The only niggling difficulty I have with your analysis is really my own inability to believe that this project is any big deal from the Vatican's perspective. As you also describe, the mention of Anglicanorum Coetibus or the Ordinariates draws a blank look from virtually everyone I know, and I move in circles that are interested in Church issues generally. I suppose that one could argue that the Anglican Communion is the #2 denomination worldwide, and successful outreach to Anglicans in (large) groups would have been a major achievement, with the added benefit of modelling a certain style of liturgy in the vernacular.I would say that for Pope Francis to replace Msgr Steenson (I assume this was with his approval) came as a surprise to just about everyone, as the assumption seemed to be that he would have no interest in it as a Benedict initiative, and if it fell into desuetude, so much the better. By the same token, to put Bp Lopes in as ordinary indicated a desire for a new and energetic direction. If this was the case in 2015, I don't see it changing.Bp Lopes often refers to the Ordinariates as "ecumenism in the front row" and although getting someone to leave one denomination for another is not my definition of "ecumenism" it is apparently his, and probably not uniquely so, and thus the Ordinariate project could be seen as an important ecumenical template. And if you had no knowledge or insight into how Anglican polity differs from the way the Church runs, I suppose you might have thought that there were Anglican leaders out there who could lead hundreds of thousands of their members into the Church. That fantasy, at least, was pretty much exploded fairly early on.
Msgr Steenson and his staff were not up to the job of launching the OCSP, and while Bp Lopes seems much more competent than his predecessor, and his Chancery staff at least qualified for their positions, it would take much, much more than this to make a silk purse out of the sow's ear that is the OCSP. The OOLW has its own, different problems and the OOLSC is silently slipping away, I would imagine. For Abp Ladaria's sake I can only hope that your take on the Vatican's response is somehow wrong.
When I met with Abp Hepworth, he was of the opinion that Pope Francis's gestures to the Lutherans in Sweden were part of a consistent view that included Anglicanorum coetibus, and if we suspect Bp Barron knows which way the wind is blowing, calling Luther a "mystic of grace" might be consistent with Francis's views as well. Or not.
I continue to think that the CDF is a small organization, and there are only so many projects it can undertake. If one of its most visible members, Bp Lopes, was on Anglicanorum coetibus, this suggests that project took up a great deal of the organization's time and effort. That in turn suggests Müller was replaced because expectations weren't being met.
The link I posted the other day continues to strike me as insightful. Here's more:
Second, while Müller undeniably has a more restrictive take on the implications of Amoris than many others, it’s hardly as if he’s an implacable foe of the pontiff. Recall, for instance, that the German-speaking bishops at the second Synod on the Family made a commitment in their language group to achieve unanimity on their recommendations, and Müller was part of that consensus. . . . . In other words, even if Francis truly were dividing the blues from the grays, it’s not clear on which side Müller would fall.Abp Ladaria is seen as not much of a departure from Müller doctrinally, which suggests replacing Müller, not ready for retirement, was done for some other reason. And as my correspondent and I agree, since Anglicanorum coetibus is not well known among Catholics, it's not surprising that there would be mild puzzlement at the reasoning behind the move, and the theory that it was done over the OCSP seems a better explanation than some others.
But I don't present myself as a Vaticanologist here!
