Anglican Patrimony appears to be quite a fluid term. Different individuals have different definitions, and others are wondering which one is accurate. Having spent years in Protestant circles looking at Anglicanism (and Episcopalianism) from the outside, as well as having spent a few years as an Anglican, and more recently a couple years as an Anglican wanting to be Catholic, I have seen an interesting twist in the idea of an "Anglican Patrimony". I know some Anglicans who are perfectly clear on what they define the Patrimony as, and a few others whose theology is a bit more fuzzy (figuring it out is like trying to nail jello to a wall).
As a Baptist, I came upon one church after another that had written its own statement of faith. Each one had a different phrase or point that they felt was essential that the others did not have. I, myself, had wanted some kind of "confession of faith" that was more broadly based. I sought after something that would have some historicity to it; I liked reading the Church Fathers, and I earnestly longed to be able to say, "our confession was first written hundreds of years ago" (to me that felt like it would be ancient). Eventually, I found the London Baptist Confession of 1689 and thought I had seen the shekinah glory. From there, the transition was quite easy to the Westminster Confession of Faith (the confession written by Presbyterians in 1647). The two were very similar and that meant there was little that was new. Though I had a few "exceptions" over issues that I was unconvinced about (I never believed the Pope was the Antichrist) I stayed with that as "my" confession for many years.
When I joined the Reformed Episcopal Church some of the priests referred to themselves as "Presbyterians with a Prayer Book" so that made the move into a logical next step in my spiritual journey. That meant the Thirty-Nine Articles. The substance of the Articles was not terribly different than what I was used to in Reformed Presbyterian circles. I read them, studied them, discussed them, wrote articles on them, and bought a number of books that gave deeply specific exegesis.
At this point, I became acutely aware of something that disturbed me. Whereas in Protestant Evangelical circles there were numerous opinions as to what each statement of the confessions exactly meant, they each believed that there really had to be only one true opinion. In all these Anglican commentaries, I was finding a resistance to "over-defining" and something of a joy in being non-specific. I even had one priest tell me that the "unofficial mascot" of Anglicanism was the duck-billed platypus; because he was so hard to narrow down and define, and "Anglicans like it that way". About the same time, I was at a synod meeting and listened to a debate over the particulars of one statement in the diocesan constitution. The first comment was, "can we be more clear and define exactly what it means for the priest to ensure 'reverent music' in the liturgy?" The response was, "no, most of us prefer things less specific, that is what it means to be Anglican after all."
Then I picked up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and I started to read. By comparison with the Confessions I once held to, or the Articles that (I thought) I held to, this was massive. I even once asked myself if anyone could really be sure about that much? As I read, I found a wealth of information and specific definitions that was exactly what I had been looking for all my life. Yes, this "statement of faith" had only been written a few years before, but its content was the same as what the Church held to centuries before any Protestant Confession came on the scene. This was definitive truth that was not a resistance to clarity. With an allowance for variation in non-essentials, it was an encouragement to faithfulness in the essentials. Things that were left vague in the Anglican denomination I was a part of (artificial contraception, tradition, ecclesiastical authority, etc.), were now a "given", and with the authority of the historic Church behind it. I found such joy in digesting these words, that I began to find that the "via media" of Anglicanism was not much different than the "everyone interprets for himself" that I came across so often in Protestantism.
If being "non-specific" in the arena of theology and practice really is a part of the Anglican Patrimony, then that is something we should not try to maintain in the Ordinariates. Though there are Anglicans who are pleased with the specificity of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, there are others who prefer things left open and vague; apparently so that each priest can "choose for himself" and not have any rules to tie him down. This may work fine when everyone agrees on the historic faith, but when the historic faith is jettisoned (as in the TEC) chaos will soon follow. If we let each man decide for himself we are slowly, but surely, led into positions that our forefathers would have gagged at. The "undefined Anglican" way can easily be confused with being gracious towards our brethren and thus giving them the benefit of the doubt in those non-essential areas where we may not see eye to eye. The latter practice is a good thing, and it shows brotherly love and the biblical principle of treating others as better than ourselves. Yet, the desire to maintain a lack of clarity so that we can be free of restrictions is a dangerous thing. The sinfulness of our hearts cannot be trusted, and the latitude that comes with being "undefined" can only lead to another disaster like The Episcopal Church. When we enter the Ordinariate, let us rejoice in the specifics; thank the Magisterium for their teaching; and give praise to God that we have a clear direction to go in and a definition of who we are and how we are to live.
Related posts:
Thankfully, we at the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada have had the Catechism of the Catholic Church as our official doctrine for some time now. And the teaching we receive from the pulpit is very clear. Nothing wishy washy about our clergy.
Here's something for due consideration:
What good things can be said about the Anglican approach to doctrine, yes, even in The Episcopal Church? This may seem a perverse quest, but it ought actually be a satisfying one: whatever of the Anglican/Episcopalian approach is good, shorn of attached errors, is part of Patrimony, and is a good for the wider Church.
Many thanks for this interesting analysis, which nicely caps the related concerns of the last few posts here. I too am wearied by the lazy "comprehension" that seems to be the end goal of so much Anglican theology — which is something altogether different from a reverent hesitation to define too much in sacred matters (definition normally arising only as a necessary defence against error). It is frustrating to read the fascinating and learned writings of the "classical" Anglican Divines when there is really no means native to Anglicanism (beyond the Scriptures and our notoriously ambiguous formularies) for evaluating which teachings of our theologians are to be held as genuinely authoritative and which carry only by the personal authority of their authors.
But the Ordinariate scheme explicitly acknowledges that a strand within Anglican theological thought and teaching has been feeling its way inexorably, albeit by its own route, to a full expression of the Catholic faith and to restored unity with the Catholic Church. As the petitions to the Holy See have put it, the Patrimony is something "within which we have come to this moment". This is where the Catholic Catechism comes in as the "standard of faith": it provides a benchmark against which to evaluate and with which to interpret the Anglican doctrinal inheritance. The Catholic Catechism is ideal for such a purpose, not least because it grounds and expresses the Church's constant teaching with fresh reference to Scripture and the Fathers. This makes the whole enterprise immediately more intelligible within the world of classical Anglican theological expression, where what often sounds like "waffle" is really an obstinate determination to limit terminology and argument, so far as possible, to the words of scripture. And this, in surprising ways, often guarantees a credible "catholicity" of interpretation. I think, for instance, of the Eucharistic theology of Lancelot Andrewes, which compares the species of bread and wine to the manger ("the cratch") that held the infant Christ (Sermon XII):
Or, to take another example, a prayer by Dean Daniel Brevint (1616-1695) to be said before receiving the Cup:
Here, the obvious first point of reference is the "cup of blessing" (1 Cor. 10:16). Then, remembering how Christ, at the Last Supper, spoke of this cup of blessing as the "fruit of the vine"(Matt. 26:29), we remember that he is also himself "the Vine" from whom we drink.
I don't have the theological qualifications to offer any critique or defence of these scripturally inspired ways of speaking about Christ's mysterious presence under the forms of bread and wine — and I certainly don't wish to stir up controversy! But I would hope that an Anglican Catholic, catechized in the Church's teaching on the subject, could continue to use such expressions (or discover them for the first time as part of his inheritance) with great benefit and comfort — all the more so because the interpretation of these expressions would be liberated from mere private judgement.
It would be a fascinating long-term project for theologians and Church historians within the Ordinariates to compile an "Anglican Companion to the Catechism", perhaps taking the form of quotations from Anglican Divines and from the Prayer Book, matched paragraph by paragraph with the Catechism. This would show how the teaching of the Catechism has been expressed in Anglican thought and practice, even if at times with only an uncertain sound (1 Cor. 14:8). That would certainly be a step towards revealing what aspects of the "Anglican Patrimony" could be legitimately and confidently offered to the wider Church from within the Ordinariates (and what could not be so offered).
What an excellent suggestion – an Anglican Companion to The Catechism of the Catholic Church. This would be a marvelous way to present many aspects of Anglican Patrimony in relation to the universal standard of the Catholica.
We should get Frs Hunwicke and Chadwick on this post haste.
An aspect of "Anglican Patrimony" that I hope will live on in the Ordinariate is graciousness. I remember a real graciousness in Episcopal parish life and campus ministry some decades ago when I entered the church. It was a graciousness that was somehow related to an ethos of being "the church" of the country, the place and the people, all the people. That Episcopal Church I remember knew that it should be the church for all sorts and conditions of men, even if it obviously wasn't. It was the Church that connected the core of truth in the hardcore, judgmental Reformed Presbyterianism of my childhood (touche` Fr. Chori) to the grace of a Christianity that spans millenia and races. That graciousness is greatly eroded now and that could be blamed on the warring between progressives and traditionalists or even on a general coarsening of American culture. Whatever its cause– I'm ready to say it is the work of Satan, just so I'm not off the hook for my part in it– I hope and pray that culture war and church war militancy gets checked at the door. Folks need the truth and folks even need certainty, but few people are drawn to the Church and to the Gospel when it is presented as rigidity and self-righteousness.
I haven't heard anyone else say it, so I will: I love Rite II. I love it because it is the liturgy that I first experienced and it is the liturgy that I was baptized in and my children were baptized in, I was ordained in, and which I have celebrated more than any other. I respect the majority view here that is against girl acolytes and against lay eucharistic ministers, but please lay off insulting them. They are serving our Lord and are no less the faithful Catholic than any of us. Is it possible that Rite II, or its new nomenclature, might just also be part of the Ordinariate? Or will there be room only for the right kind of former Anglicans within the Ordinariate?
Just letting off a little steam after dinner with my kids' godparents who are faithful, dedicated progressive Catholics who are aghast, but accept that I am leaving the Episcopal Church for the Catholic Church. Compared to them I am hyper-traditional. You folks, the community of traditionalist Anglo-Catholics, are my family but they are too. I hope that once we all cross that bridge we will have the graciousness to accept and love and support each other in our mission.
God bless you Fr. Chori. I pray that you and I both soon find ourselves priests in the Catholic Church.
Californian,
At the Anglican Use parish of St. Mary the Virgin, Fr. Hawkins uses Rite II of the Book of Divine Worship for the majority of services; this is unique among the AU parishes, but is no less legitimate for all that. I tend to doubt that a revised BDW will have a Rite II, however, only because the new translation of the Novus Ordo in English, which should be put into place in U.S. parishes in December 2011 will bring the language of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite much closer to that of Rite II of the US BCP/BDW. (But that's just an educated guess, not an authoritative opinion.)
I suspect that once the ordinariates are up and running and things are a bit settled down, there will be three basic options: Novus Ordo (2002), the Latin Extraordinary Form (1962) and an Anglican formulary that does not yet exist, based largely on the Missal tradition, which will necessarily exist in a few different editions to accomodate some of the vernaculars used in the TAC.
I certainly agree with you that it is wrong to judge or belittle anyone else who is striving to offer service to the Lord just because of different rites, etc. I believe St. Paul has something to say about judging another's servant in that little missive he sent off to the Romans.
This is in agreement with what we learned at the ACCC (Canadian) General Synod a few weeks ago.
As with all change, we must be ready to understand it without requiring retention of our favourite bits; trust in those who are developing it that they will have an understanding comparable to our own, if not better. It will also have a fair amount of allowance for local variation (one of those being tasked with development said as much to me).
I must also comment on the last paragraph, not in disagreement but in amplification: cut it off after the word "else", and it remains a clear statement of brotherly love.
Please pray for us all, for courage, understanding, and patience.
I have heard it said in our TAC circles that the Anglican approach to doctrine has been more similar to that of the Orthodoxy–less of a need to explain everything in rational terms and more of a willingness to accept mystery.
However, there is mystery and there is mystery. When one is shaking in one's boots in awe of God and the mystery of His Incarnation that's one thing. When one is merely using the word "mystery" as a way of mystifying, fudging and doing a Rodney King "why can't we all get along?" theology, that's another.
More later, I must get some work done.
Deborah
Oh, good, nobody else has said it yet so here goes.
Father of course makes a good point: no more Anglican loopholes, which obviously were intended to make Anglicanism Protestant in the first place. For those interested in the ordinariate that almost goes without saying but of course you have to reassure concerned Catholics that no, this is not an importation of Protestantism.
That said, and some Anglicans are fond of comparing themselves to this in order to try to give their liberalism some ancient cred, witness the Eastern churches. Most of the theology is undefined! (Apophaticism etc. but that goes over my head.) For example, the Orthodox. Doctrine: Trinity, Jesus is true God and true man, the Mother of God and icons. And you're done. The rest is … custom. Nobody seriously threatened any of the other beliefs (real presence, intercession of the saints, prayer for the dead) so there are no doctrines defending them.
(There were councils defending those things – Jerusalem in the 1600s, Orthodoxy's Trent refuting Protestantism, for example – but they don't have the authority of the big seven ecumenical councils of defining doctrine. Some claim Orthodoxy has nine doctrinal councils: the big seven and parts of two later mediæval ones, condemning the filioque for example, but I can't remember what they are right now.)
In many ways Anglicans have tried to identify with/imitate the East: the bare-bones approach to doctrine (but the Anglicans did it on purpose for latitudinarianism's sake), the claim of being a fellow non-papal episcopal/apostolic church, and the decentralised communion of churches. Orthodoxy doesn't even have a Lambeth marking who's in its communion. The bishops are simply in communion (and other than that the member churches have very little to do with each other). So close… and yet so far.
Of course here I'm describing Anglicans including non-papalist Anglo-Catholics, who of course aren't interested in the ordinariate.
I agree that Rite II of the BDW is the Novus Ordo (OF), but I question using it in an Anglican Use parish. I already attend one, thankfully it is very traditional and there are none of the innovations as done in most of the parishes. Why if our parishes use the NO would I want to attend an Anglican Use parish would I not just stay in my present parish? Anglican Use parishes can offer the Latin Mass or the TLM as Fr. Phillips has done, but this is not the focus nor norm for an Anglican Use parish. I don't think you would find any Eastern Rite parishes celebrating the NO. If there is no distinction between an Anglican Use parish and a Novus Ordo parish why are we even discussing the Anglican Use liturgy and an Ordinariate?
If one wants the Novus Ordo then it would make much more sense to just join your local Latin Rite parish. The Ordianariate as I understand it, is to bring the Patrimony of that which is good in the Anglican tradition, not to have another Latin Rite parish.
I love my parish and feel comfortable there, but as a former part of the Anglican Communion want to participate in an Anglican Use liturgy, not a Latin Rite liturgy. It has nothing to do with the fact that I feel one is better than the other as this is not true, it has all to do with my Anglican heritage. I hope there will be strict rubics within the new liturgy that some of these innovations are not allowed to creep into it.
Many Latin Rite Catholics are not happy with many of what they consider innovations or abuses and would love an Anglican Use liturgy. There are some who aren't willing to attend the TLM, but still want the new translation of the Mass. Also the new translation of the Latin Mass will not stop the problems they have, unless there are written guidelines within the rubics stating what can and cannot be done. This has been the problem with the Novus Ordo, that if it is not specified Bishops and priests feel free to include innovations into the liturgy.
I've only seen a video of the Anglican Use Mass, at Our Lady of the Atonement. It's essentially a splice of 'reform of the reform' NO and what Anglo-Catholics were doing in Texas around 1980 (1979 Rite I), more traditional than 1970s NO practice but not Tridentine either. (But eastward-facing so it looks and feels similar.)
As Bishop Barnes has rightly noted, interest in a specifically Anglican, that is, BCP-based, service among Anglo-Catholics is uniquely American. I call it the 'Masterpiece Theatre' phenomenon (American anglophiles love TV historical dramas made in England far more than any English do). English ACs think the BCP is far too Protestant even in its better American form. Which is why they've never wanted the AU. Many of them are Anglo-Papalists, a type you don't see much of in the US. They are what many take all ACs to be, would-be Roman Catholics… who use the Roman Rite (NO).
So the British ordinariate probably will be like 'national parishes' now – places set up canonically as ethnic/cultural parishes. (The US has Polish and Italian ones and a few others; Irish is the default 'normal' parish.) Same rite, slightly different culture. A fair description of the incoming (we hope they're coming) English Anglo-Catholics, no? So, yes, the ordinariate still would have a reason to exist (besides, possibly, married priests) even though it uses the standard form of the Roman Rite.
Americans will get a spruced-up version of the AU (getting the same better translations that the whole NO will get soon) or, considering that American ex-Continuers like our host will be coming in, even a tweaked American Missal or Anglican Missal, American Version, souped-up 1928 BCP poured into a shell more or less like the Tridentine Mass.
P.S. Obviously I missed Deborah's comment before writing mine. Giving credit where it's due.
Looking in from the outside, I'm wondering, Just what’s so difficult about discerning Anglican patrimony?
(Following Fr. Tomlinson’s recorded remarks at the Forward in Faith conference, Oct 2009, http://www.forwardinfaith.com/audio/2009-tomlinson.mp3):
Let us formally post the 6th month banns of Holy Matrimony between Sir Anglicanus Patrimonius and Lady Romana Vaticana Catechisma:
Sir Anglicanus previously was divorced by his former wife Synodica, she now living with another woman, Liberalana Episcopa. Sir Anglicanus was granted on 4 November 2009 an annulment by Petrine Privilege. Patrimonius brings to his new marriage his children from his previous marriage:
His sons:
1. Lancellot Andrewes
2. Carolus Divinus
3. Non-Juror
4. Arminianus Wesley
5. Tractarianus, and in tandem:
6. Patristic Revival, and in tandem
7 & 8. the twins Ritualismus and Charles Fuge Lowder
9. Inklings
10. Herbert Howells Ralph Cram
11. T. S. Eliot
His beautiful daughters:
1. Prayerbook 1549
2. Anglican Chant
3 & 4. the twins Morningsong and Evensong
5 & 6. the twins Coverdale and Authorized Version
7 & 8. the twins Laudianisma (his most beautiful daughter) and Scottish Prayerbook
9. Dorothy Sayers
10. Evelyn Underhill
The children of Lady Romana Vaticana are too many to name.
The Nuptial Mass will be offered 25. i. 2011, 12noon, the Reverend John Henry Cardinal Newman officiating. The Best Man and the Bridesmaids are yet to be determined (suggestions?). The reception will be held afterward in the Rabbit Room, The Eagle and Child Pub, Oxford. Let the preparation for the wedding festivities begin!
Doesn't Sir Anglicanus also have a son named John Mason Neale? Or is he subsumed under #6?
Make him #12, so that like Jacob, Angicanus has 12 sons.
ROTFL!
I take it, given the celebrant of the Mass and location of the reception, that the wedding will be at the Oxford Oratory!
Or the chapel at Pusey House?
Well, some think the Comfortable Words are Protestant.
Deborah
Here's my two cents on patrimony that were first written a few months before the news broke of Anglicanorum Coetibus:
http://subtuum.blogspot.com/2010/02/anglican-uses-what-american-roman.html
(It's a particularly American take on the Anglican ethos and points the things like joy and warmth that Anglicans bring that are of value to the wider Church.)
I think it's important for all of us to remember that we don't all need to value all parts of the patrimony equally any more than Catholics value all the legitimate parts of their patrimony equally. Many things are matters of temperament and preference, not issues of faith. Like most Monks, I'm more devoted to the office than to the rosary. I prefer St. Bernard to St. Francis de Sales and William of St. Thierry to St. Ignatius Loyola. I think Romanesque architecture is superior to most other forms. None of those things make me a better Catholic than someone whose inclinations are to devotions, the Baroque, and modern devotional literature.
"An Adult faith does not follow the waves of fashion and the latest novelties." — Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI
First, a hat tip to Gay and Young Fogey. I guess that will have to be a ball cap because although I admire YF's fedora — or whatever that cool old school hat is called — I don't own one. You might guess that I haven't got a biretta either, yet.
Gay, you have a point about NO being inappropriate in a Greek Catholic parish but we Anglicans are Western not Eastern. My experience in the Episcopal Church and in the Catholic parishes where I have visited and the one where I now am registered with my family is that there are a variety of liturgies appropriate to the congregation:
Latin Vigil Mass/Low Mass/High Mass; 1928 BCP/Rite II; Rite I/Rite II; and Mass with no choir/Mass with traditional hymns/ Youth Mass/ Contemporary Mass. Only the last assortment is Catholic, the others are Episcopal churches where I have served. I am accustomed to there being great flexibility–maybe too much flexibility– in the liturgy served. I can see that using the Anglican Missal or the Tridentine Mass in an Episcopal Church is in some ways equivalent to the progressives deleting the Nicene Creed or writing their own goofy heretical eucharistic prayers. Vive le Rector-Roi! and Vive le difference, pass the mission share fund! pretty much sum up the liturgical discipline. Still, there is something very sweet about some of the liberties we take in both TEC and the Catholic Church, e.g. a "children's mass" with the kids gathered around the altar or setting up for mass at camp without all the trappings of church. I see that I may be arguing for flexibility while others see that the structure has been deconstructed to death and we need to establish a firm foundation and load bearing walls for this part of the ecclesia, the Anglican Ordinariate.
Young Fogey, I think you are on to something likening the Anglican Use/Ordinariate to national parishes. I am brought to mind of the German Catholic parishes in my hometown in the Midwest. Right there on their 19th century cornerstones are the words "Deutsches Katolisches Kirche" (I am spelling from memory, forgive me if I've misspelt) Still, they had their differences depending on whether the people came from Russia or the Reich or Alsace or elsewhere. They have all changed immensely and I wonder how much a contemporary German Catholic moving to my hometown would recognize at St. Joseph's or Sacred Heart or Holy Name. Would they be drawn to them versus another Catholic parish? I don't know. Likewise, the Anglicans drawn to Catholicism are coming from different places– the Continuum, FiF, and even ordinary broad Church TEC– and we have emigrated at different times, too. I'd like to think that our "national parishes" can encompass us all and be gracious enough to let us bring a portion of our post-1979 patrimony as well. Our hope for a long time must be that we receive immigration– individuals and families not congregations with church buildings– from Anglicanism and the vast majority of that in the US is TEC. Maybe there are aspects of TEC and its NO influenced liturgy that are "meet and right", "decent and in good order" and even "worthy of all men to be received" within our new house. Maybe there are practices that can be retained because they will be comfortable to the newcomers. I just hope that will get some consideration.
But, hey, I'm all in. I recognize that "AC" is in response to groups of Anglicans and I am but an individual. Whatever Rome and the Ordinary establish will be my marching orders. If they tell me to move on down to local diocese, I can live with that, too.
I've already been convinced/embarrassed into giving up my cassock alb; know where I can buy my biretta?
priest in California
As one born into Missouri Synod Lutheranism, fallen away in college, drawn into the Episcopal Church in my early mid-20s (for 39 years) and in 2008 inexorably led by God to the Catholic Church, I had hoped for the coming of the Ordinariate to the area where I live (Seattle), but ultimately (and giving much thanks to God) found it not necessary. Among the aspects of the patrimony of Anglicanism which I would identify as important to the Catholic Church, especially in America (and I am told this is also true elsewhere in the Anglophone world) is the treasure of sacred music (both hymnody, liturgical, Anglican chant and choral works) which has been largely expunged from Catholic worship in the vast majority of the U.S. It proved unnecessary for me in converting because, having expressed my demonstrated need for transcendent sacred music as a help in opening myself to worship, three persons (two of them not known to me, but having read my comments on the topic on blog posts) all, independently and within the span of a few days, pointed me at the sole Dominican parish in the Archdiocese of Seattle (Blessed Sacrament Parish).
One of those unknown to me was an individual who had just left the Episcopal Church. He described the quality of the music as almost on a par with that of the best Episcopal parishes in the U.S. His description was accurate. Having formally withdrawn from my Episcopal parish at the end of September 2008, I began attending Blessed Sacrament, enrolled in RCIA and began singing with the choir. My wife (a cradle Episcopalian) and I were received at the Noon Mass this past Pentecost.
One thing I can say in all honesty. Had the hymnody and liturgical music at the typical Catholic parish been other than the banal and insipid contemporary blather that it was, I would probably have found my way "home" to the Catholic Church a decade or more earlier.
So please don't fail to consider the musical patrimony of Anglicanism, because it is of a richness that has been robbed from much of the Catholic Church, and it is something that most Anglican parishes have which, at least for some, makes a huge difference in "feeding our souls."
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer