Ordinariate head ‘excluded from Reformation events’

Ordinariate head ‘excluded from Reformation events’

Mgr Keith Newton was reportedly not invited to ecumenical events commemorating the Reformation

[Because before he and the others in the Ordinariate entered the Church, in the Anglican/Episcopalian churches they considered themselves to be Anglo-Catholics or Anglo-Papists rather than Protestants or Evangelicals]

by Catholic Herald Staff Reporter
posted Tuesday, 7 Nov 2017

The head of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham was snubbed from last week’s ecumenical commemorations of the Reformation, a leading Ordinariate priest has said.

In a letter to the Catholic Herald, Fr Ed Tomlinson asks why Mgr Keith Newton, who serves as ordinary of the group for former Anglicans, was not invited to be “part of the numerous ‘reformation celebrations’ taking part in the ecumenical landscape this week”.

Fr Tomlinson also wants to know why Mgr Newton had not been asked “to join the ARCIC [Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission] conversations despite his obvious importance as a former bishop of the Church of England now leading a body, the ordinariate, whose entire purpose is to enable Anglicans to become Catholic while retaining a distinctly English spirituality/patrimony”.

In the six years since the creation of the ordinariate, Fr Tomlinson says, “we have been routinely undermined by those in authority over us. Not a single church has been gifted to the ordinariate despite several closing each month. Why are so many of our clergy used to plug diocesan gaps instead of being enabled to flourish within the vision to which we were called?”

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
http://angelqueen.org/2017/11/07/ordinariate-head-excluded-from-reformation-events/
Get AQ Email Updates
AQ RSS Feed

4 comments on “Ordinariate head ‘excluded from Reformation events’

  1. The British Catholic Herald says: Ordinariate head ‘excluded from Reformation events’

    [“For the better”]:

    [Why] Is the Pope [Still] Looking to Lambeth?

    New Oxford Review
    November 2017

    On September 19 Pope Francis issued his sixteenth motu proprio. With Summa Familiae Cura, the Holy Father formally closed the Vatican institute established in 1981 by Pope St. John Paul II to study marriage and family life. Francis announced that he is replacing John Paul’s initiative with a new institute with a slightly different name and a very different focus. The Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and the Family has now been re-imagined as the Pontifical John Paul II Theological Institute for Marriage and Family Sciences.

    Having already changed its leadership, statutes, and members, Pope Francis intends the new institute to take a different approach to the study of family life. Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, whom Francis named chancellor of the new institute, told Vatican Radio that this Pope has achieved a fuller “realization” of his predecessor’s teaching on marriage, and that Francis’s controversial 2016 apostolic exhortation on marriage and family, Amoris Laetitia, will be the inspiration for the institute.

    No, this is not a joke. Archbishop Paglia actually told an international radio audience that Francis has achieved a fuller realization of John Paul’s teaching on marriage and the family than the sainted Pope himself ever did! Paglia, by the way, is the same papal chum whom Francis tapped to lead the gutted-and-reopened Pontifical Academy for Life (see our New Oxford Note “A Pontificate of Mercy — or a Merciless Pontificate?” Sept.). He is a vocal advocate for giving Holy Communion to “remarried” Catholics, and he was responsible for inviting homosexual couples to the 2015 World Meeting of Families. But wait, there’s more: Paglia is the same prelate responsible for commissioning a homoerotic mural featuring his own likeness in his cathedral in Terni-Narni-Amelia. This is the man Francis has entrusted to lead the study of marriage and family life! (Excuse us, “family sciences,” whatever that means.)

    A year ago to the day that Francis issued his motu proprio (Sept. 19, 2016), four cardinals submitted five yes-or-no questions, or dubia, to the Pope asking him if Amoris Laetitia conforms to perennial Catholic teaching on marriage, moral absolutes, conscience, and the sacraments (see our New Oxford Note “A ‘Climate of Fear’ in the Vatican?” Jan.-Feb.). Is this a mere coincidence? Or is it a malicious poke in the eye, an indirect answer to the cardinal’s questions? One might concede coincidence if it were not for another coincidence: Carlo Cardinal Caffarra, archbishop emeritus of Bologna and one of the four dubia signers, was tasked by John Paul II in 1980 to found the original institute. (Caffarra passed away this September, less than two weeks before the official dissolution of his institute.)

    On May 10, 2016, Cardinal Caffarra delivered a talk to graduates of the institute, during which he explained that the institute was assigned the “specific task” of “reflection” on Humanae Vitae. Bl. Pope Paul VI’s watershed encyclical reaffirmed the traditional Catholic teaching that “each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of human life,” and it called the use of modern means of artificial contraception “intrinsically wrong.”

    One wonders: Is it Pope Francis’s intention to revisit — and possibly reinterpret — Humanae Vitae in light of what he calls “the new pastoral challenges to which the Christian community is called to respond”? Cardinal Caffarra, during his 2016 talk at the institute, addressed the possible revision of Humane Vitae for “pastoral” reasons — and he wasn’t pleased. “The alternative to a Church with doctrine is not a more pastoral Church,” Caffarra said, “but an arbitrary Church enslaved to the spirit of the age: praxis sine theoria coecus in via, the Medieval scholars used to say: ‘Practice without theory is a blind man on the road.’”

    As we have seen, Pope Francis isn’t one to entertain opinions, like Cardinal Caffarra’s, that dissent from his own; he prefers sycophants at his service. Hence, the high-profile presence of Archbishop Paglia, one of Francis’s ideological allies, at the head of the two newly reconstituted institutions.

    Gerhard Cardinal Müller recently expressed concern about the Francis-flavored groupthink that currently dominates the Vatican. “It is a very big danger for the Church that some ideological groups present themselves as the exclusive guardians of the only true interpretation of Amoris Laetitia,” he told Edward Pentin (National Catholic Register, Sept. 28). “They feel they have the right to condemn all people of another standpoint as stupid, rigid, old-fashioned, medieval, etc. Nobody can, for example, say Cardinal Caffarra didn’t understand anything of moral theology.” It should come as no surprise that Francis abruptly sacked Müller this July, removing him from his post as prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith without warning or explanation.

    Blogger Steve Skojec recently explored the question of whether Francis intends to revisit and reinterpret the Church’s teaching on artificial contraception (OnePeterFive.com, Sept. 19). Skojec provides these informative background details:

    – In May 2017 Italian journalist Marco Tosatti revealed information he had received that a “secret commission” had been formed to “examine and potentially study changes to the Church’s position on the issue of contraception as it was explained in 1968 by Paul VI in the encyclical Humanae Vitae.”

    – In June Italian Catholic historian Roberto de Mattei verified the existence of the commission, revealing that Msgr. Gilfredo Marengo, a professor at the institute, would be in charge of the work. De Mattei said Pope Francis “nominated” Marengo “to ‘re-interpret’ the encyclical Humane Vitae by Paul VI, in the light of Amoris Laetitia, on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the former’s promulgation, which falls next year.”

    – By July Archbishop Paglia was summarily denying the Humanae Vitae commission’s existence. However, Msgr. Marengo admitted in an interview with Vatican Radio that a “research group” looking into Humanae Vitae did exist, although he insisted it was “a work of historical-critical investigation without any aim other than reconstructing as well as possible the whole process of composing the encyclical.”

    Seriously? Why would Pope Francis form a group to study the composition of the 1968 encyclical if the intent is not to fundamentally change its message? There’s reason for suspicion. Let’s recap: Pope Francis issues Amoris Laetitia. A few months later, four cardinals led by Carlo Caffarra issue five dubia to which the Holy Father has declined to respond either publicly or privately. Instead, Francis follows up by firing nearly all the members of the Pontifical Academy for Life and placing it under new leadership (Paglia), with new members (some of whom are unbelievers and not pro-life) and a new mission (one that undermines Pope St. John Paul II’s good work). A year to the day after the cardinals issued their dubia, Pope Francis announces he will gut and re-staff the Pontifical Pope John Paul II Institute for Marriage and the Family, also now under Paglia’s leadership, endowing it with the new mission to promote Amoris Laetitia.

    It hardly requires a wild stretch of the imagination to suspect that Pope Francis’s endgame is to redefine the Church’s teaching on contraception, just as the Anglican Communion did at its infamous Lambeth Conference in 1930.

    Now that he has removed or repurposed various obstacles, might Pope Francis have his eye on his own Lambeth? The question is not as absurd as it might have seemed just two years ago.

  2. In the six years since the creation of the ordinariate, Fr Tomlinson says, “we have been routinely undermined by those in authority over us. Not a single church has been gifted to the ordinariate despite several closing each month. Why are so many of our clergy used to plug diocesan gaps instead of being enabled to flourish within the vision to which we were called?”

    Oh, please. You got a carve-out, and it’s not going to last. You don’t have a leg to stand on; only a “tradition” begun by a megalomaniac king who had six wives and murdered two of them. If you really want to be Catholic, please start saying the TLM. DIsavow Cranmer, and don’t get fooled by Montini’s invention. Just the TLM. Then you’ll see what’s really going on.

  3. Cyprian: I think you will find that many of the Ordinariate Celebrate the Tridentine Mass. Pre-WWII they used a missal in the vernacular which was 99.99% identical to our own and again many Celebrated Mass utilising or own missals. Their churches could hardly be found to be different to our own – and my late grandmother warned me of such. Further, they were strong in two separate areas – among the very rich and the very poor. My own diocese, in England, is hell bent on closing churches. They will not consider allocating churches to either Traditional Orders, or, The Ordinariate. There is only one Sunday TLM in the whole of the diocese and only two or three or weekday TLMs. There is a picture of the bishop marching with Muslims and the diocesan web-site promoted the visiting of both Mosques and Synagogues – until shamed into taking it dow. The Ordinariate, by and large, are nearer to ourselves than the bishop, who is intent upon creating lay-led laity managed parishes with clergy as mere supernumeraries almost.

    • Thanks, Sixupman. I’m glad to hear that. My impressions were formed awhile ago with the Fr. Phillips flareup. I posted two comments
      angelqueen.org/2017/03/21/after-long-battle-san-antonio-texas-parish-joins-catholic-anglican-use-ordinariate/#comment-41003
      and
      angelqueen.org/2017/01/20/san-antonio-archbishop-removes-anglican-use-catholic-parish-pastor/#comment-39714

      These draw on observations of a Mr. John Bruce, stmarycoldcase.blogspot.com , who seemed to be level-headed. You can find more at those comments, but Mr. Bruce’s central point is:

      I didn’t realize this at the time, of course, but this blog got its start about 1980 when, late in the evening at an Episcopalian confirmation class, I suddenly thought to ask the priest about something I’d been seeing on the local news: another Episcopalian parish nearby, St Mary of the Angels, had been making a big point that it was “Anglo-Catholic”. What, I asked, did “Anglo-Catholic” mean?

      His answer: “These are people who want the prestige of calling themselves Catholic without paying the dues you have to pay actually to be Catholic.”

      It’s occurred to me all along that the whole Anglo-Catholic project represents a series of exceptions — or, expressed differently, exemption from dues, or, expressed differently, substitution of private judgment, or, expressed differently, resistance to authority. Since I’ve been writing about OLA and Fr Phillips, my traffic has roughly quadrupled. Not everyone is pleased with what I’ve reported here, I think because Fr Phillips is thought of as the major figure in the Anglican ecumenism movement. But Fr Phillips himself is a bundle of exceptions. He’s a married priest with a family. He owns a house next to the parish property. He doesn’t bother to attend diocesan conferences and retreats. …

Leave a Reply