Mt Calvary Baltimore To Be Erected As Full Parish November 11

According to the St John the Baptist Bridgeport bulletin,

Mount Calvary, the Ordinariate congregation in Baltimore, is to be erected as a canonical parish, with Fr Scharbach installed as Pastor by Bishop Lopes, at a Mass on Saturday, November 11th, at 4 p.m. Their altar will also be consecrated at this service – a rare opportunity to experience this rite. All are invited!

This community has kept a remarkably low profile since its entry to the OCSP. It was mentioned here on March 13, 2015 as part of a "second tranche of missions" with Our Lady of Hope Kansas City, but there has been very little news about it otherwise.

Mt Calvary Church Baltimore: Mt Calvary entered the OCSP from The Episcopal Church. Twenty four members out of forty-five voted in favour, so the congregation is perhaps borderline for mission status, although the article I was forwarded on its reception mentions that many former parishioners had already become Catholic, so perhaps there has been some homecoming. The previous parish was apparently viable despite its small size so I assume there is money. They have a professional music director, for example. The previous rector was involved with Latin Mass enthusiasts so it may attract Catholics who enjoy traditional liturgy and music but are not eligible for OCSP membership.

My regular correspondent added just yesterday,

This group bought their church from the TEC diocese and must have been able to pay a full stipend to have hired a man [Fr Scharbach] with seven children. I always assumed that the need to find a stipendiary position for Fr S was the reason, or part of it, why Fr Catania was let go from the parish he brought into the OCSP. Presumably this is thanks to a hefty endowment, because the delay in making it a full parish must mean that numbers have only now met the 100 individuals/30 families threshold.

However, as has been noted here frequently, the OCSP's interpretation of policy has always been flexible and highly creative, as we shall see with a forthcoming ordination. Regarding numbers, my correspondent added,

Fr S is also administrator of St Timothy's, Catonsville, which is run day-to-day by the lay music director Emory Stagmer. Sunday mass is celebrated by a number of different clergy; rarely Fr S, I imagine, as Sunday mass is at the same time as the High Mass at Mt Calvary. Perhaps their numbers have been added in.

It's worth pointing out that Mt Calvary is one of very few Anglican parishes to come into the OCSP following the original Anglicanorum coetibus model, as previously incorporated, with its property, and at the action of a voting majority of its previous membership. Having done this, the pastor who brought the group in was promptly replaced in favor of a more suitable member of the Houston clique.

Since that time, it's hard to see what's improved there -- it's certainly reasonable to speculate that the promotion to full parish comes as a result of pressure on Bp Lopes to find something, anything, to reflect growth.

The possiility that Houston could very credibly turn St Mary of the Angels into a similar Plumstead Episcopi with an endowment continues to be a reason for that parish to be very circumspect regarding its own application for entry.

How Much Pressure Is Bp Lopes Under?

My regular correspondent leans more than I do to the interpretation that Bp Lopes is under pressure to succeed only at the project of implementing Anglicanorum coetibus:

I guess Bp Lopes is in a bit of a cleft stick. The fact that he would claim that two parishes had entered the OCSP this year, when that could only refer to OLA and St Athanasius, Chestnut Hill, now known as St Gregory the Great, despite the fact that this was in both instances simply a change of jurisdiction that added not one single member to the Catholic church, indicates that he is desperate to show that the OCSP is growing, although it clearly is not. Better a group of a dozen or two than nothing, apparently The fact that these groups are doomed to fold when their administrator retires or moves and cannot be replaced is a can to be kicked down the road.

Married priests will move, BTW, just as married men do in other professions, if a suitable job opens up. Fr Lewis and Fr Vidal have moved, the latter twice. Fr Reid moved from Ottawa to Victoria, BC. Fr Seraiah has moved many times, and Fr Veira is going to replace Fr Andrews in Payson, AZ. The problem is that the majority of the parishes in the OCSP would not be sustainable if the administrator did not have independent means and unless a pensioned retiree can be found or a local paying job lined up it is not possible to fill the vacancy with anyone, married or celibate.

The problem is that several of the men who've moved do appear to have supplementary income. I assume OLA can afford to pay a priest a full salary. but Washington and Payson are more dubious, and Fr Veira, as far as I'm aware, is a retired military chaplain. My correspondent continues,

According to Ordinariate Observer, there are 16 former clergy in some stage of formation for ordination. [Redacted], two men ordained for the "transitional" diaconate this summer, the Bros?, eleven others? As I have often mentioned, about a third of the men ordained under Steenson never ministered in any OCSP community.

This goes to confirm my point that Bp Lopes is continuing to recruit and ordain men who cannot be placed in stipendiary positions. If this was clearly the policy under Steenson, it's also plain that it hasn't changed under Lopes. The problem is that, given the choice, Protestant clergy, especially those in main line denominations, will wish to continue in a defined career path with assured pension and benefits if they can. Those who consider the OCSP are looking at unpaid positions ministering to tiny groups in basement chapels, or none at all. The applicant pool is going to be made up of bitter-ender opportunists who've exhausted every possible Protestant option. Just look at the sad case of [redacted], in line for Pasadena.

This, by the way, is going to apply to any Catholic attempt to open the priesthood to married former Protestants, not just Anglicans -- and let's keep in mind that the applicant pool as we've begun to see it is full of highly sketchy Anglican backgrounds even now. My correspondent said later,

I think that Bp Lopes is not interested in ordaining men for a local diocese, or in vanity projects like Msgr Gipson. Fr Bartus has worked hard to pull together a group for [redacted]. St John Fisher, Orlando was likewise created as a future slot for Jason McCrimmon. Mr Schaetzel has a map with two "groups in formation" on it, plus the one in Tampa which was in fact shut down months ago. There is a FB page for an exploratory group in Portland, OR. Fr Hodgins wishes to retire from STM, Toronto. But as you point out, filling non-stipendiary positions is challenging unless there is a local candidate with a (week)day job, or someone who can find one.

All of these enterprises are in effect Potemkin villages. But consider the alternative for the CDF: let's say that at some point in the middle distance, they decide to shut the OCSP down and send the half dozen or so viable communities back to dioceses. Surely they can find a new job for Bp Lopes and presumably Fr Perkins and others.

Why the need to continue what is clearly a charade with these forlorn little chapel groups and the highly marginal men they're recruiting for them? I still think there's got to be more of an agenda behind this.

UPDATE: A visitor notes:

Your regular correspondent is mistaken in stating, "The fact that he would claim that two parishes had entered the OCSP this year, when that could only refer to OLA and St Athanasius, Chestnut Hill, now known as St Gregory the Great. . .”.

Per the website of The Congregation of St. Athanasius, "The Congregation of Saint Athanasius is a chaplaincy of the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston dedicated to the Anglican Use of the Roman Rite, which preserves elements of the Anglican liturgical tradition within the Catholic Church. We also serve the Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter.”

St. Athanasius is NOT known as St. Gregory the Great. St. Gregory the Great maintains a website and FaceBook page, but with the retirement of Fr. Liias, its members either worship with the The Congregation of St. Athanasius or at churches closer to their homes.

However you slice it, this either means that only one, not two, groups came into the OCSP in 2017, or the total is still just two.

But Why Keep Ordaining Marginal Married Priests Then?

Regarding yesterday's speculation on whether advocating for married ex-Protestant priests will be in Bp Lopes's future, my regular correspondent replies,

Unsurprisingly, given his career as a Vatican bureaucrat, Bp Lopes is a conventional thinker on most issues of Church governance, and he has certainly made no attempt to play up OCSP experience with married clergy, whom he clearly regards as a necessary evil to be phased out or at least minimised as the Ordinariate starts producing internal candidates for ordination. All the publicity centres around the celibate seminarians, and if married OCSP clergy are interviewed by media, Catholic or otherwise, they are quick to support the norm of clerical celibacy and downplay anything positive they might bring to ministry as married men. Clearly this is the message from the top, and it is quite different from what a married Ukrainian or Melkite priest would say in a similar interview, especially those in North America where their sui juris Church waged a century-long battle on this subject. It is entirely possible that clerical celibacy is on its way out in the Latin Rite, but no one will be looking to Bp Lopes to comment positively on this aspect of the Anglican charism.

No wives invited to this year's clergy gathering, for the first time.

But although my correspondent insisted yesterday that "Manpower is a continuing challenge," that should really be modified to say "Manpower who are available is a continuing challenge." There is still an absolute surplus of OCSP clergy -- it's just that, with families and jobs rooting them to particular places, they can't be moved where they're needed. So why keep ordaining them?

For that matter, why the charade of ordaining men to minister to groups numbering a dozen or two, when experience is showing that they aren't going to grow into any sort of viable number? A geographic diocese would be in a position to fold group A into group B and move the extra priest where most needed. By the nature of Anglicanorum coetibus, this can't happen.

Theoretically, this is because these little groups of a dozen or two require the precious treasures of the Anglican spiritual patrimony, viz, half a dozen adventitious prayers added to the OF mass, and they must hear them said by a barely qualified priest who was unable to secure a preferment in a Protestant denomination, often a quite marginal one. Bp Lopes, whatever he may be thought to wish in the indeterminate future, is continuing to seek out and ordain such marginal men as we speak, building on a surplus of underemployed and undeployable clergy.

I appeal to the principle of sufficient reason, the principle of proportionate causality, and the principle of finality. There must be a cause of this thing existing. The cause of this thing existing must be sufficient for it to exist, or continue to exist. It must exist for a reason. Or it would cease to exist.

As far as I can see, maybe a little like a duckbill platypus, this strange creature exists and continues to exist. It continues to eat and reproduce in its current form. There must be a reason for it. Qui bono?

So Is It A Bug Or A Feature?

I spent some time earlier this week discussing Bp Lopes's use of the formulation "dual hermeneutic of reform" in his September 27 interview with the liberal liturgical blog Pray Tell. Any use of the term "hermeneutic" these days, considering the radical change in its use and connotations since the advent of postmodernism, ought to give anyone the heebie-jeebies. Let's recognize as well that this interview was conducted via e-mail, and Bp Lopes had plenty of time to review his replies and edit them as needed. This was not a Bergoglio making offhand remarks on the pontifical jet.

So did Bp Lopes maybe not quite know what he was saying, in which case this was a bug, or is he telegraphing something much more serious -- a deliberate intent to talk like a modern TEC bishop. with all that implies -- in which case it's a feature? My regular correspondent votes for bug:

Bp Lopes as a CDF bureaucrat was given the AC file and had to acquire expertise on a liturgy he had no doubt never previously encountered. Once one has become a leading expert in something it is hard to accept that it is, after all, a footnote to a footnote in the larger scheme of things and hardly anyone knows or cares about it. At least as far as the Catholic church is concerned, Protestant worship in general is such a subject, and the particulars of the evolution of the BCP impossibly obscure and irrelevant. No doubt it is tempting to drop expressions like "dual hermeneutic of reform" in an attempt to suggest that a deeper reading of DW will enable you to better understand the Counter-Reformation or something else important. Only in the sense that one can see a world in a grain of sand, IMHO.

The preferred narrative of a Lost Cause is that it paved the way for a later triumph. The Pastoral Provision provided a template for the Ordinariates. As the Ordinariates stall their liturgical importance will be more emphasised, I predict.

Well, maybe. But let's look at this in the context of today's Vortes from Michael Voris. He mentions, referring to the upcoming 500th anniversary of Protestantism, a "parade of Catholic bishops and clergy beating a path to the kiss-up line". Bp Lopes is, I'm sure, eager to show he's with the program, whether he's completely aware of what his words imply or not. In a later e-mail, my correspondent takes possible implications a little farther:

The latest copy of Ordinariate Observer lists 41 communities, including one which meets once a month and one which posts "phone for mass time" which suggests there is no regular Sunday mass So despite the reception of OLA this year the OCSP footprint has shrunk rather than grown in 2017. In passing, I note that Our Lady of Grace, Pasadena is not on the list, for reasons unknown. But I presume that Our Lady of Mt Carmel, Savannah and St Anselm of Canterbury, Corpus Christi have been dropped because, like St Edmund, Kitchener and St Gilbert, Boerne they have ceased to exist. Manpower is a continuing challenge. Many other small communities are one pensioner away from disappearance, and even the more robust, like SJE, Calgary, seem to require heroic measures when their administrator wishes to retire or move. So Bp Lopes is not riding the crest of any wave here. . . . [W]hether he is committed to the project or just trying to demonstrate his capacity to turn a sow's ear into a reasonable facsimile of a silk purse is unclear.

Let's recognize that there's increasing suspicion in places like Fr Z's blog of what the Bergoglian agenda really is. Bp Lopes, if he wants to show success with the Anglicanorum coetibus project, may wish to find aspects of it that do fit some interpretations of this agenda, e.g., bringing the unqualified into the sacraments. My understanding as well is that an upcoming Vatican synod will begin to address how to incorporate greater numbers of married clergy.

I would say that Bp Lopes will be in a position to show how he's succeeding with a pilot project at introducing not just married clergy, but less qualified Protestants with minimal formation, into the ranks of the Catholic priesthood. Ecumenism in the front row, after all. You mediocre Lutherans who can't find placements in your own denomination, hey, the door's now open! I would suggest that this is a way, and quite possibly the only way, for Bp Lopes to declare victory with this assignment and move on to greater things.

And keep in mind that one aspect of the current political devolution is that something we used to joke about -- gay marriage, for instance -- can become an actuality much more quickly than we think. It's entirely possible that Bp Lopes is sincere but obtuse, although at this point, I think that's the most charitable reading of what's going on. I would certainly advise serious people in OCSP communities to get themselves to a sound diocesan parish.

Final Status Conference Case BC487079 Department 32 This Morning

I attended this conference, on the upcoming damage trial in which the St Mary's vestry sues the ACA, the DOW, and certain individuals, scheduled for November 20, in the courthouse downtown this morning. There were several surprises. The last definite legal status update most of us have had was from a trial setting conference last July 12, reported here. The impression at least some observers had was that Mr Lancaster was withdrawing as counsel for the, ACA, the ACA Diocese of the West, Frederick Rivers as successor to Anthony Morello, and the Kangs, who haven't paid them since 2015 -- but he would remain as counsel to Mrs Bush.

Apparently, however, he also withdrew as counsel to Mrs Bush soon afterward. Having withdrawn as counsel, it was Mr Lancaster's responsibility to nofify all his former clients of the next hearings scheduled in the case. It is very unclear whether he actually did this. The next event scheduled was a pre-trial conference August 10, reported here. None of the defendants showed up. Judge Murphy, reviewing the paperwork, said they appeared to have been served. The vestry's counsel, Mr Lengyel-Leahu, now needing to notify these defendants of their next event, the final status conference scheduled for today, used the records of the Lancaster proofs of service from July to notify them of the new conference.

Several individuals, Mrs Bush, "Bishop" Rhys Williams, Mr Cothran from the Bush group, and Mr Creel from All Saints Fountain Valley, did show up at this morning's conference. Mrs Bush claimed that the defendants had been completely unaware of either the August 10 conference or this one, with only the previously scheduled final status conference for November 9 (which Judge Murphy had rescheduled for today on August 10) on their calendar. Mrs Bush also noted that, since oral arguments had been made before the appellate division on October 5, its ruling could come soon, and this could affect the damage trial.

But none of the defendants was represented by counsel. Mrs Bush wanted time to retain counsel, which after some back-and-forth with the parties, Judge Murphy granted, vacating the trial date of November 20 and changing that to a trial-setting conference, assuming the defendants could hire counsel by then. Of note as well, in a strategic move back in 2012, TroyGould, then the vestry's counsel, elected to remove Mrs Bush as a defendant in the damage suit, which at this point is probably very good news for her, at least 87 years old. The motive for this would probably have been her advancing age in any case.

However, this leaves three individuals as defendants in the damage suit, in addition to the corporate defendants ACA and ACA Diocese of the West. The corporate defendants must have counsel in the upcoming action; they cannot represent themselves pro per. The remaining individual defendants are Keith and Diane Kang, lay members of the dissident group from 2011-12, and Frederick Rivers, successor to Anthony Morello as the DOW's vicar general. None was present at today's conference. I would guess that as a practical matter, any of the defendants, should they lose the damage suit as seems likely, would either have few assets worth seizing, or they would make it extremely hard to seize them. As a result, the main penalty they will suffer, and they will suffer it soon, will be the non-trivial expense of engaging counsel, regardless of the outcome of the appeal or the damage trial.

But here's another issue: Mrs Bush acknowledged in today's conference that she had been aware of the November 9 date for the previously scheduled final status conference, so she was also aware of the November 20 damage trial -- Mr Lancaster had apparently still been her counsel in the July 12 conference when those dates were set, so he would certainly have told her about those dates. Yet, two weeks before the previously scheduled November 9 date for the final status conference for the damage trial, neither Mrs Bush nor any of the actual defendants had retained counsel.

Something's missing here. These people are potentially in serious legal trouble, they know their previous counsel has withdrawn, they know there are legal events scheduled that could have a very bad effect on their lives, yet they see no need to hire attorneys. Well, grant that they didn't hear about today's conference until a couple days ago -- wouldn't ordinarily prudent people nevertheless already have had attorneys to represent them, knowing a trial was coming up in a matter of weeks? My wife's theory is that, cut off from the St Mary's parish income, they've run out of other people's money to spend on attorneys and anything else. Maybe so.

I'm told, though, that the defendants have had a great deal of difficulty finding counsel up to now in any case.

More On Hermeneutics

Some years ago, drawn for some reason to look at the term "hermeneutic", I ran into a reference that said the Talmud is a good example of a hermeneutic. Indeed, Wikipedia has an entry for Talmudical hermeneutics.

Talmudical hermeneutics (Hebrew: מידות שהתורה נדרשת בהן) defines the rules and methods for the investigation and exact determination of the meaning of the Scriptures, within the framework of Rabbinic Judaism. This includes, among others, the rules by which the requirements of the Oral Law and the Halakha are derived from and established by the written law. These rules relate to:

• grammar and exegesis
• the interpretation of certain words and letters and apparently superfluous and/or missing words or letters, and prefixes and suffixes
• the interpretation of those letters which, in certain words, are provided with points
• the interpretation of the letters in a word according to their numerical value (see Gematria)
• the interpretation of a word by dividing it into two or more words (see Notarikon)
• the interpretation of a word according to its consonantal form or according to its vocalization
• the interpretation of a word by transposing its letters or by changing its vowels
• the logical deduction of a halakhah from a Scriptural text or from another law

I would actually expect a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church, who must certainly be aware of this context, to use the word "hermeneutic" with something akin to this meaning, an ongoing but structured and circumscribed discussion on interpretation conducted according to a long-established consensus on rules. This is certainly the strong implication of the Wikipedia entry.

On one hand, I never heard Uncle Fred use the term "hermeneutic" in connection with Sunday's game, nor Aunt Matilda use it in connection with the weather. It is not a term in ordinary conversational use. On the other hand, Bp Lopes, when he refers to a "dual hermeneutic of reform", doesn't seem to be using the term in a context where we might expect it. A hermeneutic on how to interpret William Wordsworth, for instance, would basically be conducted via peer-reviewed articles and in the letters pages of certain specified academic journals. It might nowadays be supplemented on blogs or web discussion groups, and it would always have been conducted less formally in the question sessions and cocktail hours at academic conferences.

Where is the "dual hermeneutic of reform" that is somehow reaching important conclusions about Anglicanism vis-a-vis the Council of Trent and Vatican II being conducted? ARCIC, the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission, while it exists, is at minimum not cited by Bp Lopes as any part of this hermeneutic -- if he feels it is, I hope he can clarify his opaque reference.

If it's taking place only in Vatican dicasteries like the CDF or the CDW, it seems to me that at minimum it isn't dual. And it encounters the problem that on one hand, Catholics can point to the Catechism, but Anglicans don't have an equivalent, and in fact, for much of Anglicanism's life, its doctrines have never been enforceable. Even if ARCIC makes some very general statements about Mary, Anglicans aren't constrained to assent to them, though it's plain that Anglicans aren't in practice required to ascribe even to the Creeds. Was the TAC's 2007 Portsmouth Petition part of this hermeneutic? Certanly not in any formal sense; the TAC in effect renounced it, while Rome never directly acknowledged it.

However, the formal definition of "hermeneutic" I've raised here is probably no longer current in any case. A 2004 discussion of TEC's impending consecration of Eugene Robinson as a bishop relates an exchange with Douglas Theuner, Robinson's predecessor as Bishop of New Hampshire:

Theuner was advocating a post-liberal hermeneutic, which understands the Bible as conveying neither cognitive propositions nor expressive experiences but truths determined by a culture's linguistic conventions. Post-liberal hermeneutics cut very close to the destructive reader-response theory of some post-modern deconstructionists. In a recent letter to other Anglican primates, defending ECUSA's support for Robinson, the presiding bishop, Frank Griswold, argued similarly. According to Griswold, "the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God and contain all things necessary to salvation."

. . . . Theuner and Griswold believe that the Bible has different meanings in different cultural contexts. . . . This hermeneutical tactic may give lip service to oneness in Christ, but it effectively leaves the churches without a common grounding in the inspiration and illumination of the Bible by the one Spirit of God. Under this view the Bible no longer possesses an overarching authority; rather, it is contextually subject to various conflicting authorities. Moreover, the Holy Spirit Who inspired the Bible appears impotent at best and self-contradictory at worst.

As far as I can see, Bp Lopes is referring to a "dual hermeneutic" that, as we saw yesterday, is self-contradictory, although it might be better to say it would be self-contradictory if it existed. He seems to be offering his own interpretation of certain Catholic councils -- though he's nowhere specific in this -- and his own interpretation of Anglican "reform", although Anglicans themselves would probably be unable to come up with a consensus on what this implies. This is not a hermeneutic, single or dual, as the term was understood until a couple of decades ago. (In fact, I wonder if the idea of a "dual hermeneutic" is meaningless.)

Where is Bp Lopes taking this?

Still Trying To Figure Out The "Dual Hermeneutic Of Reform"

To start with, let's acknowledge that Bp Lopes is an intelligent guy. If he uses a word like "hermeneutic", he must have some reason for using it (unlike, say, some callers to Patrick Madrid who throw big words around and have to have Mr Madrid try to clarify what the words mean for them). So, for starters, according to Wikipedia,

Hermeneutics was initially applied to the interpretation, or exegesis, of scripture, and has been later broadened to questions of general interpretation. The terms "hermeneutics" and "exegesis" are sometimes used interchangeably. Hermeneutics is a wider discipline which includes written, verbal, and non-verbal communication.

The problem is that this is a messy concept. For instance, if I google the words "chomsky hermeneutic", I will get, as of just now, about 103,000 results, and I have a feeling there are visitors who will get a woozy premonition as to what they'll find when they follow those links. Here's an example:

In that essay, [Habermas] also contrasts hermeneutic reflection with the systematic reconstruction of linguistic competence, exemplified by Noam Chomsky's theory of language. Hermeneutic understanding, he insists, can 'lead to the critical ascertainment of truth only to the extent to which it follows the regulative principle: to try to establish universal agreement within the framework of an unlimited community of interpreters'.

On one hand, "hermeneutic" describes a a method, principle, or tradition of interpretation, which is fairly neutral as a notion. On the other, "hermeneutic" becomes a form of authority -- Smith's interpretation of Jane Austen departs from the hermeneutic. At that point, it becomes political and a football for postmodernists. I think it's best to avoid the word, and it would probably have been better if Bp Lopes hadn't used it.

But he did use it. On one hand, he refers to the Council of Trent and Vatican II. On that basis, Lumen gentium , one of the principal documents of the Second Vatican Council, and subsequent interpretations of that document, would be one part of the "dual hermeneutic of reform" to which Bp Lopes refers. It sounds as if the various editions of the Anglican Book of Common Prayer containing the XXXIX Articles would be part of the Anglican side of the dual hermeneutic, but Bp Lopes doesn't make this clear. The Articles are called, in any case, "the historically defining statements of doctrines and practices of the Church of England with respect to the controversies of the English Reformation".

But there's a problem here. A good many of the Articles are specifically anti-Catholic. For instance, Article XXII:

THE Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory, Pardons, Worshipping, and Adoration, as well of Images as of Reliques, and also invocation of Saints, is a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word of God.

Or Article XXVIII:

Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ; but is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many superstitions.

But a hermeneutic, as implied in the discussion above, implies at least a general consensus within a community of interpreters. One might argue that Anglicans have never been completely unanimous on the Articles, and TEC went as far as to reclassify them as just a "historical document" in the 1979 BCP, but mere vagueness isn't really part of a hermeneutic.

But what's the "reform" in the Tudor revolt? While Anglican apologists have offered that the specific cause of Henry VIII's break with Rome, his disagreement with the Pope on annulling his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, was a manifestation of an English tendency toward reformation consistent with other developments in Europe, others attribute Henry's motives to his personality, and if the issue of the annulment hadn't arisen, any in a range of other issues would have sufficed.

The upshot, though, is that the Tudors were in effect early totalitarians, and it's plain that their main motive was political, to bring the Church under State control. "Reform", from this viewpoint, was a politically useful device, not a principle. It's worth pointing out that the break resulted in two major martyrs, St Thomas More and St John Fisher. How do we reconcile a protestant church that, in its founding, martyred numerous Catholics, with the Church's own hermeneutic, which would include the beatifications of More and Fisher?

I do note, via a link on Fr Z's blog,

And there is the matter of the “Ecumenical Mass,” a liturgy designed to unite Catholics and Protestants around the Holy Table. Though never officially announced, a committee reporting directly to Pope Francis has been working on this liturgy for some time.

Is Anglicanorum coetibus a precursor of this, or has it been hijacked?

Bp Lopes And The Pray Tell Blog

I've noted here several times Bp Lopes's September interview at the Pray Tell Blog, where he made a particular troubling reference to the Tudor revolt as being half of some sort of "dual hermeneutic of reform", apparently equivalent to the Council of Trent and Vatican II in influence, if not authority. It now turns out that Fr Z characterizes Pray Tell as a "liberal liturgy blog".

I'm a new Catholic, I can't presume to tell bishops or the Church how to think, and I must reserve judgment here. Nevertheless, Bp Lopes's remarks, and now what appears to be their larger context, strike me as problematic.

Well, Again, What, Precisely, Are We Trying To Do?

Regarding yesterday's post, my regular correspondent remarks,

Anglo-Catholicism embraces a wide range of styles, which we see reflected in the congregations of the Ordinariates. This is probably not a problem unless you try to maintain that DW is some kind of restoration of the way the Mass was celebrated at a particular time and place, which it clearly is not. This is before we get to the fact that some Ordinariate congregations never use DW, or use it only on certain weekdays or at certain seasons.

To which a visitor adds, remarking on the now-disused Book of Divine Worship:

As I recall, Our Lady of the Atonement used Rite II for one of the Sunday Masses until about 2011.

This would be a very TEC approach, Rite I for the main Sunday mass, Rite II for the eight o'clock. But by eliminating an Anglican-style Rite II, the DWM sends everyone to the OF for the modern rite. But let's keep in mind that Bp Lopes has made it clear that the "precious treasures of the Anglican spiritual patrimony" are pretty much exclusively the DWM liturgy. So we're acknowledging that to a greater or lesser extent, even ordinariate parishes are not celebrating said precious treasures.

But the visitor above sent me this link to the Book of Divine Worship, out of use but still available on the OLA website. I couldn't help but notice the title page, which strikes me as a very good example of the over-the-top sentimental graphics we see on Anglo-Catholic, and now ordinariate, parish bulletins.

Isn't this the atmosphere toward which devotees of Anglicanorum coetibus keep pointing us? Yes, of course, the majority of OCSP communities don't do anything like this; indeed, the big cheerleaders like Mr Schaetzel and Ms Gyapong worship in quite shabby environments. But clearly the idea is to make those looking in the shop window think they're going to get something like what we see in this cover page, and the clip art that adorns the bulletins at the bigger OCSP parishes certainly follows this pattern.

The problem is one that Ronald Knox points to, but one he's hardly unique in expressing: the Catholic appeal is to reason, not emotion. The weepy graphics we see here, suggestive of shaded gothic nooks and crannies, is kind of a bait-and-switch. The worship environments by and large won't reflect this, but to the extent they do, they're reflective of "the merely aesthetic effect of vestments made in art stuffs, of blazing candles, of gold and silver altar furniture, of lace and flowers," which isn't the product the Church sells, nor even the thing that actually draws in adult non-Catholics.

The actual appeal is to reason. Keep in mind the mission Ven Fulton Sheen seems to have given himself, to use reason to dismantle some of the biggest errors of his time, Freudianism and Marxism. He used the authority of the Church and the appeal to reason against them, and he did it in a way that made him a major media figure.

There are Catholics who are beginning to do this now, with newer errors to address. But nothing like this is coming from Anglicanorum coetibus, and nothing like it is likely to.

Anglicanorum Coetibus And The Shop Window

I'm very grateful to a visitor for introducing me to Frederick Kinsman, the TEC Bishop of Delaware who resigned his Anglican orders in 1919, became Catholic, and wrote about why. The same visitor has now sent me a book by Ronald Knox, The Belief of Catholics. Knox was a contemporary of Kinsman who became a Church of England priest in 1912, resigned his Anglican orders in 1917, and became a Catholic priest in 1918. Neither, inexplicably, needed Anglicanorum coetibus to make his move.

I hadn't heard of Knox at all before my visitor sent me his book. I find Knox was a prolific writer, and he and Chesterton were mutual influences on each other. This in turn suggests to me that 20th century intellectual history is highly deficient -- it acknowledges JRR Tolkien and CS Lewis, begrudgingly notes Chesterton and Waugh, but ignores Kinsman, Knox, and Fulton Sheen. Or for that matter, Edward Feser. There's much to do.

I'm still reading The Belief of Catholics. First published in 1927, it seems to be a survey of where Catholicism stands in Anglophone culture in the first part of the century. In particular, it was written from a perspective much like that of Kinsman, an Oxonian who'd risen into Anglo-Catholic clerical ranks when Anglo-Catholicism was at its high water mark, but neither found Anglo-Catholicism satisfactory.

Knox has a chapter entitled "The Shop Window", in which he reviews factors in Catholicism that make it attractive, or at least interesting, to non-Catholics. Of Anglo-Catholicism, he says,

Of all the features in the Catholic system which appeal powerfully to men's minds at the present moment, the least, assuredly, is the mere beauty of her external adornment; the merely aesthetic effect of vestments made in art stuffs, of blazing candles, of gold and silver altar furniture, of lace and flowers. Chloe and Clorinda did feel, I think, a sneaking attraction towards these Romish bedizzenments, tempered, of course, by a strong moral reprobation. In our day, their appeal is of the slightest. If for no other reason, because these characteristics of our own system are easily imitable and have been freely imitated. It is, perhaps fortunately, no longer necessary to betake yourself to Catholic churches in order to glut your senses with artistic appreciation of ceremonial. Our High Church friends do it as well or better; their churches provide, as it were, a mimic Riviera on the soil of home to suit these sickly temperaments. Mere beauty, mere pageantry, is no speciality of ours, and no appreciable boast.

This suggests to me that Anglicanorum coetibus essentially misunderstands the "precious treasures of the Anglican spiritual patrimony", which even its proponents acknowledge is liturgy, which is to say pomp and ceremonial. If that's what people want, they can get even more of it, even now, at urban TEC Anglo-Catholic parishes, and in fact, the full pomp and ceremony can be provided at only a dozen OCSP parishes at best. Clearly the liturgical authorities wanted the thees and thous, the vouchsafes and meekly kneelings, and rejected outright any special use of plain language.

This isn't the way to sell the product, something Knox clearly understood.

More insights Into The Anglican Matter In DWM

A visitor comments on yesterday's post:

At a quick glance, the divergences between the wording of the Collect for Purity and the Penitential Rite in the Divine Worship Mass and the 1928 BCP reflect the fact that in both of those instances the DWM wording is that of the English 1662 BCP - except for the abbreviated version of the latter ("Draw near with faith and make your humble confession to Almighty God, meekly kneeling upon your knees.") which seems to be an innovation peculiar to the DWM. Also, there is no "Summary of the Law" in the English 1662 rite. It was first introduced as a substitute for the decalogue in the Nonjurors' liturgy of 1718. It was taken into the Scottish liturgy of 1764, and from there it was adopted by the first American Prayer Book of 1789 as an alternative to the decalogue.

My regular correspondent points out,

The BDW used by PP parishes was based on the 1979 TEC BCP, which had made changes to the wording in Rite 1 and in the Psalter from the 1928 version. The 1962 BCP used by the ACC also differs from the 1928 American version and the 1662 text of the CofE. Presumably there was some discussion about these variations.

In that context, let's return to Bp Lopes's remarks in his September interview:

Rather, what we see in Divine Worship is a dual hermeneutic of reform: it’s just that our first reform came in the 16th Century and only later following the Second Vatican Council. It is important to note that the major sources for Divine Worship – the 1549 Book of Common Prayer and the Sarum Missal – are actually older than the Tridentine reform and the Missal of Pius V. So things that “look like” what we Catholics know as Tridentine often predates that form.

On one hand, I keep coming back to his strange reference to a "dual hermeneutic of reform" that seems to equate the Anglican revolt with the Councils of Trent and Vatican II and seems to give it just as much authority. And this is in the context of Bp Barron calling Martin Luther a "mystic of grace". But it's increasingly clear that Bp Lopes's reference to 1549 is not meant to cite any particular theological or liturgical stance from that BCP, only to place it as a point in time from which certain Anglican prayers originated. The prayers in the DWM are drawn eclectically from different periods -- all, it would seem, but the 1979 BCP, although the Church has no specific objection to a modern version of a vernacular English mass. I guess that's just not the product it wants to sell here -- think New Coke. Or Edsel.

And in that context, my regular correspondent comments,

The OF can of course be offered with reverence and beauty, accompanied by first rate music and preaching. I am sure that many UK CofE parishes feel they make a successful attempt at this. Those who entered the OOLW from such a parish understandably see little point in DW. A North American Anglican is more likely to have formed the opinion that the typical Catholic mass combines a bald and prosaic text with polyester vestments, servers in running shoes, and trivial music which nobody sings anyway. A bad experience or two of this kind may have provided an effective barrier to giving serious consideration to the claims of the Catholic church. DW is a kind of promise that mass will not be like that. But of course many TEC/ACC parishes use a modern language rite. Would DW be a draw for their parishioners? Or would a well-presented OF mass better meet their needs? As you point out, the "continuing" groups with their insistence on the 1928 BCP are a dwindling and geriatric group. And an OCSP group must compete for younger traddies with any local TLM parishes. Making the OCSP very niche, in other words.

and adds,

Not just younger traddies, of course. Among cradle Catholics the OCSP gets a lot of theoretical support from those who remember the pre-Vatican II Church as the good old days. But they mostly attend the TLM, if it's available.

But the TLM has the advantage of being actual Church tradition. The DWM mass dates from 2015 and consists of eclectically-edited Protestant prayers grafted onto a 1970 vernacular Catholic mass. Any claim to being "traditional" is spurious. To try to make it a little more so by harkening back to English Protestantism smacks once more of syncretism -- but maybe Bp Lopes sees which way the wind is blowing and has set his sails.

Other Anglican Matter In The Divine Worship Mass

Yesterday's visitor gave a very clear, and to me enlightening, explanation of the structure of the Divine Worship mass and exactly what came from where. I decided to dig more deeply into the "Anglican Matter" in the mass and compare it to the 1928 BCP. What I found is that roughly 98% of this textual matter comes directly from the BCP or other Anglican equivalents, with only occasional changes in format, typography, and punctuation -- and these may be explained by exactly which editions were being used for the source text. Most textual emendations relate to pronouns. This raises a puzzling question for me that I'll explain at the end of this post.

Here are the Collect for Purity and the Summary of the Law in the Divine Worship mass, taken from the St Gregory the Great pew missal available online:

THE COLLECT FOR PURITY

ALMIGHTY God, unto whom all hearts be open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid: cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy Name; through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Then facing the People, the Deacon, or Priest, may say:

THE SUMMARY OF THE LAW

Hear what our Lord Jesus Christ saith: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets

Here is the Collect for Purity (called just the Collect) in the 1928 BCP:

ALMIGHTY God, unto whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid; Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy Name; through Christ our Lord. Amen.

And the Summary of the Law (not specifically identified as such) in the 1928 BCP:

Hear what our Lord Jesus Christ saith. THOU shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

Here is the Penitential Rite in the Divine Worship mass:

THE PENITENTIAL RITE

Facing the People, the Deacon or Priest says:

Ye that do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways: draw near with faith, and make your humble confession to Almighty God, meekly kneeling upon your knees.

Or:

Draw near with faith and make your humble confession to Almighty God, meekly kneeling upon your knees.

The People kneel. Silence may be kept, and then the Priest, facing the altar, begins as follows and the People join in saying:

ALMIGHTY God,
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
maker of all things, judge of all men:
We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness,
which we from time to time most grievously have committed,
by thought, word, and deed, against thy divine majesty,
provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us.
We do earnestly repent,
and are heartily sorry for these our misdoings;
the remembrance of them is grievous unto us,
the burden of them is intolerable.
Have mercy upon us,
have mercy upon us, most merciful Father;
for thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ’s sake,
forgive us all that is past;
and grant that we may ever hereafter
serve and please thee in newness of life,
to the honour and glory of thy Name;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

The Priest says:

May Almighty God, our heavenly Father, who of his great mercy hath promised forgiveness of sins to all those who with hearty repentance and true faith turn unto him, have mercy on us, pardon and deliver us from all our sins, confirm and strengthen us in all goodness, and bring us to everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Here is the Penitential Rite in the 1928 BCP:

YE who do truly and earnestly repent you of your sins, and are in love and charity with your neighbours, and intend to lead a new life, following the commandments of God, and walking from henceforth in his holy ways; Draw near with faith, and take this holy Sacrament to your comfort; and make your humble confession to Almighty God, devoutly kneeling.

Then shall this General Confession be made, by the Priest and all those who are minded to receive the Holy Communion, humbly kneeling.

ALMIGHTY God, Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Maker of all things, Judge of all men; We acknowledge and bewail our manifold sins and wickedness, Which we, from time to time, most grievously have committed, By thought, word, and deed, Against thy Divine Majesty, Provoking most justly thy wrath and indignation against us. We do earnestly repent, And are heartily sorry for these our misdoings; The remembrance of them is grievous unto us; The burden of them is intolerable. Have mercy upon us, Have mercy upon us, most merciful Father; For thy Son our Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, Forgive us all that is past; And grant that we may ever hereafter Serve and please thee In newness of life, To the honour and glory of thy Name; Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Then shall the Priest (the Bishop if he be present) stand up, and turning to the People, say,

ALMIGHTY God, our heavenly Father, who of his great mercy hath promised forgiveness of sins to all those who with hearty repentance and true faith turn unto him; Have mercy upon you; pardon and deliver you from all your sins; confirm and strengthen you in all goodness; and bring you to everlasting life; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

So here's my biggest problem. Tuesday's visitor relates that ". . . for a considerable amount of time, until 2015 I think, there were actually two parallel Mass-rites being drafted for what became the Ordinariates[.]" These were, according to the visitor, two separate drafting committees, made up of liturgical heavyweights, working independently. Well, OK.

But I've worked as a policy and procedure writer, back when I worked. Let's say Company A merges with Company B, and it wants to merge the personnel policies of the two companies into a document that satisfies both -- this is not a total rewrite, mind you, it simply wants to select the best practices from both, eliminate any conflicts, and put them into a single document. Happens several times a week in the real world.

I'm sorry, if someone gave me that task, it might take me an 8-hour day to read both policies, think about them, and maybe take a few notes on what might go where. Remember, I'm sitting at a keyboard and desktop, and I have the cut-save-and-paste functions available. I've got a phone and e-mail, and I might run some ideas by my contacts in legal and HR.

As a physical process, I would say that, having slept on the project overnight, I would come in the next morning, and it would take me a couple of hours on the outside to come up with a draft. The Divine Missal product is not a rewrite, it's a cut-save-paste job from two sources, the 1928 BCP or equivalent and the 1970 Roman Missal. I would guess that a seminarian who'd paid attention could have come up with the idea that you'd graft some Anglican text onto the canon of a Catholic mass. Yeah, in a corporate world, some VPs might start quibbling over specific words until an adult told them to stop, but as the writer, that wouldn't be my problem.

How on earth did it take two separate groups of heavyweights some number of years to come up with this thing?

UPDATE: A visitor comments,

I asked a more knowledgeable person in my community about the fact the sometimes the pew missal uses holy ghost and other times holy spirit and his answer was that it was a cut and paste thing.

A Visitor Looks At The Divine Worship Mass

A visitor took the trouble to look through the versions of the Anglican Use and Divine Worship masses available on line and comment:

I know you have been searching for the text of the new Divine Worship- The Missal with limited success. I had a link to it when it first came out, years ago, and am kicking myself that I did not save it, but I did read it in its entirety. I had attended Mass at Our Lady of the Atonement so I remember comparing the new, official missal to what they celebrated before and there were not many changes, but what did change was text at the focal point of the Mass. I remember being struck (happily so) with how, now, the Liturgy of the Eucharist and the Eucharistic Prayers are pretty much directly from the Ordinary Form of the Roman Missal. In fact, the Liturgy of the Eucharist (offertory form II) is almost word for word with very little fancification the same as the OF. The Roman Canon used for Divine Worship- The Missal follows exactly Eucharistic Prayer I in the OF English Mass with “you” and “yours” swapped out with “thee” and “thine” and a few other words changed so it will sound like Olde English( ex. 1 be pleased = vouchsafe ex. 2 you sanctify them, fill them with life, bless them = dost sanctify, quicken, bless ) Perhaps the best summarization I have seen about what the new missal is and isn’t is the US Conference of Catholic Bishops newsletter from October of 2015. Here is the link.

I also include a link to OLA’s Anglican Use Mass booklet.

In a brief scan of the St.Thomas More/St. Gregory versions circulating online, I can see a few differences between that and the OLA version that was updated after 2015 to reflect the required changes of the new Divine Worship- The Missal Order of Mass. One of the differences between these two version sets has to do with the “Our Father” prayer. The St. Thomas/St. Gregory version has the traditional Roman Catholic style with doxology between the main body of the prayer and the auxillary “For thine is the kingdom…” the OLA version only has the Our Father as a song with no doxology. The OLA version only has Offertory form II for the Liturgy of the Eucharist and it is the EXACT text of the OF Mass. The St. Thomas More/St. Gregory versions use the OF substance with fancified English. Either way, all of the Ordinariate parishes should be on the same page. Maybe OLA parish is not using this Mass booklet but just hasn’t removed it from their website. I’m not sure what they use but what I do see is… with these versions and the descriptions provided in the USCCB newsletter, as far as I can tell, the Liturgy of the Word uses the Roman Lectionary RSV, the Liturgy of the Eucharist is OF Roman Rite and the Eucharistic Prayer is the Roman Canon ( OF Eucharistic Prayer I ). It’s not exactly in keeping with the 1549 spirit but it can be made to sound like it is.

The USCCB newsletter cited above has the following descriptions:

Proper of Time
The organization of the liturgical seasons in Divine Worship follows that of the earliest Anglican sources, which date from the mid-sixteenth century and which tend to mirror what is found in the older forms of the Roman Missal. For example, instead of Ordinary Time, one finds the “Time after Epiphany,” a pre-Lenten series of Sundays (Septuagesima, Sexagesima, Quinquagesima), and the Sundays after Easter Time numbered sequentially from Trinity Sunday. The liturgies of Holy Week tend to follow the rubrical instructions of the current Roman Missal, while many of the prayer texts come from Anglican sources.

Order of Mass
While Divine Worship permits a number of options, meant to take into account various customs that have developed in Anglican communities in different places, the general structure of the Order of Mass will be familiar to those who are accustomed to the Roman Missal. Included among the options during the Introductory Rites, however, are several traditional Anglican elements: the “Collect for Purity,” the “Summary of the Law,” and the recitation of the Decalogue. One noticeable departure from the Roman Missal is the placement of the Penitential Rite after the Liturgy of the Word. The current Roman Lectionary is used for Scripture readings, but using the translation of the Revised Standard Version (Second Catholic Edition).

It's hard to avoid thinking this is much ado about not much, and when you get down to it, the lack of enthusiasm among Anglicans over Anglicanorum coetibus pretty much reflects what's actually going on, or not, in this liturgy. Making some supererogatory changes to the OF mass -- some thees and thous, and the Cranmerian prayers -- reflects the idea that "continuing" Anglicans will be drawn to the 1928 BCP, although Anglo-Papalists in the UK had dropped the 1662 BCP in favor of the Roman rite decades earlier, and the "continuers" in the US are an aging population that isn't being renewed.

Add to this the much more troubling issue that Anglican priests brought into the ordinariates are at best not well formed as Catholic priests. There have been two high-level scandals rooted in this problem this year alone.

If There's A Klingon Hamlet,

can a Klingon mass be far behind? Many thanks to a visitor who sent me to YouTube, where I quickly discovered this. The host's understanding of the nerdiness and waste of time involved here is so comprehensive that it's superfluous to single out individual quotes. The problem is how easily many of his observations can be transferred to key figures among the ordinariates.

My only other observation would be that of course, since Shakespeare was actually a Klingon, so probably was Thomas Cranmer, and by far the best option for making a Klingon translation of the mass will be the Divine Worship version. Except that might save too much time. Come to think of it, better to start from scratch.

Notes On The Divine Worship Missal

One problem in having a good discussion of the language in Divine Worship: The Missal is that it is copyrighted material, and as far as I can determine, the only available edition sells for over US$400.

A visitor reports that the Divine Worship order of mass (but not the rest of the missal) is available on scribd. This appears to be a copy of the pew missal used at St Thomas More Toronto. A search also shows a version used at St Gregory the Great available on Wordpress, although again, this is a pew missal with just the order of mass.

Of the text approved in Divine Worship, a visitor says

Are you aware that for a considerable amount of time, until 2015 I think, there were actually two parallel Mass-rites being drafted for what became the Ordinariates? Rome did not give any hint of what it wanted, and seemed to be inclined to let two "drafting groups" go ahead separately.

First, there was an "English option," the drafting committee of which included Msgr. Andrew Burnham, former bishop of Ebbsfleet in the Church of England, Fr. Aidan Nichols, OP, and others whose names are unknown to me. From one angle, these guys were realistic: they knew that a lot of English Anglo-Catholics had abandoned the "Cranmerian" or "Prayer Book" tradition pretty completely, and that a simple resort to the English Missal with some "tweakings" would not be the most appealing thing to many English semi-papalist Anglo-Catholics. What they came up with was a hybrid (or "mongrel") rite, drawing its bits from various Prayer Books, English (1549, 1662), Scottish, and the 1954 South Africa BCP, but also the Medieval English Sarum Use, etc. The idea was, that there would be a "contemporary English" version and a "Cranmerese" one, but when word began to reach them that Rome wasn't keen on any "contemporary English" version - if they wanted that, then let them use the Roman Rite, was Rome's view - they decided to do it into "Cranmerese," but as intelligible and straight-forwardly comprehensible a one as possible.

Second, there was the "colonial option," which in practice to a great extent was what TAC and its non-TAC friends and advocates wanted, an English-Missal-like rite, but with as many Anglican BCP prayers as possible. (People kept using the phrase "English Missal" to describe this, but the original "English Missal" [aka the Knott Missal, from its publisher] had no Anglican bits, although a few were added in later editions; it actually sounds more like something called the "Anglican missal," which had lots more Anglican bits in it.)

Then around 2015 Rome let it be known (a) that it wanted one, and one only, Mass rite for the Ordinariates world-wide, (b) in the politest possible way rejected the "English option rite" for being, as a member of its drafting committee put it to me, "too eclectic" and "not Anglican enough," and (c) said it had to be "Cranmerese only;" those who want contemporary English must use the Roman Rite. (I have been promised a copy of this rejected "English" version, but I have not yet rec'd it.) This left standing only the "colonial option" (which its drafting committee had not yet been completed) and when Rome put the members of both drafting committees together to come up with something acceptable, there was a great deal of pushing-and-shoving (e.g., much controversy over whether to have one Eucharistic Prayer only, the Roman Canon, or whether "something shorter" was needed for weekday Masses; the majority of the committee wanted the Roman Canon only, some wanted Eucharistic Prayer III from the 1970 Mass Rite, and it seemed to surprise almost all of them that Rome insisted that they use EP II from the 1970 Mass Rite - and then also whether put back "in these Holy Mysteries" into the Prayer of Humble Access) until they finally came up with the DW Missal.

I've got to say that I can imagine it would be only slightly more feckless a project to translate the mass into Klingon -- and remember, if this were done, there would probably be several dozen earnest little groups of Trekkies meeting in chapels all over the world to hear the Klingon liturgy. Except that there would be equivalent battles over which dialect, and which pronunciation, would be most acceptable. And by all means don't forget the Klingon Mass Society, or perhaps it might be best not to think about it.

Still More On The Debacle In Stockport

It turns out that it was good that I had to be away from my desktop for several days, as I got an e-mail from a Stockport parishioner that I had to reflect over whether to post it here at some length. I'd learned from different sources that, in addition to the public conflict with members of the Stockport parish that I reported here, there was a confidential complaint filed with the diocese. I didn't discuss it earlier because, since it was confidential, I knew nothing specific about it.

However, the parishioner who filed the complaint recently contacted me with greater detail. Based on information available, I'm satisfied that this is the individual who filed the complaint. In addition, while the diocese is bound by confidentiality, the complainant is not. Nevertheless, it should be recognized that this is the complainant's side of the story, and no doubt Fr Kenyon had a different version when approached on the matter by the diocese. However, the upshot is that the matter was investigated, and the disposition is, according to the complainant, that Fr Kenyon was moved to a private house without a parish by the Bishop of Shrewsbury.

Here is the complainant's e-mail to me, marked IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST:

Fr Kenyon installed his 14 year old son as Head Altar boy after dismissing the previous one who had been there for several years.

I was spiritually abused by Fr Lee Kenyon who called me a time waster because I rang him for spiritual support whilst facing a possible diagnosis of bone cancer. I said Oh God and he immediately called me a blasphemer as well.

I felt devastated and humiliated and this priest nearly drove me to a breakdown. I advised the Curial office/Bishop's office of Fr Lee Kenyon off hand cruel manner.

I am relieved he has gone but I am very sorry for others who may have been hurt as well.

I hope Fr Kenyon finds peace and happiness and learns to listen to people.

In deciding whether this e-mail was credible enough to publish, I relied in some measure on remarks Fr Z has made on his blog regarding how best to file complaints with bishops. His advice is to state facts, what happened, what was said, avoid characterizations, and especially avoid excessive use of caps, italics, and exclamation points. It seems to me that this e-mail had an air of credibility that must have impressed the diocese as well.

My understanding is that communications were made from Houston to OCSP clergy at the time the complaint was filed, notifying them but essentially calling the complainant's mental stability into question. Let's look at this complaint from a perspective most sympathetic to Fr Kenyon, perhaps that the individual was not in fact awaiting a diagnosis of bone cancer, but had concocted this as a bid for attention.

This sort of thing is not absolutely unknown in any parish, but especially so early in a priest's tenure, some exercise of pastoral tact might well be called for -- in my observation, there are few parishes in any denomination that do not have at least a few people who require some type of special sympathy, which we don't see here from Fr Kenyon at all. And the e-mail as it came to me is not the mark of an irrational person, and it doesn't appear that the diocese treated the complaint that way.

In even the most favorable light to Fr Kenyon, his reaction seems little short of bizarre, and without any mitigating circumstances that might be present, the account suggests that Fr Kenyon may not have chosen the best career. For the bishop to place him so quickly into a situation where he's not exposed to a parish suggests the diocese may have reached a similar conclusion.

That the complainant should have contacted me with the story suggests even this disposition may not have been completely satisfactory to the individual, and I can't really disagree. I've expressed my reservations here frequently about the formation that OCSP clergy who come in from Protestant denominations receive, and it's very hard for me to see this story as anything but a confirmation of my reservations. I'm a little disturbed to have had this communication yesterday from my regular correspondent:

According to Fr K's FB page he was preaching to the Manchester Ordinariate Group this morning.

So the man turned out to be a disaster within weeks of arriving at a diocesan parish, but that's OK, he's plenty good enough for the OOLW.

Now, I simply don't know what a diocese normally does when a priest flames out so spectacularly, but I do have a sense that there are people in the chancery who have the experience, common sense, and insight to handle things in the best way for all concerned -- though I strongly suspect reevaluation of a career choice would be involved. (A competent diocesan vocations director would probably have caught this far earlier.) I just don't think anyone in Houston is equipped to deal with a situation like this -- somehow, Fr Kenyon made it past the nulla osta, after all, when far more capable men did not.

Kudos And Corrections

A visitor comments,

I’ve been reading you current and past entriies with interest and have found them very informative and often prescient.

Just a couple of corrections/quibbles:

• You’ve used the word, platen, a few times when I believe you meant paten
• When Fr. Z he uses the term, fishwrap, aka the National Schismatic Reporter, he is referring to the National Catholic Reporter and not the National Catholic Register. I noticed that you also used the fishwrap term for the National Catholic Register. Perhaps this was intentional, I don’t know. However, the Register is generally considered an accurate, conservative paper; the Reporter is not.

With the help of Blogger search, I've gone back and fixed "paten", a little surprised at how much I did this. The Reporter vs Register I'll have to do later, since it will probably involve searching the original links.

I appreciate the compliment -- my traffic has steadily increased, but I'm particularly grateful for all the recent visits from President Putin and his operatives! Perhaps it's part of his latest plan to undermine the West via President Trump, huh?

One issue that's sparked my interest lately is exactly what's in the Divine Worship mass, where it comes from, and why. I'm starting to wonder whether, instead of being a careful product of liturgical study, there's something slapdash about it -- a little 1549 here, a little 1928 there -- which I'm afraid would not be inconsistent with what I've seen of how Anglicanorum coetibus has been implemented overall.

If anyone has access to Divine Worship: The Missal and can pass on short segments of the mass that might be of interest, I'll welcome any contributions. US copyright law allows "fair use" of short passages (such as the Prayers of Humble Access and Thanksgiving I linked earlier this week) for the purpose of comment.

I'm going to be very busy with personal matters for the next several days and may not be able to post until next week.

UPDATE: The references to the Fishwrap have all been corrected.

More About BCP Wording

Regarding the issue I raised yesterday of where the wording in Divine Worship comes from (and whether it matters), a visitor notes:

1549: "... to feede us in these holy Misteries, with the spirituall foode of the moste precious body and bloud ..."

1552: "... to fede us, whiche have duely receyved these holye misteries, with the spirituall foode of the most precious body and bloud ..."

1928 (USA): "... to feed us who have duly received these holy mysteries with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood ..."

It is curious that [Divine Worship via] St John the Baptist, Bridgeport, reverts to 1549 for the "Prayer of Thanksgiving" (the "which have duly received" does have a slight Protestant/Reformed feel to it, but it is hardly heterodox or objectionable from a Catholic perspective) but not for the "Prayer of Humble Access", which was altered by Cranmer in 1552 (and followed in all subsequent English and American BCPs) to eliminate any necessary or exclusive connection between "eating the bread and wine" and "receiving Christ's Body and Blood;" cf.:

1549: "We do not presume to come to this thy table (o mercifull lord) trusting in our owne righteousnes, but in thy manifold and great mercies: we be not woorthie so much as to gather up the cromes under thy table: but thou art the same lorde whose propertie is alwayes to have mercie: Graunt us therefore (gracious lorde) so to eate the fleshe of thy dere sonne Jesus Christ, and to drynke his bloud in these holy Misteries, that we may continuallye dwell in hym, and he in us, that our synfull bodyes may bee made cleane by his body, and our soules washed through hys most precious bloud. Amen."

1552: " We doe not presume to come to this thy table (O mercyfull Lorde) trustinge in our owne righteousnesse, but in thy manifolde and greate mercies: we bee not worthye, so much as to gather up the crommes under thy table: but thou art the same Lorde whose propertie is alwayes to have mercye: graunt us therfore (gracious lord) so to eate the fleshe of thy dere sonne Jesus Christe, and to drinke his bloud, that our synfulle bodyes maye be made cleane by his body, and our soules wasched through his most precious bloud, and that we may evermore dwel in him, and he in us. Amen. "

1928 (USA): "We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy: Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body, and our souls washed through his most precious Blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen."

The puzzling thing here is that whatever Cranmer's local intent in adding, deleting, or emending particular words in a particular context, his overall task was clearly to develop a Protestant liturgy that would satisfy the Tudor establishment while keeping the lid on Catholics, at least until Mary came to the throne. I'm not sure why Rome would want to take this effort so seriously -- and in his September interview, Bp Lopes ". . . notes that the sources for their missal – 'the 1549 Book of Common Prayer and the Sarum Missal – are actually older than the Tridentine reform and the Missal of Pius V [of 1570]. So things that ‘look like’ what we Catholics know as Tridentine often predates [sic] that form.'”

I didn't mention this yesterday -- the Prayer of Thanksgiving was enough for one post -- but the St John the Evangelist Bridgeport bulletin I linked also contains what I assume is the Divine Worship version of the Prayer of Humble Access:

We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord whose property is always to have mercy. Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.

So, pace Bp Lopes, Divine Worship in this case simply takes the wording of the 1928 TEC BCP verbatim and does not revert to 1549. This strikes me as an Anglican -- but Anglican in sort of a bad and slapdash way -- approach to things. He may feel the criticism of Anglican liturgy as being recent has merit, because in fact DW has clearly adopted post-1549 wording, and apparently in at least some cases, it strictly follows models from 1662 and 1928. So far, without the opportunity to study Divine Worship -- The Missal in more detail, I'm inclined to think his reference to 1549 confuses the issue.

Russian Bots Again!

I've posted before about the occasional bulk "visits" I get from Russia in my stats. As I've said, the subject matter here doesn't seem attractive to a Russian audience, and certainly not to the extent that occasionally shows up.

On the other hand, I'm beginning to notice that the big Russian visits seem to take place around the time of US holidays, which makes me wonder if Google is somehow involved in sending extra visits to prop up its stats when they might otherwise be lower. Google charges ad rates based on stats. Exactly how this jiggering may benefit them isn't completely clear, though.

At left are my stats from yesterday, October 9, US Columbus Day. Google, which owns Blogger, seems to be jiggering quite a lot.

1662 BCP vs DW Missal vs 1979 BCP Rite II

I don't say much about Divine Worship -- The Missal, because it's copyrighted material, and so far, I haven't found its full version of the mass available on the web. Beyond that, I'm not a liturgist, and I can't speak to things like precise word choices. However, parts of the text do appear from time to time. Here is the Prayer of Thanksgiving as found in the St John the Baptist Bridgeport bulletin (thanks to my regular correspondent for the link):

Almighty and everliving God, we most heartily thank thee for that thou dost feed us, in these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ; and dost assure us thereby of thy favour and goodness towards us; and that we are very members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son, the blessed company of all faithful people; and are also heirs, through hope, of thy everlasting kingdom, by the merits of the most precious death and passion of thy dear Son. And we humbly beseech thee, O heavenly Father, so to assist us with thy grace, that we may continue in that holy fellowship, and do all such good works as thou hast prepared for us to walk in; through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom, with thee and the Holy Ghost, be all honour and glory, world without end. Amen.

Here's the Prayer of Thanksgiving in the current Church of England version of the 1662 BCP:

ALMIGHTY and everliving God, we most heartily thank thee, for that thou dost vouchsafe to feed us, who have duly received these holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ; and dost assure us thereby of thy favour and goodness towards us; and that we are very members incorporate in the mystical body of thy Son, which is the blessed company of all faithful people; and are also heirs through hope of thy everlasting kingdom, by the merits of the most precious death and passion of thy dear Son. And we most humbly beseech thee, O heavenly Father, so to assist us with thy grace, that we may continue in that holy fellowship, and do all such good works as thou hast prepared for us to walk in; through Jesus Christ our Lord, to whom, with thee and the Holy Ghost, be all honour and glory, world without end. Amen.

Allowing for changes in punctuation and orthography, this seems to be very similar to the Prayer of Thanksgiving in the 1549 BCP. Here is the Rite Two Prayer of Thanksgiving in the 1979 TEC BCP:

Almighty and everliving God, we thank you for feeding us with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of your Son our Savior Jesus Christ; and for assuring us in these holy mysteries that we are living members of the Body of your Son, and heirs of your eternal kingdom. And now, Father, send us out to do the work you have given us to do, to love and serve you as faithful witnesses of Christ our Lord. To him, to you, and to the Holy Spirit, be honor and glory, now and for ever. Amen.

Now, people can dispute the precise theological implications of the changes between the TEC 1928 BCP and 1979 Rite Two, but it seems to me that several things stand out.

• There was never a Prayer of Thanksgiving in the Tridentine or Post-Conciliar mass.
• There was never an approved Latin version of this prayer as a "gold standard" for comparison.
• All three versions here, as far as I can tell, contain generally consistent phraseology in generally consistent sentence structure. Some language has been simplified and compressed in the 1979 Rite Two without apparent loss of meaning.
• But since there is no Latin "gold standard", we're left with more subjective standards as to what English words meant in the 1600s vs the 2000s.
• It's hard for me to avoid thinking that deliberate archaisms and Anglicisms can be an obstacle to understanding for a contemporary audience. 17th century English cannot be a "gold standard" for any text like this. Nor is it "holier" than contemporary English.

I've been reading Latin versions of the mass and the prayers more frequently and find these illuminating and evocative. Archaic versions of English Protestant prayers, on the other hand, are little more than artifacts.

People with more liturgical expertise are welcome to correct me on this.

Full Court Press

A visitor comments,

I was looking at some articles on the National Catholic Register website and ran across an unusually large number of articles about the Ordinariate and the Anglicanorum Coetibus situation. It seems odd that all these articles appeared so suddenly in such a large cluster until I ran across this one [at Mr Schaetzel's blog]. It seems your criticisms of the press office of the OCSP must have struck a nerve. Look out disgruntled Catholics! There seems to be a full court press on to get them to sign up and be counted. I wonder if this has anything to do with the Vatican requirement of the Ordinary appearing for his ad limina Apostolorum visit which, if my math is correct, must be due this year. (See section XI in this document.)

I think the reassessing is ahead full bore. . .

I'm not sure how well Mr Schaetzel understands his audience. I was drawn to this passage in the link to his blog given above:

Well folks, all of that is about to change, because of a little organisation called the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society. Pronounced as "Ang-lick-an-OR-oom CHAY-tee-boos," the Society is named after the Apostolic Constitution signed by Pope Benedicit [sic] XVI in 2009 by the same name. Anglicanorum Coetibus means "Groups of Anglicans" in Latin, and it is the Apostolic Constitution that allows for the creation of Personal Ordinariates within the Catholic Church that follow the Anglican Patrimony as proscribed [sic] by Divine Worship.

The tone of grand condescension, patiently explaining to the rest of us "folks" how to pronounce Latin, crashes and burns when he misspells Benedict and misuses "proscribes". Unfortunately, this is the sort of thing that I see all too often from the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society stalwarts like Messrs Schaetzel and Murphy and Ms Gyapong. If he can't distinguish between "prescribe" and "proscribe", I can't be completely sure if "Benedicit" is just a typo. (Is it pronounced as "BAY-nay-dee-cheet"?)

The biggest problem with this is that Episcopalians in the US are thought to be well-educated and upscale -- I used to see Anglicanism referred to as "the thinking man's religion", although this at the time was probably meant as a reference to Bp Pike or Fr Boyd. But no member of an educated audience is going to take Mr Schaetzel seriously. So much for the full court press!

Mr Schaetzel has been covering this story, however, since well before the erection of the OCSP. My regular correspondent pointed me to this story from 2009 at Catholic Online. Referring to his group in Springfield, MO, he says

The group is small but diverse. Shane, the group's coordinator, simply felt a calling. He and his wife are former Evangelicals, turned Episcopalians, who eventually converted to the Roman Catholic Church about ten years ago. After putting up a group page on Facebook, he immediately received the support of over a dozen friends, many of whom live in or near Springfield. The emerging group has received interest from diverse people. One is a former Episcopalian who is without a church home at this time. An active Episcopalian couple has also expressed interest.

The rest of the group consists of Roman Catholics who have become disillusioned with the current vernacular celebration of the contemporary mass, and are now seeking something more traditionally "Catholic" but simultaneously have no interest in the Traditional Latin Mass.

Again, something's missing here. There are Catholics "who have become disillusioned with the current vernacular celebration of the contemporary mass". So I don't understand. They're disillusioned with how the Church overwhelmingly celebrates mass -- but they don't like the EF, either. (Are they perhaps substituting their private judgment?) But why would a faux 17th century English text created in the 21st by a Viennese professor be more appealing? Perhaps they can find a Klingon translation to celebrate. In any case, in the 2009 piece, he describes a group-in-formation that numbers perhaps two dozen. It appears that it's about the same size now in Republic, MO as it was then, despite the brave assertion that "they hope to grow significantly with God's blessing."

My regular correspondent found these statistics on the OCSP as of 2012:

I revisited the account here of the 2012 Anglican Use Conference, Kansas City MO. At that time Msgr Steenson reported that there were 36 communities and 23 incardinated priests, with 77 more (clerical) aspirants. From 36 to 42 in five years is not particularly impressive, and the possible 101 priests have boiled down to 71, of whom 56 are active, not all in Ordinariate ministry.

If Bp Lopes isn't under pressure, as my visitor thinks he is, he certainly should be.

Oral Argument Report

I attended the oral arguments for the appeal of the Rector, Wardens, and Vestry case BV031682 in Department 70 of the LA Superior Court yesterday afternoon. The way it worked was each side got a total of ten minutes to argue. The appellant (in this case, the Bush group) goes first, the respondent (in this case, the vestry) responds to the appellant's arguments, and if the appellant has time remaining, it may use that time to rebut the respondent. In this case, the appellant elected to spend eight minutes on its first argument and save two minutes to rebut.

The arguments were heard by a three-judge panel consisting of Judge Ricciardulli, Judge Kumar, and Judge Richardson. The judges were interested in the appellant's argument that, in effect, all extraordinary meetings of the parish board (i.e., the vestry) and membership must be conducted according to an extremely strict reading of the Corporations Code, and if there were any error in procedure, whether or not it was material, no action taken by either the board or the membership could be valid.

Judge Kumar, the presiding judge, questioned Matthew Gershman, who argued for the Bush group, on whether there could be such a thing as "substantial compliance" in interpreting the Corporations Code Section 9413. This requires that all members of a corporation be notified of an extraordinary meeting. He gave a hypothetical in which (as best I can recall) a corporation had 1000 members. Due to some inadvertency, two members could not be notified. However, the vote for the measure in question might be 700 for, 300 against. Would it matter if the two members were not properly notified?

Mr Gershman refused to answer this question and instead substituted a different hypothetical, in which the vote was 499 to 501. In this case, he felt that not notifying two members would be important. Judge Richardson then commented that the hypothetical Mr Gershman gave was not the hypothetical Judge Kumar presented. Mr Gershman continued to insist that the wording of the law required literal compliance with all its requirements.

Kathryn Greer argued for the vestry. Her position was that the wording of the law did not require literal compliance with all its provisions. In addition, she pointed out that members of a non-profit board such as the St Mary's vestry were volunteers who had ordinary jobs, attending board meetings in their spare time. Occasional sincere inadvertencies are inevitable, and insisting on literal compliance with every provision of the code for notifying members would produce "absurd results". This issue had been fully addressed in the trial court, and the inadvertent errors in notifying a small number of members had been counted as votes against the vestry -- but the measure still achieved the necessary supermajority. The parish secretary had made it clear in his trial testimony that there had been an honest misunderstanding.

Mr Gershman responded in his rebuttal that there was a 1923 court case in which a member of a bank's board of directors had actually been a bank robber who was on the lam and could not be located to notify him about a board meeting. As a result, the action of that board had been nullified by the court. He argued that this was a parallel case to the June 13, 2012 situation of Mrs Bush, barricaded in the parish building, not being notified of the "extraordinary" vestry meeting that took place to determine what should be done in response to Mrs Bush barricading herself in the parish building!

Since the respondents had only one chance to speak, Mr Gershman also took the opportunity to use his two-minute rebuttal to engage in character assassination against Fr Kelley, presumably knowing no reply could be made. He argued that the inadvertencies were in fact in support of a nefarious plan to seize the parish from the ACA.

Allegra Rineer, also an attorney for the vestry, gave interested parties an assessment after the arguments. She said that the appeals court must determine, first, that the trial court erred in interpreting the law, which she believed the trial court had not done. But the appeals court must also determine that, even if the trial court had erred, the error had affected the outcome of the trial, which she believed was also unlikely, since each vote was scrutinized in the trial, and any doubtful votes were counted as votes against the vestry in any case.

Mr Lengyel-Leahu, the vestry's lead attorney, also pointed to the Bush group's poor track record to date. My own reaction is that the questioning from Judges Kumar and Richardson (Judge Ricciardulli was silent) suggested they were leaning toward allowing an interpretation of "substantial compliance" on the part of the vestry. In addition, this appeal has been pursued largely as a delaying tactic by the Bush group. The fact that Mr Gershman had to resort to imputation of base motive and character assassination at the end of his argument suggests he thinks his overall case is weak.

The appeals court now has 90 days to deliver its opinion. Judge Richardson at the end of the arguments said, "Interesting case."

Oral Arguments In Bush Group's Appeal Scheduled This Afternoon

According to the court website, oral arguments are scheduled in case BV031682, the Bush group's appeal of Judge Strobel's December 2015 finding that the legal vestry was the owner of the St Mary of the Angels property. According to the site,

         PARTIES TO ARGUE whether, because all members were not solicited, Corporations Code section 9413 invalidated the August 2012 Vestry vote.

Since this is an appeal, the appellants must argue that Judge Strobel erred in interpreting the law, and any facts are irrelevant. The Bush group's argument in 2015 was that, when Mrs Bush refused to surrender the keys to the parish building on June 13, 2012, as instructed by the judge, the legal vestry, when it retreated to a conference room at a local restaurant to determine a course of action, held an illegal board meeting in violation of California Corporations Code section 9413, since they didn't notify Mrs Bush that they were doing this.

Judge Strobel didn't buy this argument. I'm simply going to reprint part of my post from September 27, 2015, covering how this matter came up in the original trial:

One of the issues that Messrs Lancaster and Anastasia repeatedly brought up in the latest trial was an "illegal vestry meeting" on the afternoon of June 13, 2012. Several elected vestry members provided additional information on what happened that day in their testimony there. (I am continuing with a policy of not mentioning their names here to avoid the real possibility of harassment or reprisal against them.) June 13, 2012 was the day that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Ann Jones dissolved the temporary restraining order against Fr Kelley and unspecified "John Doe" members of the parish, which had been obtained by Mr Lancaster on behalf of the ACA, Mrs Bush, and Anthony Morello on May 25, 2012. This turned out to be the first part of the legal quagmire that has nearly destroyed the parish in subsequent years: while Judge Jones dissolved the TRO and ordered the dissidents occupying the building to return the keys to Fr Kelley, she refused to enforce the order on the basis that this would involve her further in an ecclesiastical dispute.

As a result, the elected vestry returned to the building only to be turned away, apparently by Mrs Bush and other dissidents, who continued to occupy the building. (Mrs Bush in her September 24 testimony at the latest trial stated that she was on the premises on a daily basis at this time.) I assume they refused Judge Jones's order on the advice of Mr Lancaster, but this is probably covered by attorney-client privilege, and we'll never know.

At this point, Fr Kelley, elected vestry members, and other parishioners, a total of 12-15 people according to testimony, quickly had to develop a Plan B. The process of doing this, according to Mr Lancaster at the latest trial, immediately became an illegal special meeting of the vestry, as no notice of it was provided to Mrs Bush, who was barricaded in the church building only a short distance away.

Since Anthony Morello had already appointed a new alternate-universe "vestry" as of May 31, 2012, Mrs Bush at that time was, by her testimony, a member of the elected vestry, which had been turned away from the parish building by none other than Mrs Bush, who was also the senior warden of the appointed vestry in possession of the building. However, any attempt by the elected vestry to figure out what to do now would, according to Mr Lancaster, be illegal due to a lack of notice to Mrs Bush about this "special vestry meeting".

According to testimony, the vestry and other supporters were able to meet in the conference room of a local restaurant to consider their options. I assume that a call was placed to the elected vestry's counsel, although again, this is probably covered by attorney-client privilege, and we'll never know exactly what was discussed. However, the outcome was a handwritten statement signed by the elected vestry members who were present.

Mr Lancaster no longer represents the Bush group in this appeal. They have hired other counsel. At one point, the new counsel asked for extra time to prepare their appeal brief. I'm told Mr Lengyel-Leahu, the vestry's counsel, remarked "It looks like they finally figured out what they've gotten themselves into."

I will attend the oral arguments and report.

Bp Lopes And The Press

Whether he knows it or not, Bp Lopes has a press operation. He may think he has some guy who updates the OCSP website, but in that case, he really doesn't know what he's doing. The web guy needs to report to a more professional press person who can manage the picture that's put forward of the OCSP. What concerns me is that Bp Lopes's September 27 interview suggests that so far, this isn't the case.

My regular correspondent spent some hours trying to figure out what the bishop meant by just one statement in the interview:

Parish groups continue to enter – we have had 2 since I became bishop – but this is less common.

Bp Lopes was named bishop-designate in November 2015. Which two parish groups came in after 2015? My correspondent was puzzled.

Two parishes? Is he counting St George, Republic--renamed this year when Fr Seraiah took over as parochial administrator and they began having weekly masses? A big step, but this has been an Ordinariate Catholic group under lay leadership since 2012 Our Lady and St John, Louisville? Never an Anglican parish: a group gathered by now-Fr Erdman after he left TEC. The four missions would appear to be those in Orlando, Pasadena, Riverside, and Bath, PA.

In context, Bp Lopes seemed to be referring to full parishes, not missions or quasi-parishes. I suggested they might be St Barnabas Omaha and OLA, but my correspondent replied that St Barnabas entered in 2013 and was inclined to discount parishes that were already Catholic.

If he is talking about OLA and St Athanasius, Boston he is being quite misleading, since a) they were already Catholic parishes and b) they had no choice in the matter. His previous analysis clearly refers to Anglican parishes. . . . On further reflection I think he may indeed mean the two remaining PP parishes, which is disappointing in its duplicity. The last non-Catholic parish group to enter the OCSP was St Michael and All Angels, Denison TX in August 2015.

The problem throughout the interview is what appears to be deliberate vagueness about any specifics. Where does the new estimate of 6,000 "members" come from? What groups are leaving, in addition to those coming in? St John Fisher, Arlington, VA; St Edmund, Kitchener; and St Gilbert, Boerne have all been closed; there may be others. Later, reviewing the parish finder on the OCSP site, my correspondent reported,

I note that St Gilbert, Boerne has finally been removed from the OCSP website's Parish Directory, so the the count remains 42 despite the addition of Our Lady and St John, Louisville. Our Lady of Grace, Pasadena is not there, although two other parish "points"---St Bede, Halifax and St John Fisher, Orlando---swell the list. Two locations---St Bede, Halifax and Our Lady of Mt Carmel---have only a monthly mass. I am interested to know if Fr Vidal's replacement at NASCC will continue the 11 am Divine Worship celebration at the Catholic chapel there. No announcements on the St Anselm website, which has no indication of Fr Vidal's departure either, so I assume the website was just abandoned, at least temporarily. Our old favourite, OLGC, Jacksonville is also effectively off-line. Since the announcement of the appointment of Fr Kennedy as Parochial Administrator pro tem of St Timothy, Ft Worth in June (while remaining a Parochial Vicar at SMV, Arlington) the announcements have ceased to be posted on the website, so that does not suggest any injection of fresh energy in a group that has been leaderless since July 2016. Three other groups are led by diocesan clergy.

But regarding OLGC Jacksonville, NC, I heard this from Fr Waun on June 23 of this year:

Currently, we meet for Mass at 1:00 p.m. on Sunday's. We average about 15 in attendance (sometimes more, depending on the Sunday). During the summer, we stand down from Bible study. We generally have a fellowship following Mass on the first Sunday of the month. Let me know if you have any further questions.

It seems to me that a professional press operation would have worked to make Bp Lopes's remarks in his interview much clearer. After all, the interview was conducted via e-mail, and Bp Lopes had every opportunity to polish his replies, or more importantly, to work with someone else to do it. As it stands, the interview and the parish finder together are a mess.

On the other hand, I think Bp Lopes may be under pressure to justify the continued existence of the OCSP and with it, his position. In that case, at least in the short term, he may feel that clarity is not a good policy.