Fly On The Wall. What is being said about the Ordinariate.

Royal Collection Trust | David Morier | An Incident in the Rebellion of 1745

Eric Sammons initiated an exchange between "clans" by penning his article Defining the Clans.

It’s no secret that infighting flourishes among traditional Catholics. [...]. But infighting seems to be more prevalent among traditional Catholics, even becoming institutionalized at times (see: SSPX vs. FSSP).

https://ericsammons.com/defining-the-clans/

There is a instructive exchange in the combox between the well known Mr. Tito Edwards and a few others.

Informed readers will note that, in some cases, there is a need for a clarification of terms. That is, some terms are no longer in vogue or require a sensitive application. For example:

• Anglican Ordinariate. Technically speaking, there is no such thing. An Ordinariate for former Anglicans would be the more accurate terminology.
• Anglican Use. Nowadays, 'Ordinariate Use' would be a more acceptable term. As one commenter rightly noted at the ACS blog, "the Vatican has never endorsed that term and, in recent years, has asked us to refrain from use of that term due to ecumenical sensibilities and the potential for confusion(.)" Ordinariate Catholics still use the term because it is a useful shorthand to recall the Anglican Patrimony that undergirds the Ordinariate experience.

+ + +

Montee90556 a day ago

I agree with this summation. Please include Catholics who have no option then to attend the Novus Ordo due the suppression of the TLM by many bishops as in my Australian diocese. They are however obliged by Pope Benedict's decree to accommodate the Ordinariate. That's how I am able to attend an Ordinariate mass on Sundays. I attend the TLM whenever possible but unfortunately that's only once or twice a year.

Tito Edwards a day ago

What about Traditional Catholics that are in the Ordinariate? We love tradition & see it in the Divine Worship Mass (DWM). And we are Roman Rite Catholics to boot. Also Eastern Rite Catholics. They should also fall under "Traditional Catholics" because they celebrate beautiful liturgies as old or older than the Traditional Latin Mass. These are two large groups that would help accelerate the process of making the Traditional Latin Mass normative, i.e., as Pope Benedict XVI would say, 'pollinate' the Novus Ordo (NO) crowd to change the NO Mass to be more reverent & pious. There are large groups of Traditionalists that are flocking to both the Ordinariate & Eastern Rite, especially the Ordinariate, where non-Anglican Catholics are reaching near 50% in some parishes.

JR to Tito Edwards a day ago

Yes they would. Recall that St. Pius V when he promulgated the Bull Quo Primum establishing the Tridentine Roman rite made exception for those rites that had at least 200 years of usage by the time of the Bull or had been approved by the Church 200 years prior to it. So this has always been the case. The Anglican Ordinariate which I’ve attended before is Traditional because it’s Missal’s Canon has been corrected to repair its inherent defect and hence its invalidity and so is pretty much the Missal before the Anglican schism. There are rites even in the Western Church that don’t use the TLM but that are very old.

Eric Sammons Moderator to Tito Edwards a day ago

Great points, Tito. Eastern Rite Catholics of course are under a different rite, and so often their fight is different than ours, but they can qualify under all three of my criteria with no problem. I'm supportive of the Ordinariate, but I'll admit some ignorance of its rites. Is it another rite, like the Dominican Rite? If so, that's fine too, as it would still be the case that the TLM would be the normative rite for the Latin West. So I would think both Eastern and Ordinariate Catholics would fall within the Clans.

Tito Edwards to Eric Sammons a day ago

The Ordinariate Catholics are 'Roman Rite' Catholics, & under the 'Roman Rite', they are sub-categorized under the term 'Anglican Use', but Ordinariate Catholics like to be referred to as 'Roman Rite'. They celebrate Mass using the 'Divine Worship Mass' which is based on the Traditional Latin Mass with elements from the 'Book of Divine Worship' & the English patrimony, i.e., Sarum Rite, prior to King Henry VIII's schism.

For more information go here:

• https://www.acsociety.org/news/united-not-absorbed-by-daniel-seper-phd

Eric Sammons Moderator to Tito Edwards a day ago

Thanks for the info. To be clear, the term "rite" can be used in multiple ways. I am using "rite" to mean a specific way to celebrate a liturgy; whereas you are using it as a liturgical grouping of people. Both meanings are legitimate. So I would say that there should be only one Roman "Rite," the TLM, but I also agree that within the Latin, or Roman, "Rite" (or "church"), there can be multiple liturgical rites, such as the Dominican, Ordinariate, etc. There should not, however, be multiple "forms" under one liturgical rite (using "rite" as I am using it). Okay, now I think I confused myself... :)

Tito Edwards to Eric Sammons a day ago

Yes, they are akin to Dominican Use of the Roman Rite. So the Anglican Use of the Roman Rite would be technically accurate.

Mary-Kathleen Strauch Delaney to Tito Edwards a day ago

Doesn't the Ordinariate use the Novus Ordo calendar and the 3 and 2 year system of Readings and the Gospel?

Tito Edwards to Mary-Kathleen Strauch Delaney a day ago

Partly correct. The calendar is a hybrid of the TLM & Novus Ordo, more TLM tho. As for the readings, I'm not sure. But we do use the RSVCE & not the NAB.

JR to Tito Edwards a day ago

Ah ok you already said what I just wrote.

Random Anonymous to Tito Edwards a day ago

I think it's more complicated than that Tito. The Anglican Ordinariate is a mash up of Cranmer's modification of the TLM during the reformation, and the Novus Ordo. Frankly I find the Church's legitimization of an illegitimate liturgy that was created out of a protestant schism to be puzzling to say the least.

Tito Edwards Random Anonymous a day ago

Troll.

Random Anonymous to Tito Edwards a day ago

How is it trolling to state the obvious fact the book of common prayer was created out of an act of rebellious schism/heresy in the 16th century and the vernacularization of it's liturgy was a rejection of a 1000+ year old western liturgical tradition of Latin? Please do educate me good sir on how the Anglican Ordinariate liturgy which at best goes back to 1549 with it's Protestant elements surgically removed and replaced with Novus Ordo prayers in Elizabethan English qualifies as traditional? If this is what passes for tradition in the year 2020 things really are farther gone that I thought as this is just a less corrupted version of liturgical tradition than the Novus Ordo which isn't saying much.