It is interesting that the "teething pains" of the UK Ordinariate are very much about liturgy and the value or otherwise of the "Anglican Patrimony." While these are not negligible issues, they are issues which can be resolved, or at least productively discussed, in theological terms, as the writer goes on to describe in his description of the ongoing formation process. The US-Canadian Ordinariate, in contrast, seems pretty united in its liturgical praxis; Fr Hawkins, the former Pastoral Provision pastor of St Mary the Virgin, Arlington was perhaps the only American representative of the "anti-Cranmer" point of view, and of course it was his retirement which opened the door to the Ordinariate for that parish. Rather, the issues for the US-Canadian Ordinariate seem to reflect its recent origins largely in the "continuing" Anglican movement, ie they are personnel issues. Whatever the quality of the clergy, and some certainly have significant gaps in their resumes, to put it charitably, they are almost all men used to running things their way with little oversight from central authority. And the ongoing formation opportunities, which are available to UK clergy, are completely lacking in the US-Canada, as is consistent communication and guidance from Houston. One could never imagine a comparable article appearing in a US Catholic publication, of course. The official word from Houston, insofar as they communicate at all, is that things couldn't be better.Let's recall that the best account we have of the formation of Anglicanorum coetibus is that it arose from a proposal made to then-Cardinal Ratzinger, that was worked through a few drafts and revisions in 1993-4, authored by then-Episcopal Bishop Clarence Pope and then-Episcopal Fr Jeffrey Steenson.
The basis of the proposal was that an unspecified but very large number of disaffected Episcopalians was poised to go over to the Catholic Church. Bishop Pope estimated the number in the 1993 meeting with Ratzinger at a quarter million, about 25% of then-TEC membership. This has been one of the founding errors of "continuing Anglicanism" and derivative movements: the actual numbers have never remotely borne out the estimates. As of 2015, the US-Canadian Ordinariate's membership is, optimistically, about 1% of the 1993 estimate given to Ratzinger. Good question: if Bishop Pope had given Ratzinger a more realistic estimate of interest, would Pope Benedict have thought Anglicanorum coetibus worth anyone's time?
Here's another question: How could an ecclesial body numbering a quarter million be governed as a single "personal prelature"? The remarks above strongly suggest a perception that a body of only 2500 is hardly being governed at all. Anglicanorum coetibus by its nature gave those tasked with setting up the foundations a great deal of leeway, but especially in the US and Canada, it's hard to avoid thinking, first, that whatever Cardinal Ratzinger might have expected hasn't happened -- but, given the structure we have, probably will never take place. Nobody seems to have given any serious thought, for instance, to how much money might actually be needed to set things up, and how it might be raised. Such donations as have come in seem to have gone into a Chancery whose purposes appear supererogatory at best.
I've remarked here that, in numbers, personnel, distribution, and governance, the US-Canadian Ordinariate resembles any of two dozen rather sorry "continuing Anglican" denominations. It seems I'm not the only one to recognize this.
In my Catholic parish, my biggest concern is that some of the music is silly. On the other hand, our younger priest seems to be working purposefully to make gradual changes. Otherwise, much as I miss things like the Prayer of Humble Access and the Prayer of Thanksgiving, these are not necessary to salvation. And our parish seems to bring in 8-12 candidates per year via RCIA. Over a short span of years, just one medium size parish will account for several Ordinariate missions' worth of new evangelization.
Liturgy is nice to have, but more is needed.
