The 1928 BCP, The EF Eucharistic Prayers, And The Divine Worship Roman Canon

Several visitors have taken me to task for comparing the Divine Worship missal text to Eucharistic Prayer III in the OF English mass. One said,

In the Roman Missal, Third Edition, Eucharistic Prayer I, referred to as “The Roman Canon,” is the modern English form of the primary Rite I eucharistic prayer in DW. You may never have heard this in a diocesan parish as it is generally used for feasts and solemn occasions. It is indeed “larded” with references to Abel and Melchizedek, but in normal parishes it doesn’t seem to take any longer than the other eucharistic prayers. We seem to use it in our diocese of Washington (DC) parish about once a month.

I understand your point about the DW liturgy being puffed up and unfamiliar to many former Episcopalians. I believe the “alternative eucharistic prayer” is equivalent to Eucharistic Prayer II used in regular Catholic parishes. If as mentioned this is normally used at SMV Arlington that is interesting. I have contended that if they had made the Divine Worship liturgy “feel” just like Episcopal church “used to,” it would have been better.

In fact, since I've been Catholic for nearly seven years, I've been to more than 350 OF English masses and at no point have I ever heard the Abel and Melchisedek part.

Another visitor wrote:

Comparing anamneses from EP I in each version, we get:

Therefore, O Lord, as we celebrate the memorial of the blessed Passion, the Resurrection from the dead, and the glorious Ascension into heaven of Christ, your Son, our Lord, we, your servants and your holy people, offer to your glorious majesty, from the gifts that you have given us, this pure victim, this holy victim, this spotless victim, the holy Bread of eternal life and the Chalice of everlasting salvation.

Be pleased to look upon these offerings with a serene and kindly countenance, and to accept them, as you were pleased to accept the gifts of your servant Abel the just, the sacrifice of Abraham, our father in faith, and the offering of your high priest Melchizedek, a holy sacrifice, a spotless victim. (Roman Missal, 3rd Edition)

And:

Wherefore, O Lord, we thy servants, and thy holy people also, remembering the blessed Passion of the same Christ thy Son our Lord, as also his Resurrection from the dead, and his glorious Ascension into heaven; do offer unto thine excellent majesty of thine own gifts and bounty, the pure victim, the holy victim, the immaculate victim, the holy Bread of eternal life, and the Chalice of everlasting salvation.

Vouchsafe to look upon them with a merciful and pleasant countenance; and to accept them, even as thou didst vouchsafe to accept the gifts of thy servant Abel the righteous, and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham; and the holy sacrifice, the immaculate victim, which thy high priest Melchisedech offered unto thee. (Divine Worship: The Missal)

While there's still a difference in language (one is perfectly acceptable modern English, the other is the so-called "sacral" English), the content of both is pretty much identical. I'm not sure why you felt the need to point out that the Ordinariate version takes up "full three times the space" as a completely different EP - as you can see, comparing regular apples to sacral apples, length really isn't the issue.

By the same token, there are other passages that don't occur outside Eucharistic Prayer I but are included in the DW mass, such as

graciously grant some share and fellowship with your holy Apostles and Martyrs: with John the Baptist, Stephen, Matthias, Barnabas, (Ignatius, Alexander, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicity, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, Anastasia) and all your Saints; admit us, we beseech you, into their company, not weighing our merits, but granting us your pardon,

In fact, I never heard this passage either in the 1928 BCP nor 1979 Rite One as an Episcopalian, and in fact I wasn't aware of it until I heard it used in the c 1905 "uniate" mass previously used at St Mary of the Angels, which the DW mass in fact closely resembles..

But I disagree with the first visitor bove who doesn't think a mass with EP I takes longer than any other. Especially since the Divine Worship mass includes the Cranmerian prayers not in the Roman mass, plus the additional material from EP I (with the diction archaized), it is fully understandable that a DW mass would take 90 minutes where a normal diocesan English mass would take 60.

So this does leave me with a puzzle. Recall that the target market for both the Pastoral Provision and Anglicanorum coetibus was Episcopalians unhappy with the revisions to the 1979 BCP. But the DW missal is proving to be a liturgy that's even more unwieldy than the EP I English mass or the 1928 BCP. The first visitor above replied to my concerns:

! I think some regular Catholics roll their eyes when they hear a priest start it [EP I], figuring they’ll never get out of there. But it contains a roll-call of saints (including 7 women), many of whom I had never heard of in the Episcopal world, and it’s been fun finding out about them.

But how would he feel if he had the Cranmerian prayers on top of Saints Felicity and Perpetua? But then we come to the question of why cradle Catholics -- though a very small contingent -- would be attracted to a mass with the most tedious features of both the Anglican and Roman masses, when real-world Catholic priests avoid EP I, and real-world Anglican priests tend to prefer 1979 Rite Two.

For that small group, I've got to continue to ask if there's some other payoff.

Fake It Til You Make It

My regular correspondent pointed out that Mr Smith's advice in yesterday's post "to behave like a big parish right from the beginning is straight from Fr Phillips. I have frequently seen him quoted to this effect." Here's one example:

My Episcopal rector had given me some advice. As my family and I were leaving Rhode Island and heading to Texas to begin this work, he said, “It’ll be difficult, but do things as though the place is a major parish. People can’t come to things that you don’t have.” I took his advice to heart. . .

The problem we've come to see about "this work" in San Antonio is that so much of it was smoke and mirrors from the start. A major ingredient in the apparent success of the "work" was Fr Phillips's willingness to give Dcn Orr a free hand with the lads as a reward for running the school -- but the school has always had a tumultuous history and is currently on financial thin ice. Not to mention that a good part of it is an empty shell.

Fr Phillips was in fact running a con. I was reminded of this in the latest episode of CNBC's American Greed:

In 2017, a man claiming to be a member of the ultra-wealthy Saudi royal family, named Prince Khalid Bin Al-Saud, entered into talks with real estate developers to make a $400 million investment in an iconic luxury hotel on Miami Beach.

. . . Khalid regularly drove around the luxury enclave in a 2016 Ferrari California (with a base price of roughly $200,000) sporting diplomatic license plates and a security detail. He was also known to ride around in other luxury vehicles, from a Bentley to a Rolls Royce, while traveling on yachts and private jets.

. . . There was just one problem: The man calling himself Prince Khalid Bin Al-Saud — to his wealthy neighbors and business partners who had handed him millions of dollars in investments — was actually a con-man named Anthony Gignac. Far from being a member of the Saudi royal family (which has an estimated net worth of more than $1 trillion), Gignac was actually born in Colombia and moved to Michigan at age 6, when he and his brother were adopted by a middle-class couple.

As I pointed out yesterday, there's something self-contradictory about trying to start a boutique operation that stresses personal attention -- receiving communion kneeling and directly from a priest like Episcopalians do -- but urging organizers to act is if they're a parish too big to make this a practical option. Something doesn't compute here.

And I'm not completely sure how many things you can find at an actual big parish, like adoration, were ever available at Our Lady of the Atonement. As far as I can see, Fr Phillips conducted a Bible study, but this has apparently been discontinued, and neither of the priests currently there has taken it up.

But a big parish avails itself of formal Bible study programs from sources like Ascension and Augustine Institute. A big parish has youth programs and youth ministries via programs like LifeTeen and Steubenville. It has retreats.

Isn't it something of a con to recommend that people setting up an evensong group somehow try to think or act like they're an actual large, successful Catholic parish? But you can't con an honest man.

Is there something behind all this that's too good to be true, Mr Smith? You're urging people to pledge realistic amounts to their project, and that's to your credit. But even if a group of several dozen tithes, there are limits to what they can accomplish, and suggesting the sky's the limit is, it seems to me, a sin against prudence at minimum.

People are conned, like the "Saudi prince's" marks in the TV show, because they think they're getting something for nothing. What are people, especially cradle Catholics who should know better, being convinced they'll get for nothing in a storefront "church", a basement chapel, or a dilapidated old building?

It concerns me yet again that there seems to be so little insight in ordinariate social media, particularly among people who should be exhibiting wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, knowledge, piety, and fear of the Lord.

A Case Study For Growth?

My regular correspondent sent me a link to a post at the Anglicanorum Coetibus Society blog in which Mrs Gyapong approvingly reprises a post that was originally made by Peter Smith on the Facebook Anglican ordinariate discussion. Since I don't follow either, I appreciate the heads-up! Mr Smith has a good point -- he's the most sensible of the pro-ordinariate writers on social media -- and one that's more questionable. First, the good one:

People tithe. Want an Ordinariate parish community? Then give generously to the general fund.

I can't agree more here. This is a point our diocesan priests constantly make to our parish. But why hasn't this message come from Bp Lopes, Fr Perkins, or any of the more senior priests in the ordinariate? Fr Lewis's fundraising messages at pledge time at Our Lady of the Atonement are nowhere near as forceful. But now to the point I have a much bigger problem with:

We think and act like a big parish. If you want to be a fully established parish, then think and act like you’re a fully established parish. That’s the only way you’re going to get there.

This brings to mind C S Lewis's comment that a chihuahua may insist that it's every bit as much a dog as a St Bernard, but a St Bernard doesn't insist it's as much a dog as a chihuahua. I think there's a certain insecurity behind Mr Smith's point here, which is justified. And this goes to what my wife and I feel is the blessing for those of us who'd hoped to go into the ordinariate in the St Mary of the Angels parish. When that fell through, we went our separate ways and found diocesan parishes.

After five years in what Mr Smith would recognize as a "big parish", my wife and I are only beginning to recognize the range of opportunities available to us, which so far include serious planned giving, Bible study, the lector program, adoration, concerts, fundraising dinners, and a growing range of fellowship. Most of these don't seem to be available at any but a few ordinariate parishes. I would also add to this list exposure to a number of accomplished and fully formed celibate priests from all around the world. But a full list of ministries and opportunities there fills an 8-1/2 x 11 page in the bulletin. How does a group "act like" a big parish if it can't remotely follow through?

There's also a problem that's integral to the ordinariate as a boutique operation. Our diocesan big parish has four Sunday morning masses 90 minutes apart, with a Spanish mass in early afternoon. The task for the priests and other leadership is to get hundreds of people through each mass to allow the next one to start on time. Fr John Riccardo, who was formerly pastor of a similar large parish in Michigan, has made the point that receiving the sacrament kneeling would be a nice-to-have, but traffic management for hundreds at one mass after another makes this impractical.

By the same token, the recent review here of ordinariate masses on YouTube shows that a Divine Worship mass takes about 90 minutes. A "big parish" that intends to accommodate what are likely numbers well into four figures on an ordinary weekend will in fact need to schedule Sunday morning masses at 90-minute intervals, so that unless something's unusual, they aim for a mass that takes about an hour. The OF liturgy, extraordinary ministers, and receiving communion standing are an inevitable part of the process.

To "think like" a big parish involves unavoidable questions of scale. But not many more than a dozen ordinariate communities even own their own facilities, and of those, a number are clearly not well maintained. There aren't resources in Houston to supervise facility management, and let's recall that before Fr Phillips fell into disgrace, the advice he gave to other priests on how to maintain facilities effectively involved techniques for spoofing building inspectors.

One might even suggest that the advice to "think like" a big parish might be not too far from secular advice to "fake it til you make it", or even positive-thinking theories that it you think hard enough that you're rich, you'll somehow become rich. But you don't develop capable lay leadership, campus-like facilities that cover entire city blocks, accredited schools, and a wide range of other programs by wishful thinking.

I'm not sure, to tell the truth, if Mr Smith knows enough about how a big parish operates even to have a realistic idea of what a big parish does. My advice to ordinariate communities who want a big parish experience would be to seek out an existing big parish in a local diocese and begin to discern there what it might actually mean to become Catholic.

Mr Smith, why not spend a year or so at an actual big parish and return with your advice to the St Albans group?

More On "Sacral" English

The fist thing to say about Sacral English, which we saw yesterday the Australian ordinariate cites as a charism of the ordinariates, is that it is simply not a term in common use. Curious, I did a web search on "sacral English", and all that came up were links to English departments in various colleges in Sacramento, CA. Well, do they teach you how to writer prose with lots of thees and thous there? Who knows?

But I decided to follow up on yesterday's proposal to look at examples from the OF English mass and the Divine Worship missal side by side. Here's the Anamnesis that immediately follows the Mystery of Faith in the OF English mass (Eucharistic Prayer III):

Therefore, O Lord, we celebrate the memorial of the saving Passion of your Son, his wondrous Resurrection and Ascension into heaven, and as we look forward to his second coming, we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.

Compared to the version in the Roman Canon section of the DW Missal (p 642 in my unofficial version):

Wherefore, O Lord, we thy servants, and thy holy people also, remembering the blessed Passion of the same Christ thy Son our Lord, as also his Resurrection from the dead, and his glorious Ascension into heaven; do offer unto thine excellent majesty of thine own gifts and bounty, the pure victim, the holy victim, the immaculate victim, the holy Bread of eternal life, and the Chalice of everlasting salvation.

Vouchsafe to look upon them with a merciful and pleasant countenance; and to accept them, even as thou didst vouchsafe to accept the gifts of thy servant Abel the righteous, and the sacrifice of our patriarch Abraham; and the holy sacrifice, the immaculate victim, which thy high priest Melchisedech offered unto thee.

The Church has assured us now for generations that the words in the OF English mass are sufficient for salvation. The OF is written in formal, elevated language that is appropriately reverential. On the other hand, the words in the Divine Worship missal take fully three times the space to do exactly the same thing -- and they're larded with words like "vouchsafe", lots of redundancy, and references to Abel the righteous and Melchisedech. This is the sort of ting a modern day Mark Twain would recount drily if he wandered into an ordinariate mass.

A modern day Mark Twain would mock this as much as Twain himself mocked Fennimore Cooper in his own time. Overly verbose, redundant, and bombastic writing is bad writing and always has been. It's worth pointing out that the Books of Common Prayer have always been political documents, intended not least to reinforce the legitimacy of the English monarchy. Thus they contain a level of patriotically driven bombast intended as such. There's nothing intrinsically holy about this language, and serious historical analysis of the Books of Common Prayer will allow us to separate the language from the religion.

My regular correspondent adds additional perspective:

“Sacral language” is a great example of Bp Lopes’s contention that the so-called Anglican Patrimony of the Ordinariates is what the Church says it is, full stop. A definition based on empirical evidence and/or scholarly analysis of Anglican texts would certainly identify vernacular liturgy as a core Anglican value. The first translation of the BCP into French was made in the 16th C, for use in the Channel Islands. This site lists scores of BCP translations, including more than a dozen in Canadian indigenous languages.

I would put the creation of “modern language” rites in the same category. Although I gather that the original BCP, like the KJV, is not written in the same style one would have used for chatting in the pub, it was not intended to be obscure and inaccessible in the service of some special, sacral ethos, in the way that Latin or Old Church Slavonic currently function. “Thee” and “thou,” for example, were not special terms just used for God, but the familiar form of “you,” similar to the “tu” and “du” used in French and German liturgies—-the same pronouns one would use for a close friend or family member.

Updating the phrasing of the BCP, in its English version or those in other languages is entirely in the spirit of Anglicanism. But in the Ordinariates, if one wishes to use a modern language rite, one must use the OF. The BDW had a contemporary language Rite II, regularly used at SMV, Arlington, but this was suppressed under Msgr Steenson.

Bp Lopes has spoken about a Spanish version of DW: The Missal being produced someday; is the current Libro de Oracion Comun, the Spanish version of the 1979 TEC BCP, in some kind of archaic “sacral” Spanish? What about its predecessor, the 1928 LOC? I guess one would have to ask a native Spanish speaker, but my guess is that the answer in both cases would be “no.” So where does this leave that aspect of the Ordinariate charism?

Writing courses continue to stress that writing should be clear and succinct, not rambling or redundant, and it should not go out of its way to use obscure or arcane language. The whole world now recognizes Melchisedek, for instance. Why would an editor not publishing an academic edition of a certain text not amend the spelling of "Melchisedech" to the modern orthography? I think this reflects, if nothing else, a deep uncertainty about what audience the DW missal is intended to address.

But again, not understanding the intended audience is a basic mark of bad writing.

"Charism Of The Ordinariate"

A visitor sent me a link to a page with this title on the Vocations site of the Australian ordinariate. It's copyright 2017, so I assume it must have been put up under Msgr Entwhistle, though it seems to be very general, and I can't imagine that either Msgr Newton, Msgr Reid, or Bp Lopes would disagree with it -- nor, I imagine, would the Anglicsnorum Coetibus Society.

Let's revisit charism in a Catholic context. A Carmelite page entitled "What is a Charism?" says,

Here we will define it as a gift of the Holy Spirit given in a particular way to an individual or to a group to build up the Kingdom of God for the good of the Church.

. . . The Catechism of the Catholic Church in Article 799 states:

Whether extraordinary or simple and humble, charisms are graces of the Holy Spirit which directly or indirectly benefit the Church, ordered as they are to her building up, to the good of men, and to the needs of the world.

I think the strong implication is that charisms are unique and identifiable, even if imperfectly developed. I may not be perfectly charitable, but I should work at tithing, for instance, and if I don't pledge at all, I'm not doing much with that charism. So if I say I have a charism of charity, I'm being more or less hypocritical if my charity is simply not identifiable at all. So this brings me to the list of charisms that appears on the Australian vocations site:

Some of the elements of the charism of the Ordinariate are:

• Call to community faith and devotion
• Evangelical charity
• Sacral English
• Reverence and beauty in Worship
• Music and Congregational hymn singing
• Gospel preaching
• English theological tradition

Each of these is elaborated in greater detail lower on the page. I won't discuss all of them here, but several stand out.

"Call to community faith and devotion". With reference to the US ordinariate, most of the communities are small and unstable. Wouldn't nearby diocesan parishes be strengthened by the pledges and participation of the sincere ordinariate members there, rather than isolated minimal efforts we actually see in the ordinariate?

"Evangelical charity".

We draw our inspiration from those such as the great Anglo-Catholic slum priests, who built their churches where no-one else would go because of the terrible poverty present.

Periodically I've tried to calculate approximate amounts an ordinariate community could potentially raise, given what we know of its membership and using available data on median income in its area. If each family tithed, the amounts for even modest communities would be far greater than what these groups appear to work with.

Beyond that, typical diocesan bishops' appeals go to sustain poorer parishes and schools, as well as other charitable causes. However, the North American ordiinariate's bishop's appeal goes entirely to support chancery budget, including the bishop's extensive travel, as well as the lifestyles of other chancery personnel, even though many basic tasks like communications or vocation direction are poorly done there.

"Sacral English". The site explains,

Since the liturgy is an encounter with God, the language we use should be appropriate to this encounter. We know from our own personal experience that we speak differently for different situations. The way we speak to our friends at a BBQ is different to how we would speak if we were giving a speech at a wedding. Put simply – when we speak to God we do not use day-to-day language, we use sacred language.

I'm not sure if the writer here understands diction clearly. Elevated diction isn't pretentious or overblown. When President Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country,” this often comes off as somewhat pompous and phony, no matter how nobly expressed. To say,

Pray, brethren (brothers and sisters), that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father.

means the same as

Grant, we beseech thee, O Lord, holy Father, almighty, everlasting God: that he may render our sacrifice acceptable in thy sight; who as on this day commanded his disciples, saying, Do this in remembrance of me; even Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

but unlike the DW missal, it doesn't come off as overblown, circuitous, unctuous, or sanctimonious. I have an unofficial copy of the DW missal, and to tell the truth, I'm wondering if a side-to-side comparison of the Viennese professor's text with the OF English breviary would be instructive.

I have a vivid memory of a trip to Vienna in my student days. I went into a coffee bar and ordered a cup of coffee. The barista asked "Ohn' oder mit?" (With or without?) I returned a bewildered look. He repeated the question several times until he realized I just wasn't very Viennese. Then he shouted, "Ohn' oder mit SCHLAG! SCHLAG!" A Schlag is literally a hit, but pointing to the whipped cream dispenser, he made it clear that he was asking if I wanted a dab of whipped cream on my coffee.

Our Viennese professor has served us a prayer over the offerings with a Schlag.

Diction is a rhetorical technique by which a writer identifies his audience and addresses them at the appropriate level. I've got to say that the level of diction in the DW missal, in cases like this, can only foster the sort of weepy grandiosity we see in so much ordinariate social media.

Maybe I'll take up more comparison of the DW missal with the OF English mass at some point.

Tyendinaga: What Problem Were They Trying To Solve?

An update in yesterday's post contained a link to a National Catholic Register piece on the tenth anniversary of Anglicanorum coetibus that gives a much more detailed version of the Tyendinaga community:

But the ordinariate in Tyendinaga shows people that they can be fully Mohawk and fully Catholic with the Anglican traditions of their ancestors. The community sings Mohawk hymns and prays some of the Mass prayers, such as the Our Father, in Mohawk. While both the Book of Common Prayer and much of the pre-Vatican II (extraordinary form) Catholic Mass was translated into Kanienʼkehá, Maracle said the language is still being relearned and other challenges would have to be met first before translating Divine Worship: The Missal.

A paragraph above it also caught my attention:

Charles Maracle, warden for Keristos Ne Korah:Kowah (Christ the King) parish in the Tyendinaga Mohawk territory, told the Register that the community joined the ordinariate because it guaranteed they could be Catholic and keep the Anglican traditions of their ancestors.

A "warden" is a canonically and legally defined function for lay people in Anglican denominations. There is no direct Catholic equivalent. Mr Maracle seems to be serving a function equivalent to pastoral life coordinator in the position he's occupied in a Catholic context, but he calls himself a "warden", and the Register doesn't seem to have asked him anything about that.

The version of the ordinariate worship in the first quote above says it mixes translations from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer and the EF Latin mass into Mohawk, but any translation of the Divine Worship Missal is only a very distant possibility.

Well, OK, but this sent me searching the web for what form of worship Catholic Mohawks not in the ordinariate use. This story outlines the diocesan Catholic Mohawk liturgy in another Mohawk reserve in Ontario. My regular correspondent added more context on the Tyendinaga group:

The original ACCC group might have had issues with the ordination of women or other changes in the ACC. Certainly nothing specific to Indigenous heritage. The Anglican church has long and close ties with indigenous Canadians and is currently moving towards some kind of First Nations diocese within the ACC. The ACCC clergyman, Mr Trinque, was not indigenous, as far as I know—but I could be wrong.

Fr Whalen, who received them and celebrated mass once a month is 70 or 71 now. That is why I speculated that he might be stepping away from ministering to the Tyendinaga group.

Mr O’Coin, however, is a local Mohawk man and a convert to Catholicism from, apparently, an evangelical background. Not sure what Anglican Patrimony he brings to the table, or why he got involved with the Ordinariate group rather than a local diocesan parish. Early ads for the group under his leadership called it an “Open Catholic Church” that welcomed “absolutely anybody.” In any event, he has been very ill and his ordination to the permanent diaconate on hold since 2018.

So the question comes up, why did Msgr Steenson and then-Fr Hurd see the need for a specifically Anglican-Mohawk brand of Catholicism, when there's a thriving Catholic Mohawk tradition in North America? The appeal for Anglican Catholic Mohawks seems never to have involved more than roughly a dozen people, but it would appear that once the priest who celebrated their monthly mass retired, the group was discontinued, as has happened in several other cases in the ordinariate.

What problem were Msgr Steenson and then-Fr Hurd trying to solve? Given the limited resources available, including the limited time of a diocesan priest to celebrate mass for them, why did they go out of their way to create a project of such limited appeal -- including raising at least the possibility of translating the Divine Worship Missal into Mohawk? (Now, there would be a task for a Viennese professor.)

I think this is yet another example of the incoherence in the Anglicanorum coetibus project.

Has Christ the King, Tyendinaga, ON Finally Closed?

My regular correspondent reports,

I note that the community of Christ the King, Tyendinaga no longer appears on the “Parish Finder” section of the OCSP website. This was a small group (13 initially received in 2012 from the ACCC). Their former clergyman, Gerard Trinque, was not ordained owing to delict of schism but continued to lead them until forced to retire for health reasons. Their subsequent leader was due to be ordained a permanent deacon in 2018 but this was put on hold when he also developed a serious health problem.

The group advertised a weekly service in the monthly newsletter of the local reserve for years but has not done so for some time. I read somewhere recently that they had a monthly mass celebrated by a local diocesan priest. Perhaps that arrangement has had to come to an end. In any event they are no longer on the website “parish” list.

There was some interest in this community on the part of the “Royalist” faction in the OCSP because they worshipped in Her Majesty’s Chapel Royal of the Mohawks, an Anglican church on the reserve which dates back to 1843 in its present form and has special status making it one of six Chapels Royal outside the UK. Not my cup of Earl Grey, but very exciting to some. In any event there are doubtless better options available for Catholics living on the reserve and I hope the OCSP members are now taking advantage of them.

It's a reflection on both Bp Lopes and Fr Perkins that the information on the ordinariate website can be taken as neither authoritative nor reliable, although it's understandable that they might not wish to draw attention to yet another group's closure.

Nevertheless, this continues to be a reflection of the instability of the marginal groups in formation, of which there are more than a few. Someone, if not Bp Lopes or Fr Perkins, must understand that they are doing these Catholic converts no favors in providing such iffy environments to grow in their faith. It's more and more plain that many of the marginal groups depend on one priest, and if for any reason that one priest can't continue, the group closes.

This is because the group is a Potemkin village, existing primarily to swell numbers and to justify ordaining some marginal man with an uncertain vocation. When the marginal guy disappears, the group can't sustain any sort of replacement. It retained the guy in the first place because the project was a vanity exercise. The people who are hurt will be the dozen or so who were duped into thinking this was the Catholic Church, when far better options were available to them in the same area -- indeed, often just upstairs or down the hall.

How long was this group effectively inactive before Houston finally saw fit to pull the official plug?

UPDATE: My regular correspondent sent a link to a National Catholic Register piece on the tenth anniversary of Anglicanorum coetibus that gives a much more detailed version of the Tyendinaga community:

But the ordinariate in Tyendinaga shows people that they can be fully Mohawk and fully Catholic with the Anglican traditions of their ancestors. The community sings Mohawk hymns and prays some of the Mass prayers, such as the Our Father, in Mohawk. While both the Book of Common Prayer and much of the pre-Vatican II (extraordinary form) Catholic Mass was translated into Kanienʼkehá, Maracle said the language is still being relearned and other challenges would have to be met first before translating Divine Worship: The Missal.

The main drawback is that while they can witness to the faith “by our good works,” they do not have the stability that comes with having a priest to regularly offer the Mass and sacraments.

The bottom line is that the group is no longer listed on the website, although how it ever qualified as "Catholic" in its freelance liturgy isn't fully clear.