From time to time I check the Facebook page of a “pre-Ordinariate” group in Portland, OR, which meets monthly for Evensong and rosary (a combo that sums up a lot about a fundamental flaw in Anglicanorum coetibus, but I digress). Occasionally a mass is celebrated for them. Lately I looked at their website and noted under FAQ that only some attendees are Ordinariate members, which I assume means others do not have even the tenuous Anglican connection required to be eligible, but that the group meets at Holy Rosary, Portland because most of the members of the group are parishioners there.The group has its own little logo on its main page, styling itself the "Anglican Patrimony Society" of Portland, OR, with a face of St John Henry Newman. This again is at variance with the guidance from Bp Lopes that the "Anglican patrimony" does not extend much farther than the Divine Worship Missal, but the assumption here seems to be that there's some additional amorphous baggage that comes in as well. What, pray tell, might that be? Mrs Gyapong has insisted that the need to avoid near occasions of sin is not in the Anglican patrimony, so are former Anglicans given a dispensation here?Holy Rosary is one of the largest parishes in Portland, having weathered the challenges of its downtown location over the years, and seems to have very dynamic Dominican leadership. Sunday mass is offered in the Dominican Rite as well as the OF. The “pre-Ordinariate” group states that its eventual goal is its own parish church. How is this helping the Church? What is evangelistic about this mission? Stealing members from another Christian denomination is hardly “evangelism.” Stealing members from your own is truly pointless, IMHO.
I would even raise the question whether what constitutes the Anglican patrimony is subject to the local option of particular Anglican Patrimony Societies, and it may in fact not be an exception voted by the Portland society, but should such a society take root in Pittsburgh, they would have the ability to determine this for themselves.
In addition, I'm puzzled by what seems to be the loose sponsorship of the Holy Rosary parish here. I can only look to the example in our parish, whereby Filipino cultural events, including a celebration of Philippine Independence Day at a municipal park, are in fact sponsored by a group directly affiliated with the parish. The parish also celebrates traditional Filipino special masses. But this group doesn't claim to have some potential relationship with a different bishop, nor does it intend to build its own separate parish church down the road at some indefinite future point.
Nor does it imply at all that being Filipino is other than being fully Catholic. But "Anglican patrimony" is something else. It refers to a version of Protestantism derived from Calvinism, friendly to state control, and despite specific guidance from Bp Lopes, adherents claim that this version of Protestantism is now entitled to bring unspecified additional material into the Church -- and in the real world, we see that this somehow appeals to cradle Catholics who in fact are fully initiated and attending weekly mass.
I keep going back to Abp Garcia-Siller's apt phrase, "not just unique but separate". If I were the Archbishop of Portland, I'd have questions. The qualifications for joining a Filipino cultural group at a Catholic parish are pretty clear and don't really need to be spelled out. Non-Filipinos may have lived or served in the military there, may have married into a Filipino family, or may simply have Filipino friends. But there's none of the intricate hair-splitting that entitles people to be "canonical members" of an "Anglican" ordinariate, and nobody's insisting that Filipinos are entitled to a separate jurisdiction.
But again, among Anglicans worldwide, almost nobody's bought what's on offer in any case, which ought to be one more reason to ask what's in it for cradle Catholics.
