear-say, can someone recommend to me an Anglo-Catholic blog that supports the Ordinariates? Thanks.
As someone who’s known Jeffrey Steenson a long time, I would say that this doesn’t, as “Baron Korf” says, smell right, not at all. “Enmity,” esp. towards other believers, is not something he does. A simple affinity for the Latin Mass putting a man out of communion with his bishop is hardly something he would say.
My guess is that his rejection of a “retrenchment against the Second Vatican Council” he mentioned in the 2009 interview explains whatever it is he said. There is among many Episcopal traditionalists what might be called a Lefebvreite attitude and some when they become Catholics immediately become bitter critics of the Church and the Novus Ordo, or if not still gravitate towards the extremes or at least adopt a feeling of alienation to mainstream Catholicism. They were unhappy Anglicans and now they’re unhappy Catholics, with the reasons for unhappiness changed. This is one of the tendencies for which the ordinary must keep an eye out.
The “recollection” seems to be pulled out of context of the larger article in which it seems to be offered as an explanation for the decision that was made. St. Thomas More parish while becoming part of the Ordinariate agreed to purchase an excess property from the Diocese of Scranton to be their new home. While it is now “Ordinariate property”, the funding for the purchase came from the parish. This was not even the property they had originally hoped to purchase (it being demolished since), and had not been used for some time. Part of the property included a school and convent. The parish (or officially the Ordinariate) paid over $250k for the property, which of course was in need of neglected maintenance.
The St. Gregory the Great Academy had been operated for years the the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, and they decided to end their involvement. A group wanted to keep it going, and had approached the pastor about leasing the school and convent to be a temporary home for a year. An agreement was reached and the lease was prepaid in order that work could be done to fix up the old convent into a dormitory. This was referred to in the parish newsletter back in early June, and seemed to be part of the plan to fix up the property. The Academy would move on, and the parish might eventually have its own school thanks in part to the new renovations. The Academy, with its commitment to the Traditional Mass that had long gone on under the FSSP, was a separate organization that would only be leasing a facility while fixing it up, and the Pastor’s commitment seems to have been limited to saying Mass for them. This plan seems to have now been rejected by Msgr. Steenson, and apparently it was felt that the reason he rejected it was due to its Traditional Mass affiliation. From what was said in the newletter, I take it that the Academy had already paid for a year’s lease and work has been going on over the past few months to prepare for the opening of the new school year shortly after Labor Day. Now it would seem the Academy has to look for a new home again if they are going to continue, and no doubt might ask that the parish and Ordinariate not only reimburse them from moneys spent but perhaps some additional costs they would have incurred due to the breaking of the lease as well. The parish would seem to have raised a good deal of money to turn over to the diocese to purchase a property that needs a lot of work as perhaps a condition of the pastor being released from the diocese and incardinated into the Ordinariate. Now what seems to have been a prudent use of the property to be leased out temporarily and get fixed up has now been thwarted. It does not make much sense without the consideration that someone did not want the Academy to continue. Whether that is mainly due to their Traditional background or not, it does not seem that any reason has been offered.
I hope that the report is inaccurate.
A sizable portion of parishioners at his principal church are traditionalists, such as myself.
I concur with Baron Korf and David Mills that this doesn’t smell right.
While I have no first-hand information concerning the veracity of this report, I have conversed with the rectors of the two Baltimore churches which recently entered the Ordinariate. Each one told me he plans to offer the TLM, while not with regularity (at first) but from time to time.
I also know without question that Msgr. Steenson became a vigorous advocate for one of those rectors who faced an obstacle which temporarily threatened to derail his ordination. It makes no sense to me that Msgr. Steenson is hostile to the TLM when both these rectors (plus at least one of the new associate rectors) of both Ordinariate churches in Baltimore are planning to offer it.
I visited the source blog, and the blogger goes a long way on the strength of no actual evidence other than his own account. Some have suggested his feelings towards Steenson are less than objective. In any case too many people seem to be are drawing premature conclusions; there is a lot of hyperbole in the combox there and even a little here.
It stands to reason the Enemy has an investment in blocking any unification in the Church. Do we really believe Lucifer intends to sit idly by while the Pope of Christian Unity works to bring to life the prayer of Our Lord?
I hold with those advocating restraint until we are able to verify this account. Perhaps someone should alert Msgr. Steenson of this public post so he can address it directly on the Ordinariate site.
We are very blessed to assist at a weekday TLM celebrated by a priest in the Anglican Ordinariate at his Anglican Use parish. Msgr. Steenson knows about this and has raised no objections. I hope his name is cleared.
I can’t figure out why Fr. Z, a scholar in his own right, would post hearsay with no substantiation and leave it without comment. I don’t get it….
Episcopalian book of worship approved by JP II in 1993?
Refereces to The Book of Common Prayer, various editions: were such excised of the forward which espoused such derogatory (understatement) reference to The [Traditional]Mass?
@Sixupman: The Holy See did not approve the Episcopalian “Book of Common Prayer”. Rather, there was a liturgy established for the Anglican Use parishes of the Roman Rite that reflected much of the Anglican liturgical patrimony that was not discordant with Catholic theology. This is called “The Book of Divine Worship” and was approved by the USCCB and confirmed by the CDW in Rome in 2003. It incorporates the best parts of the 1928 and 1979 Books of Common Prayer for the Eucharist, other Sacraments, Occasional Rites, and the Divine Office. The 39 Articles of Religion (that section to which you refer at the beginning of the Book of Common Prayer) is, of course, removed.
This “Book of Divine Worship” is now under consideration for the basis of an Anglican Ordinariate Missal. I have had the opportunity to worship with these rites at Our Lady of Walsingham in San Antonio and Our Lady of the Atonement in Houston. Both were beautiful and enriching experiences that truly reflected an ars celebrandi worthy of Holy Mass and the idea that lex orandi, lex credendi.
Sorry, the wrong date was my mistake. I should have written 2003 instead of 1993.
The Book of Divine Worship is listed on the U.S. Ordinariate “Resources” page at:
http://usordinariate.org/resources.html
The title page says:
Being elements of the Book of Common Prayer
Revised and adapted according to the
Roman rite for use
By Roman Catholics coming from the
Anglican Tradition
And notes that it was approved by the NCCB and the Apostolic See
The Mass celebrated using the Anglican Use (Book of Divine Worship) can be viewed here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q251EywW__M
With some attractive Anglican additions, but the overall effect may be that of the OF done right–chanted Mass ad orientem, Roman Canon, communion kneeling at the altar rail, full solemnity, smells and bells. That is, as seldom if ever seen in the typical Roman Catholic parish. (You can click your way through it to spot check, without watching the whole Mass.)
Henry Edwards said: “With some attractive Anglican additions, but the overall effect may be that of the OF done right–chanted Mass ad orientem, Roman Canon, communion kneeling at the altar rail, full solemnity, smells and bells. That is, as seldom if ever seen in the typical Roman Catholic parish.”
It has been my fervent hope and prayer that what you described in your post is what the OF “reform of the reform” might look like. I read the original blog post, and there doesn’t seem to be much there other than “I had a conversation quite a while back and he said so-and-so”. Given that the bloggers report of the conversation doesn’t seem to square with other known actions of the Msgr. , I tend to think it’s a big misunderstanding.
It has been my fervent hope and prayer that what you described in your post is what the OF “reform of the reform” might look like.
Sissy, you may wish to follow Fr. McDonald’s blog for his take on the OF done right.
“The Liturgy of the Anglican Use parishes was approved in 1983 by The Holy See and the Committee for the Liturgy of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Book of Divine Worship was published in its current form in 2003.”
http://www.walsingham-church.org/site/Liturgy.html
On that page there is a link to a pew missal for use by the people in following the Mass.
Thank you very much, wmeyer. I’ll check out that link. I’d love to see the OF done well; I’m sorry to say I haven’t seen it yet (but I’ve only been attending Mass about a year). I see on their website that St. Benedict’s in Richmond, Va appears to be incorporating many of the elements Henry Edwards mentioned above. I hope to visit there very soon.
I don’t know this particular Anglican Use Priest, but have to say the situation with all other Anglican Use communities that I know of could not be more different than the post suggests. Anglican Use and TLM/EF communities by and large regard each other as sympatico, and share communicants, and to some extent, choirs, servers, etc.
j, I have found it to be just as you indicate. In my diocese our parish is the “home” of the extraordinary form (having once been in the care of the FSSP) AND our pastor is the chaplain / diocesan liaison for the Anglican Ordinariate, making our parish the de facto home for it as well.
As long as we are going to entertain hearsay, my friend contacted Monsignor Steenson personally when he read this post and asked him if it was true. Monsignor Steenson replied and said he did not have a problem with the extraordinary form of the mass if I understood my friend correctly. I’d say we need to give Monsignor the benefit of the doubt.
Msgr. Steenson has not spoken through the Ordinariate’s webpage at http://www.usordinariate.org/on_the_latin_mass.html :
“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.”
Apparently that was behind his reasoning in not allowing St. Thomas More parish to lease out for only one year their unused school building to the St. Gregory the Great Academy, which uses the Extraordinary Form.
Thank you, Robert K, for your reply. The item in American Heritage Dictionary does indeed support and help to explain your point. But you have said no rebuttal to my point, which was that since we are commanded to LOVE our enemies, and since Our Lord would not command what was impossible or self-contradictory, and since I should think all would agree that love and hate are opposites (despite a few bits here and there like “I hate all who lie” in one of this morning’s psalms), then it is possible to have enmity without hatred.
Pingback: On Msgr Steenson and The Anglo-Catholic « Fr Stephen Smuts
Pingback: Blogs in the USA | Ordinariate Expats
Pingback: Les anglo-catholiques américains, la liturgie extraordinaire et la communion dans l’Église | Riposte-catholique