I feel I must address an issue that is emerging between ourselves, and one we are going to have to learn to live with: polarisation and fragmentation of our communities and groups. There are three main "tendencies" (mainly identified with liturgical usage) emerging in the movement towards founding personal Ordinariates under the jurisdiction of the Holy See.
- Prayer Book Anglicans, identifying their Anglicanism with the use of the Prayer Book, with all the problems they have to solve by importing material from the pre-Paul VI Roman rite via the English Missal and the Anglican Missal,
- “Pre-Reformation” Anglicans and Anglo-Papalists aligning with the traditionalist tendency in contemporary Catholicism,
- Anglo-Papalists aligning with the post-conciliar Catholic mainstream in England, and presently in the Church of England.
I listened to Professor Duffy’s talk in Oxford last Saturday (I wasn’t there but listened to the recording) with great interest. I hold this historian in very high esteem after having read The Stripping of the Altars. Any unity of Christianity depends on a sovereign authority, the King or the Pope. Until now, Anglicans more or less stayed together because any Catholic identity was insisted upon by the Monarchy. Dr. Duffy came up with the idea that everything is kept together by the tension of opposites – faith and reason, Catholicism and Protestantism, conservatism and progressive radicalism. The problem comes when we are relieved of the things with which we do not agree.
Perhaps we are looking at a Benedictine Settlement that would allow all the different centripetal forces in the Church to interact and form a new comprehensive Catholicity. That might seem to relativise the notion of truth and doctrine. That is a problem if we have to cohabit in the Church with Hans Küng and others like him (the Pope isn't excommunicating them), with out-and-out liberals and bishops who are as anti-Catholic and iconoclastic as Cranmer. What does Pope Benedict XVI do, as he has not purged the liberal elements from the hierarchy and the Church?
I know The Anglo-Catholic is being observed by the Roman authorities, and our analysis of the situation is sometimes found of interest, since it is a fresh look. It would seem that most of us would like to eliminate the other "tendencies" and allow only our own. I have given these matters a considerable amount of thought. I stretch my mind to try to understand this Pope. I really believe he intends for us to enter into a new Settlement to ensure our unity, not merely doctrinal orthodoxy and adhesion to a single body of doctrine, but an agreement to differ and tolerate difference in others. There is something to be said for that Devout Scepticism attributed to Hooker and mentioned by Dr. Duffy.
Perhaps that is the Anglican patrimony the Catholic Church looks to for inspiration, not the Prayer Book and the 39 Articles, but a structure of tolerance and comprehensiveness encouraging the faithful to find God through kindness, goodness, beauty and an upward vision. The Catechism would give doctrinal unity to all Catholics, and there would be charity and tolerance in all secondary issues like liturgical rites or precise expressions of spirituality or Catholic identity.
I believe there is room in the Church for all the historical rites, the modern liturgy in improved translations, the best of the Prayer Book tradition like the Prayer of Humble Access and the Comfortable Words after the beautiful formula for the confession of sins. The Church has always been multiform and diverse, but under the unifying role of the Papacy. So much heartache could have been avoided by comprehensiveness! Those who wanted to continue with the Latin liturgy should have been allowed to do so, and the vernacular should have been made available without being compulsory. How much could have been learned!
The modern things are here to stay, and I would be happy to use the rites people are used to, as long as other rites are not denigrated. I have studied the shortcomings of the modern Roman rite, but the problems are going to continue for as long as we are maintained in a dualism between Latin and vernacular translations of poor quality. Allowing the old liturgies to be celebrated in the vernacular is going to relieve this dualism and all-or-nothing situation. A revised Anglican liturgy is going to short circuit this situation of linking rites with languages. Something new is on the way. Another element is the forthcoming new English translation of the modern Roman rite. The idiom is modern, with you and yours, but it is dignified and will create another experience from attending the Church’s liturgy.
This element of a Papal Settlement to replace an Elizabethan Settlement has not been thought of, and I would certainly never have discovered this element applied to the future Ordinariates had it not been for the historical scholarship and insight of Dr Eamon Duffy. Perhaps I still have it all wrong, but I look for understanding and a way ahead – as it appears to be comprehensiveness.
Important note: In the interest of intellectual honesty, I found this quote from Fr John Hunwicke on his blog: "In an idle moment while contemplating my diary, I calculated that, of the last 14 Masses I have said, 11 were Latin EF. It's facts like this that convince me that the Anglican Patrimony has a great deal to offer the RCC. Don't believe mischief-makers who tell you that all English Anglican Catholics enthusiastically use the Novus Ordo". This confirms the need for flexibility between the upcoming revised Anglican Use (or whatever it will be called) and the two forms of the Roman Rite. We should note that some parish clergy in the Church of England are liturgical traditionalists, something we should never forget.
No related posts.
Sounds very similar to what I proposed that the Ordinariates could learn from the Cistercian experience of liturgical plurality back in January:
http://subtuum.blogspot.com/2010/01/defining-patrimony-cistercian-lessons.html
Here's a snippet:
A most-Anglican, tolerant pragmatism guiding a conversation about the principles defining the minimum parameters of the Anglican Patrimony may well prove the way forward rather than beginning with concrete proposals of texts. Perhaps such an approach would at last allow the cotta to lie down with the surplice and the cappa and chimere to be friends.
Fr. Chadwick writes:
"Perhaps that is the Anglican patrimony the Catholic Church looks to for inspiration, not the Prayer Book and the 39 Articles, but a structure of tolerance and comprehensiveness encouraging the faithful to find God through kindness, goodness, beauty and an upward vision. The Catechism would give doctrinal unity to all Catholics, and there would be charity and tolerance in all secondary issues like liturgical rites or precise expressions of spirituality or Catholic identity."
This is beautifully written. My sentments exactly. As long as the liberals *tolerate* a liturgy that transmits the Anglican patrimony and its connexion to Catholicism, other things can be tolerated as well. The problem in the Latin Church has been that the liberals simply refuse to tolerate traditionalism (and perhaps vice versa). The advantage of the new ordinariates is that they need not assure the same sort of attitude. Let us pray that the incomers will be allowed a liturgy, a least as an *option*, which does not require use of the N.O. Offertory, for instance, since that is clearly disfavoured by many.
Fr. Chadwick also says that "The modern things are here to stay". I would prefer to put this a different way: it is not for us to dictate a papal agenda. If God wants the modern things to stay, so mote it be. If He does not, they will go when He wills it. But it is for us to preserve what is traditional. Ours should be a work of preservation and continuance rather than destruction.
On the comments about the new translaton of the N.O., I can only say that it will be easier for me at least to tolerate its existence if the liberals STOP obstructiong "Summorum Pontificum". Tolerance is a two-way street. In my experience, liberals in the Latin Church are those who demand tolerance but have none themselves. Therefore, they are hypocrites. Perhaps this applies to some of them but not to all. But it is a real problem. I am hoping that H.H. will continue to preserve a secure place in the Church for the Traditional Latin Mass, which S.P. calls a "venerable and ancient usage". Access to it is a general right for all, not just those who are attached to it. The same goes for those who are attached to the traditions of the prayerbooks and the Anglo-Catholic tradition.
P.K.T.P.
I think we are understanding each other better. The comprehensive idea (as long as it is within the bounds of Catholic doctrinal orthodoxy) seems to be acceptable to others. Then, the tolerance must be a true comprehensiveness and mutual tolerance and not "Put your gun down, but you're still going to stare into the muzzle of my cannon".
Whether the modern Mass will disappear is not for us to say. At a popular and pastoral level, people tend to prefer the vernacular (modern or archaic) to Latin and have little opinion about the rite. I have already written articles on aspects of the modern Mass rite like the Offertory and the Embolism. Use the search function on The Anglo-Catholic to find them.
Indeed, the Catholic bishops need to stop obstructing Summorum Pontificum and playing dirty games with their clergy. I sympathise with the situation of Catholic traditionalists, and their "hardness" is often due to the intolerance that has been shown in their regard. Guy Fawkes was a despicable terrorist because Catholics in England were persecuted at the time. If the "Novus Ordo" get a bit of stick from some, it is because traditionalists have been told that changing to it is compulsory, and it is not.
As Dr. Duffy said in his talk, one of the problems in the Catholic Church has been an excess of authoritarianism. Yes, we need authority, but not totalitarianism. We are fortunate in that Benedict XVI has the authority of the legitimate Pope of the Church, but he is no tyrant. He wants to bring us to the Faith by patiently explaining it to us and bringing us beauty of holiness.
Yes, I understand this point. Well then, let comprehensiveness reign and bring us to unity of faith, hope and love.
It seems that spreading the Gospel would somehow by important to all this. We should be asking ourselves whcih aspects of the Anglican patrimony are useful in which ways to spreading the Gospel, whether around the world or down the generations.
Beauty and love that is inspired by the example of Christ and the Gospel. When people are attracted by beauty and our kindness, then they will be ready to listen to the Word and make their Christian commitment as disciples.
This was so very well articulated, thank you, Fr. Chadwick.
None of us would be proposing the kind of latitudinarianism that drove Newman and the other Tractarians to distraction in the early 19th century. On the other hand, we don't want to attempt to define the "Patrimony Anglican" in a partisan way. Comprehensiveness – and not simply irresponsible "variety" for its own sake – is what we seek. The Anglican Way has had its own counterpart to the Roman genius of recognizing and even encouraging a multiplicity of legitimate charisms in the Body of Christ. What we bring as those with Anglican proclivities to the Roman table possesses a genuine spectrum, a breadth, of orthodoxy possibilities, and we would all be the worse off if we attempted to too narrowly define what our contribution to the Church Catholic should be. Kudos again for an important contribution to the discussion, Father.
Thank you Fr. Chadwick you've said perfectly! I consider myself VERY middle of the road. I love a traditional Anglican Liturgy above all but I know that this is my preference. My N.O. friends at my seminary are every bit as orthodox and devoted to the Church as I am. An old Anglican priest once told me, "Being Anglican is messy. You encounter so many different strains." I think that a respect for all legitimate traditions is what is required here. I don't see myself using the N.O. on a REGULAR basis but I do plan on learning it, and I hope that my brothers who will be primarily N.O use priests can also learn to celebrate an Anglican Mass. Lets put an end to the condemnation, we are all in this boat together.
Father, great post. I think that you are right about this Pope and his desire for more tolerance of diversity within the Church. I think of it this way: he is not so much trying to bring diversity to the church but to reveal it and provide sustenance to it.
The church has always been very diverse in its practices but rarely would the average Catholic notice since they would see very little of the practices outside of their home town.
Over the last few generations the world have become more mobile and more wired. And this is more recent then people might realize. No pope traveled as much at John Paul II, and now Benedict XVI. The world's first wide-body jet, that brought worldwide jet travel to the masses, the 747, flew first when Benedict was middle-aged.
This all means that Catholics are traveling more and immigrating more. Already, 1/10 of the Philippines (where I live), nearly 9 million Catholics, are living in abroad, from Hong Kong, to the MIddle East, to the USA. Nearly every diocese in the US has multiple "ethnic" masses.
And now we have Anglican Ordinariates, a definite creation of the jet and internet age. Would TAC have existed without jet planes? Would Anglican Use be as strong and as united without the internet? How much has this and other sites helped to build a nascent community?
Benedict, I think, recognizes this, perhaps because he has so much personal experience, from pre-war, pre-sattelite, pre-jet Germany to modern jet-setting, Youth-Day-in-Australia Pope, and then I think he sees the power of this rediscovered diversity in battling our secular age.
No longer can the Church count on people going to mass because that is what "everybody" does. We're too mobile, too aware that others don't go to mass. Instead, people need to be drawn to mass, and that will be more effective with diversity of practices.
Human beings have different tastes and needs, that's why there is a diversity of ice cream flavors and car models. Toyota would go bankrupt if it only had a single car model. Let us reveal to the world and revel in the diversity that exists in our church, while holding strong to our theology, and in that way we can become a beacon, a draw, a refuge to so many in our secularizing world. This I think is Benedicts vision — becoming strong and attractive by revealing and celebrating the breadth, depth and richness Catholicism, worldwide and through the ages..
If the Church had taught the laity properly, there would have been no need for "you and yours" because people would have understood "thou and thine" perfectly well. Of course the apex of the ICEL surely has to be in the invocation "You who…"
Of course in an era of nuns dressed as drab laywomen, and laywomen playing clergy in the sanctuary dispensing the holy sacrament, and priests masquerading as overweight laymen, slipping on an awful cassock-alb (because they don't own a cassock anymore) and a polyester unlined chasuble without amice, the whole lot usually half mast, poorly ironed and ripped off as soon as the mass is ended nothing surprises me.
That priests celebrate the Novus Ordo without holding their fingers firmly together after the consecration, that ablutions are truncated to often just one pass of the water, and no-one reverences the Holy Name let alone the altar is also no surprise.
Thank God that Pope Benedict is seeking to reverse the avalanche of sloppy, lazy and liberal irreverent liturgy. The problem is that the rot is deep within the heart and souls of the liberal establishment of the Roman Church and the Anglican Communion, and traditional Anglicans surely will have much to teach Roman Catholics about decent liturgy.
Am I the only traditionalist Anglican who does not hanker after the Prayer of Humble Access (aka the Prayer of Uriah Heep – a very 'umble person … how dare we talk about ourselves at the very height of the Eucharistic prayer?) I do hope if it is kept it will be optional – perhaps that is the sort of thing you suggest with your 'multiform' proposal – and moved to a more appropriate place. As a personal devotion before receiving Holy Communion, all very well; but not trying to express the Church's devotion in the midst of the Prayer of Thanksgiving, or even publicly before Receiving. It focuses too much on US. The Comfortable Words, too, if used sparingly (ie just one sentence; and perhaps some options added, rather as there are many different sentences before the Prayer for the Church); but not those same four time and again please! As for the long confession, fine in penitential seasons but to my mind inappropriate in, say, Eastertide, when our attention should be on Our Lord, not us. I do say this from long experience; even now I generally celebrate 1662 approx, usually twice each week. Now I will go and buy some hornet repellant, having stirred up the nest. +E
Dear Bishop,
No, I'm thinking of other people here. I don't use the Prayer of Humble Access of the Comfortable Words, or hanker after them. I use the Sarum Missal, which in c. 1526 didn't contain either of those two prayers. I imagine I will have to revise my liturgical position on entering an Ordinariate and adjusting to pastoral needs as I emerge from relative solitude!
But, I hear that Rome will maintain both of these prayers and others in a revised Anglican Use, which will, with the extraordinary and ordinary forms of the Roman Rite, form part of a trilogy of liturgical usages in the Ordinariates.
The mass in the Lancelot Andrewes BCP – the Liturgy of St. Tikhon is really a missal mass with a strengthened epiclesis in addition to the anamnesis is worthy of consideration for the Ordinariate. It retains those beloved BCP prayers – the Humble Access, Comfortable Words and even the option of the Decalogue.
The Book also offers the alternative Canons – the Coverdale Tridentine translation in Latin and English, the 1549 BCP, 1928 American and 1929 Scottish, 1954 South African and 1962 Canadian.
In the South African PB, the prayer of humble access is placed immediately before the reception of communion. It works well there.
Not for me it doesn't; it switches attention from Our Lord back to us miserable sinners, just when we least need to be reminded… I really hope that if it survives (and it should not; it was only inserted by Cranmer because, as a prayer from the pen of a Spanish Cardinal it appeared to give support to the need for Communion in both kinds) that it becomes optional. It is a relic of partisanship rather than part of our patrimony. Sorry! +E
You know, Bishop, in most rites, including the modern Roman rite, there are prayers of apology just before Communion. I am not personally emotionally attached to Cranmer's prayer, but I do see a role for it just before Communion. If it is reprehensible for the reasons you give, then the apologia prayers of the Roman rite (both forms) are also wrong. Here are the Sarum prayers, no fewer than four of them following the Kiss of Peace and preceding the priest's Communion:
Deus Pater, fons et origo totius bonitatis, qui ductus misericordia Unigenitum tuum pro nobis ad infirma mundi descendere et carnem sumere voluisti, quam ego indignus hic in manibus teneo.
Te adoro, te glorifico, te tota mentis ac cordis intentione laudo et precor; ut nos famulos tuos non deseras, sed peccata nostra dimittas, quatenus tibi soli vivo ac vero Deo, puro corde et casto corpore, servire valeamus. Per eundem Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.
Domine Iesu Christe, Fili Dei vivi, qui ex voluntate Patris, cooperante Spiritu Sancto, per mortem tuam mundum vivificasti; libera me, quæso, per hoc sacrosanctum Corpus et hunc Sanguinem tuum a cunctis iniquitatibus meis et ab universis malis; et fac me tuis semper obedirire mandatis, et a te nunquam in perpetuum separari permittas, Salvator mundi. Qui cum Patre et eodem Spiritu Sancto vivis et regnas, Deus, per omnia sæcula sæculorum. Amen.
Corporis et Sanguinis tui, Domine Iesu Christe, sacramentum, quod licet indignus accipio, non sit mihi iudicio et condemnationi; sed tua prosit pietate corporis mei et animæ saluti. Amen.
In English:
O God our Father, fount and origin of all goodness, who being moved by tender mercy, hast willed thine only-begotten Son for our sake to descend into the lower parts of the world and to take flesh, whom I unworthily hold in my hands.
I worship thee, I glorify thee, I praise thee with all intention of mind and heart ; and I beseech thee that thou forsake not us thy servants, but forgive our sins, so as with pure heart and chaste body we may be able to serve thee, the one living and true God, through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.
O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, who by the will of the Father, and the co-operation of the Holy Ghost, hast through thy death given life unto the world : deliver me by this thy most sacred Body and Blood from all mine iniquities, and from every evil : and make me ever to cleave unto thy commandments, and suffer me never to be separated from thee, thou Saviour of the world : Who with God the Father and the same Holy Ghost livest and reignest, ever one God, world without end. Amen.
O Lord Jesus Christ let not the Sacrament of thy Body and Blood which I receive, though unworthy, be to my judgement and condemnation, but through thy goodness let it avail to the salvation of my body and soul. Amen.
These prayers are all about admitting our unworthiness to God, but yet presuming to receive the Sacrament on account of our contrition for sin and acceptance of God's forgiveness, so that the Sacrament may avail for eternal life. The content is little different from Cranmer's Prayer of Humble Access, which is a prayer of apology based on the medieval precedents. Bouyer made the comment that Protestant liturgy was largely made up of emasculated medieval Eucharistic devotions once they had done away with the parts of the Mass that were truly of great antiquity! However, I see no reason why it should not be an option.
Is the Cardinal to whom you refer Quiñones?