I Belong To Fr Phillips?

I was hunting around last week for the passage in Paul's epistles where he mentions that various people belong to Cephas or whomever. By coincidence, last Sunday's reading was just that: I Corinthians 1:10-13-17, in part

For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers and sisters, by Chloe's people, that there are rivalries among you. I mean that each of you is saying, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apollos," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ." Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?

A number of people have written to me saying they trust Fr Phillips and that there's something wrong with mistrusting his version of events. Sorry, I don't know Fr Phillips, and I don't belong to him.

On top of that, I have a basic problem with anyone who tries to stir people up against bishops. I think Catholic laity have a duty to hold bishops to account, but it needs to be done with reference to specific instances and well-documented, leaving room for interpretation and recognizing that the bishop and the diocese have an obligation to keep personnel matters confidential.

Further, I make no secret and make no apologies for a view that the Catholic Anglican ecumenism project has turned out in practice to be something of a con. It was founded on two false assumptions:

• The erroneous idea that Anglicanism and Catholicism are doctrinally close. Informed scholarly opinion in recent decades has been that Anglicanism is a Reformed denomination -- we should take the XXXIX Articles seriously -- that adopted a mannered but largely superficial Catholic style only in the last 150 years.
• The erroneous idea that US Episcopalians would leave the denomination in large numbers after it revised its prayer book and ordained women in the 1970s, and these dissidents would become Catholic. In fact, the "continuers" were far fewer than projected, and the majority of these were low-church who would never consider becoming Catholic.

People are free to disagree on these points. However, it's worth noting that blogs that might have supported the OCSP in its apparent disagreement with the Archdiocese of San Antonio disappeared a number of years ago. In my view, this reflects a demoralization among those who once had higher hopes for the Anglican ecumenism project. I would note that even the most long-lived cheerleading blog, Ordinariate News, has not covered the developments over Fr Phillips.

I'm writing this blog from a personal perspective that began with a fascination over 1970s reports in Los Angeles media covering St Mary of the Angels. Due to various factors, I moved from a high-church "affirming" Episcopalian parish to St Mary of the Angels in early 2011 just in time to experience first-hand the disorganization and incompetence surrounding the establishment of OCSP. I came away with an overwhelming impression that the OCSP was implemented for the benefit of opportunists and careerists.

Others, who often haven't had my first-hand experience, will disagree. Interestingly, two of my correspondents who disagree with me most strongly and who support Fr Phillips most fiercely, are Orthodox and have no dog in this fight. I respect and have continued goodwill and friendship for those who disagree.

On balance, I continue to give the benefit of the doubt to all Catholic bishops and support their authority over their priests. I also tend to agree with another ex-Episcopalian now-Catholic correspondent who said

This stuff about Atonement is so wrong-minded, using canon law against the diocese and whatnot. What a waste of time and energy. I believe that the PP served a good purpose. But the Ordinariate is the result of the Catholic Church running 50 mph through a stop sign. I well recall the Episcopal norm of infighting and hatred that accrue when pastoral personality becomes overridingly important. [Yes, this is typical Episcopalian congregationalism at work.]

I promised myself when I came over in 2005 that I would never engage in that in my new home, and that promise has served me well. What else could be expected, erecting a structure so different than normal Catholic ceremony and practice. Big pendulous smoky masses, fussiness, veils, NIV (or RSV, whatever it is) readings, a different calendar, etc. All elitism and puffed up pride.

I have to say Cardinal Mahony was right on: he kept a mile away from that, refusing to stick his foot in it. Any Catholic can go to any Catholic Church they want, and if you don't like one, it's on you to go to another, as you and your wife have documented. It's not okay to say we are independent of the bishop and we're going to fight him, by God. That's exactly what countless congregational churches in the South do, and it's Protestantism, not Catholicism. I am very disappointed in what I'm reading about Atonement parish. I think the professed longing for coming home to the Catholic Church (by some) has been fully exposed as fraud.

I'm doing my best to cover the news in an even-handed way -- Ordinariate News ain't doing it! -- but I reserve my right to express my own views.