It is not my intention here to labour certain points made over the last couple of days, but I need to address a serious concern. This is a question of diplomacy and decency with the authorities with which we have asked to be in communion. All along, we have known who the Pope is, who is the Prefect of the CDF, who is Bishop of which Diocese, and so forth.

I have partly gone into this is my Pastorally and Progressively post. There is another thing to consider, the fact that we are not traditionalists or sympathisers with the work of the late Archbishop Lefebvre. We know the Society of Saint Pius X has its own ongoing dialogue with the Holy See, and I wish them well. We have certain things in common when it comes to specifically religious and doctrinal questions, but we come from different origins and have little in common in political or ideological terms.

We in the TAC and other Anglican groups recognise that Rome has been exceedingly generous to us so far, and we have no reason for fear. It would certainly be bad manners for us to demand this and that, especially when we have no no reason to believe that our desires will be denied. It would certainly be most inappropriate for us to make public denunciations or accusations of Vatican officials, above all on account of matters unconnected with the matter in hand. The matter in hand is Anglicanorum Coetibus and what is being done to make us formal and canonical members of the Catholic Church to which we already belong by desire and in spirit.

I made a point elsewhere that denouncing the liturgy of Paul VI as invalid or heretical (I’m not saying that anyone here has done so) would be a deal-breaker. Such excessive judgements would close down any relationship between those in authority and those of us who are petitioners. However, making a good study of the modern Roman liturgy, and showing up its weak points in liturgical and symbolic terms is rendering a service to the Church. The latter has been the approach of the present Pope in his many writings and interviews, and of other distinguished scholars like the late Monsignor Klaus Gamber.

It does not behove us to condemn the ordinary form of the Roman rite or any part of it, or refuse to use this rite if pastoral circumstances should warrant it. The Apostolic Constitution says:

III. Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.

The provision allowing the use of the Roman Rite serves a purpose. For example, other than the BDW which is presently available only in the USA only, there exists no approved Anglican liturgy. Many of our priests would like to be able to help out in local parishes. Most importantly, most Anglo-Catholics in the UK already use the modern Roman Rite. This is not a question of Rome trying to push the Ordinary Form on Anglicans, or engage in some kind of “bait and switch” operation.

I do not believe that, if we use either form or both forms of the Roman rite, we would forfeit our privilege of using the specific Anglican liturgy that is intended to be allowed for us. We can, for pastoral needs, use the highly faulty liturgical rite promulgated by Paul VI and criticise it at the same time, with courtesy and intellectual rigour.

One of the finest examples of a book giving this kind of criticism is Monsignor Klaus Gamber’s The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background. It exposes the extent of discontinuity in the post-conciliar reform, but in a way that enabled Cardinal Ratzinger to write a preface to this book and recommend it. Gamber’s approach is totally different from that of the traditionalists. For example, he readily accepted the idea of introducing the vernacular and some of the simplifications of the 1965 revision of the Roman missal.

As we read from Dom Alcuin Reid’s review of Gamber’s book:

It is Gamber’s brave but loyal ‘critical traditionalism’ that gives such importance to his writing. His theses are well documented, and his research is impressive. One hopes more of his writings will be made available in translation.

After reading Gamber (and also Bugnini) it is difficult if not impossible to maintain an uncritical acceptance of the new liturgy, even when it is celebrated devoutly and with the right intention. When we recall the doctrinal importance of the liturgy (lex orandi, lex credendi), we realise that the question of how we worship is central to our faith. What then is to be done?

“What we need today … [are] bishops like those who in the fourth century courageously fought against Arianism when almost the whole of Christendom had succumbed to the heresy. We need saints today who can unite those whose faith has remained firm so that we might fight error and rouse the weak and vacillating from their apathy,” writes Gamber. A tall order, certainly, but not beyond the possibilities of Divine Providence.

I think that it is in this spirit that we can go forward towards Rome with our eyes open, but with faith and veneration in our pilgrimage. We are not blind or deceived, but loyal, courteous and critical. One does not exclude the other.