The saga about a little church in Los Angeles and its disputed tenancy has been an ongoing soap opera for quite a long time on St Mary’s Hollywood: The Cold Case File. The most recent posting Mr Bruce has put up is Parish Annual Meeting February 7, 2016.
In it he mentions:
Another remarkable feature was the news that retired TAC Archbishop John Hepworth is actively supervising the parish [ed. St Mary’s Hollywood]. Its renewed or continued membership in the Patrimony of the Primate is active and not simply a legal formality. Abp Hepworth underwent a serious health crisis at the time of his “expulsion” from the TAC and the ACA’s seizure of the St Mary’s property in 2012. It appears that he has recovered and is beginning to resume an episcopal role.
For several years, the parish had been canonically isolated, with the US-Canadian Ordinariate denying any connection and the ACA impersonating a parish through a bizarre and disreputable group of phony priests and unbalanced dissidents. The renewal of the Patrimony is a very important event, visually as much as canonically.
Is Mr Bruce making this up, or are we seeing a remaking of the former Primate of the TAC? If a “Patrimony of the Primate” is being resurrected, which Church does it belong to? Obviously, the present leadership of the TAC would deny any recognition of such an entity. Is there a “true” TAC and a “bogus” TAC?
Does anyone know what is going on?
PS. I extend my condolences to the TAC in Australia on the recent death of Bishop Pope.
* * *
I seem to have put the end of a stick into the ants’ nest. Mr Bruce has read my inquisitive posting and attempted an answer with Archbishop Hepworth Redux. All of a sudden, the phantom Patrimony of the Primate seems to be useful for a certain agenda. It reminds me somewhat of the old Order of Corporate Reunion, all about a kind of Rome-ward pilgrimage that will never get there and would enjoy some kind of legitimacy for as long as it doesn’t. I suppose this ghostly Patrimony that no longer represents any institutional Church must be terribly secret. That should keep us all in suspense for a few years…
Oh well…
Of course, I’m not taking any position about that little church in California. I have never been there and have never had any contact with anyone involved with it. I am no longer with the TAC, or (as far as I am aware) the Patrimony of the Primate (of what?).
If Abp Hepworth’s health and morale appear to have been restored enough for him to consider resuming the work he’d begun, under whatever auspices, I can’t see this as anything other than a very positive development. Please continue to pray for the St Mary of the Angels parish. its vestry, Fr Kelley, Abp Hepworth, and Bp Lopes.
As all this is tied to the Ordinariate in Mr Bruce’s mind, and if Archbishop emeritus Hepworth is to have any influence in the matter, then I think Rome might have something to say about the matter. Generally, if something exists, it is known about.
I am thankful to belong to a Church that is what it says on the label and just gets on with life.
All the same, I would be curious if anyone does have any information.
The Blue Flower 
“Mr” Chadwick? How rude.
Mr Bruce’s use of ecclesiastical titles is not determined by his opinion / conviction of the validity of a cleric’s orders, but in his mind whether or not they are in agreement with his particular ideology. Thus he calls the TAC bishops “Mr Surname” or just “Forename Surname” because they are “bogus”. Archbishop-Emeritus Hepworth gets “Archbishop” because he apparently (no proof) follows the Bruce agenda (bringing people and those on the staff of St Mary’s Hollywood into the RC Church). For a Roman Catholic, Archbishop-Emeritus Hepworth is invalidly consecrated in a continuing Anglican church – but still gets the ecclesiastical title.
That being said, Mr Bruce is quite inconsistent in his criteria. Perhaps for me he is simply using the pre 19th century title for a cleric which is also that of a gentleman. However, I think he would not understand such a subtlety. He is just treating me as a layman masquerading as a cleric!
The usual courtesy, which the official Vatican dicasteries use, is to use the title anyone gives when corresponding. Thus I use proper titles even with those with whom I disagree or find reprehensible in some way. Thus I use the title of “Bishop Leslie Hamlett” for the former incumbent of my Diocese who caused so much trouble in the late 1990’s along with some other bishops with their private ambitions. That doesn’t mean that I approve of his present position or ministry in a different church.
I also disapprove of this practice of using the ecclesiastical title only for those who are a “good boy”.
Oh, in case anyone is confused, my posting is in regards to Mr Bruce’s web posting.