I'm beginning to realize that this has applied to Anglicanorum coetibus since its promulgation. Recall that Louis Falk in the runup to the erection of the OCSP was claiming to have seen complementary norms that no one else had discovered. Indeed, Msgr Steenson eventually had to travel to Des Moines to explain to Falk's ACA parish that, well, membership in the Freemasons was not an option for Catholics, and Anglican annulments would not be valid in the Church.
A debate in the TAC around the time of the Portsmouth Letter took place over whether Rome would simply declare itself "in communion" with the TAC, requiring no other actions on the TAC's part. This, of course, would allow Anglo-Catholics to continue with the fantasy that they're Catholic without making any particular effort to follow the Church's teachings. In thinking about Mr Schaetzel's post that I discussed yesterday, I get more and more of a sense that there's a strain of opinion in the OCSP that definitely agrees that Anglo-Catholics, as my TEC priest once put it, want the prestige of calling themselves Catholic without having to pay real Catholic dues.
It's not a bug, it's a feature!
Let's look at the Anglicanorum coetibus movie that two groups are watching on the same screen. One faction, represented by Mr Schaetzel, Ms Gyapong, and Mr Murphy, seems to be watching and thinking in effect, "Yes, the Holy Father finally recognized that Anglicans are in fact better than Catholics! He's ending centuries of division and bringing Rome to Canterbury!"
This may seem extreme as an interpretation, but I do find the Rule Britannia outlook of people like Mr Murphy and Fr Hunwicke, even if it has antiquarian appeal, annoying. We fought a war once, after all. But beyond that, I think some people are drawing the wrong interpretation from the fact that Anglicans have until very recently been received with the sketchiest of catechesis (viz, Evangelium) and ordained following perfunctory webinars.
It's not a bug, it's a feature!
Now, not many diocesan Catholics at all are watching this particular movie, but the few that are seem to be getting a different story from the same images and dialogue. The diocesan visitor who wrote me a few days ago seems to be among those few seeing this different story:
Part of being a true Catholic is having the humility to be OBEDIENT to the Pope and by extension, his bishops and clergy, even when you don’t like what they are doing or saying (or not doing or saying). This is anathema to some and part of why being a practicing Catholic is so hard and why, in my humble opinion, the OCSP can’t seem to get it’s act together.Abp Garcia-Siller seems to have come to the same conclusion over Fr Phillips's role in the same movie. My regular correspondent pointed out in response to yesterday's post that in fact St George Republic now offers a more or less standard cathechesis program requiring candidates to attend 15 sessions and purchase the Catechism (no Evangelium, in other words). Fr Seraiah must interview each candidate. My correspondent feels this is new, and it's unclear how many, if any, candidates have been received this way. (However, our RCIA program required nearly a year of weekly sessions, and I've seen catechism programs at other parishes that take as long as two years. This is serious stuff.)
Fr Seraiah, of course, has been de facto a diocesan priest serving diocesan parishes since his ordination. Mr Schaetzel doesn't mention this in his list of tips -- his clear implication goes the other way, he's happy with anyone who walks in the door, the door being as far away as he can get from a diocesan parish. No interview, the fewer questions the better. I'm not sure if Mr Schaetzel even really understands what's going on in his own group, or what the Church actually requires of catechumens or candidates.
As far as I can see, he's an ignorant guy running off at the mouth. The little club at the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society thinks this is copacetic.
It's not a bug, it's a feature!
