This appeared in last week’s Tablet:
Another senior Church of England cleric [at Synod] who did not want to be named, told me he believed that those who turned to Rome would see their Anglican traditions diluted. He said that a lot of people would laugh at the idea of a distinctly Anglican body within the Roman Catholic Church, adding “Many of them have been using Catholic rites (illegally) anyway – so I would ask exactly what authentically Anglican aspects will they be taking with them. The only thing authentically Anglican would be their wives.”
Marching Orders by Sam Adams, 17 July 2010
Well, this rather gets to the heart of things, doesn’t it? Here in the (Roman) Catholic Church over recent months we have been becoming far more familiar with things Anglican than in the past. ‘More Roman than Rome’ has been a long-standing joke on both sides of the Tiber, and we have been at turns amused, bemused and occasionally irritated at Anglo-Catholic practice which appeared to ape us and yet, somehow, not quite ‘get it’.
I am well aware that the situation is different in other parts of the world, but here in England we, too, are left wondering what is going to be the practical difference between St Charles the Martyr Ordinariate parish and Our Lady of the Anguished Expression Roman-use parish. Both are probably going to use the Roman Rite; the only external difference is likely to be that St Charles may use the English Hymnal, whereas Our Lady’s will use Laudate and sometimes use guitars and things. We, too, wonder whether the only real difference is going to be Mrs Priest (and we have quite a lot of priests’ wives already).
I suspect that it is going to be necessary for those who join the Ordinariates in the British Isles, ironically, to be quite a lot more Anglican than they are now. And, even more ironically, to be more Anglican (in the right sense) than the Church of England they are leaving behind. A friend of mine, who would identify with the Anglo-Catholic movement commented to me the other day that at his (mainstream, not Anglo-Catholic) theological college, ‘Anglicanism’ was studied very little indeed. The ‘divines’ were never mentioned, for instance. The strange thing is that just as we are asking what ‘Patrimony’ is, there is no clear answer because the Church of England no longer sees itself as having any particular patrimony but only ongoing revelation of new and different truths (such as the 'truth' that women should be ordained).
The person who seems to understand this most clearly is the estimable Fr Hunwicke. I asked some time ago about the identity of the patrimony, and I have got the clearest answers from his blog, though I think his approach is not as complete as it could (and possibly should) be. He is most fond of the pre-Reformation period (which I would be reluctant to concede as specifically Anglican patrimony; this stuff is surely shared between us) and, quite rightly, the twentieth century, especially as found in the work of Dom Gregory Dix and Canon Eric Mascall, surely two of the most towering scholars of the century in any communion.
The writers in both these periods, of course, were keen to identify themselves as Catholic in one way or another. But the Anglican Patrimony necessarily also involves the writings of some who would be more reluctant to adopt a specifically Catholic label. One does not have to accept the stuff that is obviously contrary to the faith, but simply to be aware of it, while sucking the nectar still to be found there, and which may provide a real source of nourishment not just for the ordinariates, but for the whole Catholic Church in time. The Syrian Catholic Church owes a great deal to the thought of Babai the Great, who lived and died out of communion, but was in a real sense the father of the group of churches inaccurately but commonly called Nestorian. There is no reason why Ken, Hooker, Lawes, Nicholas Ferrar and even Cranmer should not continue to be studied appreciatively within the safe context of the Ordinariates; once one’s feet are on the Rock, one can see all sorts of good things within them; securus iudicat orbis terrarum. All one needs is good and erudite guidance to see the good and avoid the pitfalls.
The irony of this is that in a sense, the ordinariates, rather than being more Roman than Rome, would become more Anglican than Anglicans. They would preserve the very thing that Anglicanism would appear to be casting off; its own patrimony. I cannot imagine that average seminary training in the Ordinariates would be shorter than four or five years; during this period, a major course for the seminarians will need to be the Patrimony. What has, in a sense, been despised as non-Catholic by Anglo-Catholics until now needs to be brought in from the cold, to find a new home and context. After all, it went to build up the platform upon which the Anglo-Catholic movement stands.
In this way, Anglicanism, as a true school within the Western Rite would be secured for future generations in a way that it is very unlikely to be within the Church of England, the Church in Wales, or the Episcopal Church of Scotland. Ironic, eh?
Father, I think you are absolutely right about the 'theological' patrimony and the careful study of the Anglican divines, certainly post-Hooker to perhaps Mascall and the (earlier) Ramsey. Without detailed knowledge of this kind 'patrimony' will be in danger of becoming a more and more elusive concept, an increasingly desperate grasping after a nebulous 'ethos' and the eccentricities of parochial and clerical subculture. It's ironic that the price of communion with Peter may be that of becoming (in some ways) more "Anglican," but we should be in doubt whatsoever that it will be a price worth paying.
I'm sorry the last sentence should read "we should be in no doubt whatsoever……" (!)
A most discerning analysis, Father. I think that the addiction to Roman liturgical forms became more acute with the introduction of the vernacular after the Vatican Council, when it became possible to use them "straight". I believe this was partly for some to prove their Catholic credentials over against other strands of Anglicanism, and partly to achieve some sort of uniformity of Roman and Anglican Catholic practice. This was helpful in the case of using a common lectionary, but led to the adoption of the rather inferior translations of the Missal approved for England, insterad of the better if freer versions adopted by the CofE.
Within the Ordinariate, it should no longer be necessary to "prove" Catholicity, and I strongly believe that (in England at least) we shall have a vocation to fulfil the vision of the Holy Father in re-discovering and re-embodying a distinct English tradition that for historical reasons the modern Catholic Church in England has hitherto been unable or unwilling to do.
This is exactly right in my view. Fr. Spilsbury has hit the nail on the head. What was thought necessary in the context of the C. of E. will not be necessary in an Anglican-friendly part of the Church Universal, in union with the See of St. Peter. A re-discovery of the treasures of Anglicanism within that Communion with Rome is now possible. Ironically, the ordinariates can become more Anglican and more Catholic than were the bishoprics for FiF, while the C. of E. becomes every day less Catholic and also less Anglican in its traditions. A fortiori, as the radicals take control of the Canterbury Communion, we can expect it to becomes less and less Christian by any standard.
As a Roman always, I do reject the branch theory and hope that my words have not offended anyone here. It's just my honest point of view. From that point of view, as a traditionalist Latin, I reject entirely the idea of 'partial communion'. To me, this is a glorious time because Anglicans are becoming truly Catholic for the first time (even if they think themselves already Catholic) and yet they are able to enrich Holy Mother Church with those aspects of their patriomy that are compatible with the One True Faith–and that happens to be most of that patrimony. I want to welcome them warmly and yet also tell them to please bring the treasures of their culture with them.
P.K.T.P.
A subtle and illuminating post. Thank you.
This is why I hope that in Canada the first Ordinary will be someone who is steeped in Anglican Patrimony, fully catholic in his theology AND has been practicing a traditional form of Anglican liturgy so that this can be modeled and any new priests coming from the Anglican Church of Canada can learn the rubrics so they become second nature.
Which is not to say that there won't be room in the Ordinariate for those wishing to do the other licit forms of the mass, according to the Apostolic Constitution.
And I hope this flexibility will be a bridge for Anglicans like Nicky Gumbel and others to come into the Ordinariate.
Deborah
An interesting and sincere wish, Deborah. It's the logistics of such an appointment that I find hard to understand. How could someone with such an Anglican pedigree become the first Ordinary since an ordinary must be a priest or bishop who is instructed, confirmed, undergoes some sort of formation (weeks, months), is ordained as a deacon, is ordained as a priest (and ordained bishop ideally)?
Surely the first Ordinary must be someone with fully Catholic orders in the eyes of the CDF already, though perhaps with an Anglican background. I know a fair number of people who have crossed the Tiber in Canada, but few who would meet the criteria you outline and fewer who would likely be considered for the post of first Canadian Anglican Ordinary.
Let me say that I put these questions out of interest and concern and not to be simply critical. The working out of the Ordinariate is a very sensitive matter and I think we should all be prepared for unforseen developments and surprises. Let's all pray that they are inspiring and hopeful surprises and not assume that the structures that we know will simply be transplanted.
New wine . . . new skins.
JH Newman, ora pro nobis.
"I am well aware that the situation is different in other parts of the world . . . "
I sometimes wonder if the global perspective Rome tends to have was a more significant factor behind _Anglicanorum coetibus_ than a number of commentators acknowledge. We're naturally inclined to see anything Anglican as being focused on England, but is it possible that the Anglican patrimony is stronger and more readily identifiable in other parts of the world and that the ordinariate will take deeper root there? But your fine analysis, Father, does indeed get to the heart of things in England.
I find this a very inspired and inspiring posting. Both Fr. Finnegan and I have a love of the pre-Reformation patrimony, the Sarum Use in particular. He is a parish priest, and I, myself, on entering an Ordinariate, would also have to adjust my liturgical observances to reality and what the Church will ask us to use for our Mass, Office and administration of the Sacraments.
Many have recognised the parallels between Anglican patrimony and Latin-Rite Catholic patrimony, both of which have been and still are under attack by those who wish to deconstruct the Church and impose their nebulous ideologies. Let's say no more!
There seems to be another element of which I am convinced the Holy Father is more than aware: how crises like the Reformation and the post-Vatican II “revolution” happened, why they happened, and the mechanics of how orthodox Catholicism somehow seems to re-establish itself in the garden of weeds. I am realising that the real Anglican patrimony is what brought back organs, stained glass, choir stalls, choirs, cassocks and surplices, vestments, sacramental theology and so much more into a national church that had been, at the end of the eighteenth century, concerned for little more than good morals and social respectability. A whole mechanism kicked in, from the late sixteenth century, to the Caroline Divines, to Methodism and the Oxford Movement, to the Victorian slum priests and full-blown Anglo-Papalism in the early twentieth century.
We are invited to see the whole rather than each aspect isolated from the rest, be it four-voice Anglican chant for the psalms, birettas or double-breasted cassocks. We must not be Nominalists but Platonists!!!!
The same thing has been going on in the Catholic world. The “counter-reformers” were already active since the 1960’s and formed Una Voce, the Latin Mass Society and other lay associations for the preservation of Catholic patrimony under threat. Then there was the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre. Finally, various structures were created for those leaving the St Pius X movement or who had simply longed for a return of the old liturgy in a Catholic and stable context.
The parallels are there, and I am convinced that this is the reason why this Pope is so interested in Anglicanism and offering a canonical solution that compares with the Apostolic Administration of St John Vianney in Brazil. The various priestly societies have no bishops of their own, but have the right to call to Orders and have bishops come in and ordain their priests.
The study of church history is capital, and no balanced view of the Church or the Faith is possible without at least basic knowledge of church history. I heartily agree that courses in Anglican church history should be added to the normal required courses in theology, philosophy, canon law, pastoralia, etc. I suppose the first generation, for pastoral reasons will receive their training as they resume their ministries quickly on joining the Ordinariates and receiving conditional ordination. Mature converts to the Catholic Church in England traditionally received four years training at the Beda in Rome, two years shorter than the six years for young freshmen in their late teens and early twenties. We do need to raise intellectual standards as we move from the ghetto to integration.
I really do hope Fr Hunwicke will join the future English Ordinariate and be appointed to train ordinands and give priests top-up courses. I am a fan of his blog, and look at it most days.
I don’t think it is an exercise in preserving Anglicanism for its own sake, but another and complementary approach to recovering Catholic patrimony. The history of the Catholic Church consists not only of the Counter-Reformation period, but also Antiquity and the Middle-Ages. The Anglican view is simply another facet, founded in medieval northern European Catholicism, which harmoniously supplements the Counter-Reformation and Baroque period. I really do believe that the real aim of all this is to rediscover the unity of Catholicism in its diversity and the true freedom of God’s children.
Now, that would warm up the old cockles! Wouldn’t it?
"We must not be Nominalists but Platonists!!!!"
I'm all for omitting large chunks of William of Ockham from the list of the Anglican Patrimony.
If you do go about "omitting large chunks" from the list, do so with a very sharp razor, please.
Sounds like cutting the 39 Articles out of the Prayer Book in American Continuing Anglican parishes with a Stanley knife. Well, keep it simple!
I think we can assume that the razor goes to the Articles first, except perhaps as a reference source for reading Tract 90.
Been wondering myself what the Novus Ordo Anglo-Catholics in England expect to bring as patrimony into the ordinariates. I expect every Anglo-Catholic priest in the world who crosses B XVI's "splendid bridge" will have to surrender quite a lot of local adaptations in order to conform to the authorized patrimonial liturgy. But then probably most, as in my own case, have done our best to "do" the liturgy as faithfully as possible in our divers and sundry jurisdictions precisely because there is no consensus on specifics among us. "In those days there was no king in Israel, and every man did what was right in his own eyes."
I loved this piece!
Also, it would have been better to identify Babai's followers with the "Chaldean Catholic Church," the name of the sui juris church preserving the E. Syrian heritage. "Syrian Catholic Church" could be confused with another sui juris church of the same name, which is in the W. Syrian tradition, and not in the sphere of Babai's influence.
I believe it was Fr. Aidan Nichols, OP, who wrote a piece on the Patrimony some time ago, delivered at an Anglican Usage conference if I'm not mistaken. As I recall, he said that a house of study/formation for such as now will be the Ordinariates would certainly study the Caroline Divines, with perhaps a bit of clarification if needed. I know that one hope we at Our Lady of Walsingham have for the longer term is a house of study for Ordinariate clergy here in Houston. I suppose time will tell, but I definitely look forward to assisting at Mass at St Charles the Martyr parish some day, wherever it may be!
Woody Jones, SKCM
What do you expect coming from the Tablet!. That paper is run buy a bunch of progressivists and liberals anyway. Ignore them!!. The Catholic Herald is way more reliable a news source.
This Roman Catholic is looking forward to the Ordinariate!.
This post reflects the situation and attitudes prevalent in England, even though it seems to take the Tablet's article as Gospel. Here in Canada things are very different. Virtually all clergy in the ACCC (TAC) use a form of liturgy based solidly on the 1962 Canadian BCP, which admittedly is much more 'catholic' then England's 1662 book. I, for one, could not bring myself to use the 1662 BCP, so if I were in England, I would use 1549 (if allowed) or the Latin Mass.
As regards the C. of E. commentator, I only respond that at least the wives of ordinariate priests will continue to be, in every case, members of the female sex. But this is the Anglican matrimony rather than its patrimony. As regards patrimony, at least much of the Book of Common Prayer will be preserved in the ordinariates. Its future in the C. of E. is less secure.
P.K.T.P.
About the situation in England, the TAC there has applied for an ordinariate, whereas the FiF people have still not done so, even after the 'final insult' from the C. of E. While the FiF people continue to dither and consider the loss of fine churches, networks of friends and handsome paycheques, the Pope could erect an ordinaraite under TAC leadership (e.g. Bishop Merer). The new personal ordinary could then make an 'Anglicatholic' Mass text normative in his circumscription (priests in it still having the right, howver, to use the N.O.M. or T.L.M. under A.C.).
Later, members of the FiF, probably in a number of waves, could simply enter the ordinarate that is already there. Some would no doubt cross into the dioceses, depending on the way the N.O. is celebrated at their local churches. This would, over time, tend to move the incomers away from the N.O. and towards the sort of liturgy preferred by Fr. Schovanek, which is a better outcome.
In my view, it makes little sense to erect a parallel jurisdiction for the N.O.M. cum Evensong and double-breasted cassocks. Better to develop across the ordinariates a real sense of unity in a liturgy that enriches the Roman Rite.
P.K.T.P.
My guess is the last thing that Rome wants is two competing Ordinariates in England that approach Anglican patrimony from rather different perspectives. That's why I believe nothing will be set in stone until after the FiF National Conference in October. One (at least to begin with) Ordinariate with a "both/and" rather two (initially) with an "either/or" ethos. I think Fr Finnegan has pretty much nailed the issue – FiF and TTAC must both work in harmony to re-Anglicanise as well as re-Catholicise.
I have decided to hold back on responding to the argument of Conchúr here. The reason is simply that we still know too little in terms of provisions and dates. I think that a new Mass text for the ordinariates will be coming eventually but we do not know when this will happen. Nor do we know when the ordinariate for England will be erected. Rome need not 'wait' for the synod in October simply because Rome would likely not act sooner in any event. For example, I doubt that ordinariates for Canada or Australia will come any sooner. Rumour has it that the one for Puerto Rico will come sooner but their liturgy will be entirely in Spanish.
I only say that it would be better to have a Mass text that actually transmits the Anglican patrimony. The N.O.M. does not transmit that; nor does it transmit much of anything else.
P.K.T.P
Let me reassure Peter Perkins. FiF and the Provincial Episcopal Visitors are not dithering. If nothing has yet been said publicly, it is in part because when it is there will certainly be a row and some unpleasantness, and we do not want it to overshadow the visit of the Holy Father in September. We want that to be a happy event, so do not expect any news of an Ordinariate here until the Pope is safely back in Rome.
P.K.T.P. wrote:
While the FiF people continue to dither and consider the loss of fine churches, networks of friends and handsome paycheques, …
Hardly "dither". As has been spelt out in various postings on this site since the publication of Anglicanorum Coetibus, the position of FiF U.K. and that of the T.A.C. in the U.K. differ not only between themselves in England [and in Wales] but between the this side of the Atlantic and the other, between here and Australasia.
FiF UK is here made up of clergy and laity who are very much part of the extablished Church of England, (or for Credo Cymru, the distestablished but still very much organised on the territorial, parochial system, Church in Wales. Its parochial clergy have accepted a duty of the cure(care) of all the souls within their parish boundary, and in practice and in particular of members of the worshipping congregation in the parish church. Within every parish, FiF or not, there will be a division of opinion over WO and other innovations. There will be a division over acceptance of the Pope's offer. The question for a FiF bishop or FiF parish priest, "At what stage do I abandon those who decline to follow me?", is acute and cause of much sleeplessness.
"loss of churches, networks of friends and handsome paycheques" (one might add the mixed blessing of tied housing) are likely to be rather lower on the list of questions to be considered, though not always entirely absent.
"churches" – for many, if not most, Anglicans in the U.K. there is a strong "theology of stone". It has been said, "Romans go to Mass, Anglicans to church", meaning their church, and if they stop going it will not to go anywhere else until "their church" returns to their liking.
"network of friends" – yes, there will be Newman's "parting". But among the clergy, increasing beleagurement has meant that one's real "network of friends" are to be found among those like-minded. Amongst the laity, frienships have always crossed denominational boundaries. Real friends are not going to be put out by one's movement into Communion with Peter, of one's being true to one's beliefs!
"handsome paycheques" – parish priest's stipends vary around the £19-22,000 p.a. range dependent on diocese, +house. Not enormous, though large compared with current Roman stipends here of £5,000 – £9,500 + house, food, housekeeper & fees. But it does mean that the reduction in stipend will make any married priest, the more so if he has young children, think long and hard.
You speak of "the fatal blow". To be accurate, though the writing is on the wall, the axe is poised millimetres away from the jugular. Synod's decision now goes back to the dioceses, and if approved, will return to Synod. If the new Synod then approves it, it will got to Parliament for approval or rejection. If Parliament approves it, it then passes into law, and the first women bishops likely to be ordained, at the earliest, in 2014.
So, here in the England, we are still in a time of prayerful discernment, and of explaining and catechising what the papal offer means and does not mean (as is apparent from from many of the comments on this site, there is still much of this to be done on both sides of the Atlantic).
There are the added points that the Holy Father is due to visit the U.K. in September, and any premature announcement by FiF would be an unwelcome distraction from his visit, and that those who have already rquested an Ordinariate have yet to have a reply from Rome. Festina lente
But things are happening here! Hardly has the Holy Father touched down in Rome from his visit here, thatn the clergy (FiF + all those who share FiF's concerns meet in Sacred Synods in the southern and northern provinces. Shortly after these, there is the FiF General Assembly in Westminster.
No, FiF UK is not dithering, but making sure that when it leaps for the barque of Peter as few as possible will fall into the gap between it and the leaky, almost-certainly fatally holed tub which is the C.of E.
Regards
John U.K.
Perhaps the Ordinariate can serve as a living museum for the best of the Anglican patrimony. The Catholic Church can shelter it. Do things the way they were done 250 years ago and leave it at that. Say, pick the 18th century, dress up in the garb of the day and use the era's liturgy.
Sounds like a nice idea, but I'd rather go sailing!
Yawn….
Facetious, yes, so I offer an apology to those offended. To an outsider like me, i.e., a NACC (Non-Anglo-Catholic Catholic, for those who like me, get lost in all the initials used on this site), many of the postings are very confusing, often amusing, sometimes condescending and short on levity. At times they seem like a cat chasing its tail. Mostly, though, they are inspiring and heartfelt. I've read just about every post and response since this site went online. I guess I'm what an Anglo-Catholic would call a low-Catholic; Walmart Catholic is how one poster put it. I attend an average American parish. I converted to the Catholic Church 26 years ago from the Methodist Church. I didn't get my feelings hurt when I was required to go to RCIA.
Every Monday night I meet with a group that is studying the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We read and study at a rate that will take us over 2 years to get through the whole thing. I learn something new every meeting. Last week we read the part about "The Church is Catholic,"and mentioned to the group that some here were grappling with what that means. I live in an area where Catholics are a minority, so we often have to attempt to explain what that means to our Protestant friends. It often leads to interesting conversations.
I lost a daughter to the Episcopal Church a few years ago. Hopefully, you can find a pave a way to bring her back to the Catholic Church.
Thank you, Rob, for your kind comment. God bless you and reward you for your perseverance in the average American parish. For someone of your background, I can fully understand the difficulty you have in understanding the Anglican world. We call the initials of all the different continuing Churches and groups alphabet soup. There are fewer of them over here in Europe, but they exist, particularly in England.
Also, becoming an individual convert is much easier if you remain a layman, as you have done. Then few things matter. If something gets scandalous or really out of hand, you just change parishes and make no bones about it! However, things get really interesting when you start thinking about the priesthood…
Yes, indeed, the Catechism is quite a brick to get through. Fortunately, Pope Benedict XVI published a Compendium of the Catechism, and that will be much more within the reach of lay people. The book is a lot shorter, and the idea of publishing a simpler and shorter book was brilliant.
Why did your daughter go to the Episcopal Church?
Thank you, Fr. Chadwick. My daughter married a Methodist. The Episcopal Church was a compromise so they could raise their family in the same church.
Yes, I have the Compendium. I also highly recommend Catholic Christianity, by Peter Kreeft.
I still recommend the full CCC (there I go again with the initials!), though, to any Anglican lay person looking to come into the Catholic Church. Even if they don't read it, it is a comfort to know the Church even has one. The Church is a rich treasure and the CCC is just a summary!
Fr Chadwick et al.,
Do leave some room for us NACC average Walmart low-Catholics (who, btw, read the Pope, including his stunning book "The Spirit of the Liturgy" [required reading]) and yet who have no need to *persevere* in our average 'low-church' Catholic parish, but who look forward to, and can not wait, for another Sunday to celebrate with Peter and the Whole Church.
Thanks in advance.
Thanks Fr. Finnegan for a very fine post.
It is very funny thing: I was raised a high Church Anglican ("Prayer Book Catholic") from a family with a LONG tradition in the High Church movement in the US Church (going back to colonial Connecticut). I converted in 1993, but throughout my life as an Anglican I was usually a reluctant to identify myself as an Anglo-Catholic. It always seemed to me that "Anglo-Catholics" were in the habit of making things up as they went along (although I recognize much that is of value in the Anglican and American Missals), and had in fact acquired habits of liturgical lawlessness—motivated by the best intentions, but causing all kinds of problems, including aestheticism and fussiness.
Of these habits, especially liturgical lawlessness, we are going to have to rid ourselves. I strongly suspect (but do not know) that the liturgy of the ordinariate will be prepared with a broad pastoral approach in mind, and that it will try to accomodate as much diversity as can reasonably be accomodated (and justified as both Catholic and Anglican), but once things are authorized by the Holy See, we will all need to become "Prayer Book Catholics" (whatever the equivalent of the Prayer Book is for the Ordinariate). Yes, we will need to preserve the patrimony, and study it, but that will give us no right to adopt, as many "Anglo-Catholics" did whatever suited the fancy of the priest or sacristan.
Nor did "Ango-Catholicism" lead me to the Holy See, and I fear for many it was or has become something of a dead end. It was, in fact, an Anglican Evangelical, The Rev. Dr. Philip Edgecumbe Hughes, who actually had a lot to do with my conversion. Two remarks that he made stand out. (1) The Constitution on Divine Revelation of Vatican II addressed (as I remember him saying) sufficiently the relation between Scripture and Tradition; and (2) that it was coming to pass that the only Church which prominently and clearly stood for basic revealed Christianity was the Roman Catholic Church.
We need to put first things first. Like my friend Dr. Hughes, the first thing must be the Lord Jesus, not a pretty liturgy, and the liturgy must be in service to the Gospel. We are now enabled, thanks to our Holy Father, to put all that is good and Catholic in the Anglican Tradition to the service of that Gospel in unity with the Catholic Church, growing closer to Christ thereby and doing our part to reconcile a world that is dead in its sins to Jesus Christ. That is where our focus should be, and if we remove our eyes from the prize we will be in trouble.
Just a short note of support for the TAC, FiF, and other members of the Anglo-Catholic Alphabet Soup. There are many Roman Catholics who are looking forward to the Ordinariates to arrive. The Church needs you to help get us back on the right track in Liturgical Worship, out of the Muck and Mire of the '70's.
I am fortunate to be the organist at a "High Church" (Polish) Roman Catholic parish where there are a number of converts from Anglicanism (go figure). You can definitely notice the Eastern European patrimony, but there's also a bit of Anglicanism thrown in for good measure – Percy Dearmer especially. (A couple of years ago we put in a sort-of "Quire Screen", well, at least the lamps. And Vaughan Williams and Howells are always a treat to sing!)
Any way, we are praying for you all, and hope you will be back with us again: Not as strangers, but as old friends returing home. God Bless you.
A few weeks back, I attended an evening prayer service at the seminary of the Episcopal Church of the Philippines (Anglican Communion). Actually, it was not strictly speaking evening prayer but rather a Saturday eve vigil service, in preparation for Sunday's service, that was adapted from evening prayer. Even with all those changes and even with it being Filipino which in many ways is as far away from English as you can get, there was still something Anglican about it. I felt the Anglicanism, even if I can't quite put it into words.
Perhaps Anglican patrimony isn't so much theological, i.e. intellectual, but rather something that cannot be adequately expressed in words, but only in the buildings, the mass, the music, the Daily Office, etc. And of course this is what distinguishes liturgical churches from the more word-based, more "Protestant" churches.
It might not be so obvious in Britain where the Anglican patrimony is so ingrained into the culture and expressed outside of the Anglican church — in other churches and the culture at large — that it can largely go unnoticed. To me, the Anglican patrimony is expressed outside the Anglican church in places like the British unwritten constitution, the respect for tradition, the constitutional monarchy versus a divine right of kings, the responsibility all lay (or citizens) feel towards their community or church, the lack of Continental Baroque, etc.
We are liturgical. We are what we do, not just what we say. Who we are cannot be put easily and simply into words but it is expressed in words, in stone, in incense, in music, in governance practice both written and unwritten, etc. We may not be able to define what Anglicanism is — I sure can't — but we know it when we see it. For instance, I saw it in my first Anglican experience in the Philippines, that Saturday vigil.
I'm excited about the Anglican Ordinariates not because I see them as preserving Anglicanism, like in a museum, but because I see them fleshing out Anglicanism, fulfilling Anglicanism, expanding Anglicanism. What is Anglicanism? We will not really discover that as long as we stay isolated from the global Church in our small, little enclaves — either within the Anglican Communion or outside of it. But as part of a billion-plus global universal Church, we will flower and grow into not only a strong expression of Anglican patrimony but also a strong expression of Christ's patrimony, of Christ's love for us all.
It will be interesting to see how many English Anglican congregations who, in 1970, decided to go with the Novus Ordo in ICEL translation on the principle that they thought the Mass ought to be the Catholic Mass but in the vernacular rather than Latin, and here was the authentic vernacular, will move from the ICEL 1970 translation to that of the new English Missal.
It will also be interesting to see how many Ordinariate congregations, made up of folk presently used to the Novus Ordo 1970, will recover something of what has been lost of Anglican liturgical patrimony this last 40 years. I suspect what we might see is greater interest in plainsong – especially simple settings of the Ordinary (Orbis Factor and de Angelis) – in place of rummty-tum Edwardian or fizzy contemporary settings – a recovery of interest in versus orientem and communion rails – in place of 'over the counter' and running buffet, a new respect for classical Anglican hymnody (the less forget-able bits), and the recovery of the English bible tradition (RSV or sanitised NRSV) in place of the paraphrase of the Jerry B (which ceased to be arrestingly different about 30 years ago, after only 20 years' exposure). There may be the recovery too of some precious texts, such as Evening Prayer and some of the Coverdale psalms, and some of the less doctrinally compromised texts used for Holy Communion.
Does all this amount to kind of heritage nostalgia – the liturgical equivalent of beefeaters in the tower? Not, I think, if it manages to be an organic 'reform of the reform'.
Another fascinating topic is whether the Anglican version of the 'extraordinary form' (as in English Missal) will resurface. In the Ebbsfleet area (I think General Synod has decided it cannot be, after all, an apostolic district seeking to become a local church….) I have encountered only three or four churches where the 'extraordinary form' is pursued. One or two of these (in mediaeval churches) have the gravitas of a sense of continuity with what has always happened there. One or two give one the feeling that the priest is in an enchanted garden of his own.
God bless (especially Pastor in Valle Adurni but all of you)
+ Andrew
"the recovery of the English bible tradition (RSV or sanitised NRSV)" … "the recovery too of some precious texts, such as … some of the Coverdale psalms".
The patrimony includes, whether we acknowledge it or not, the version of the Bible, not mentioned here (the clue is in the word "version"), that is supremely suitable for liturgical use, and the whole Coverdale psalter, not just part of it. And the BCP is a great deal more than a book which contains some precious texts. People may choose to recover them or not, but their quality does not need our approval, any more than Shakespeare does, and the Church is the poorer for neglecting them.
IMO both the remark in The Pill and the notion that British ordinariate parishes would have to re-anglicanise are wrong. Of course there's more to patrimony than priests' wives; if it were so this blog would be boring as it would have nothing to say! And The Pill wouldn't loathe the possibility of all these Anglo-Catholics coming onto their turf.
No, as I've been saying for a couple of years, the model that the ordinariates seem largely based on is the national parish, something set up canonically for an ethnic/cultural group. So in Metropolis, USA for example St Patrick's territorial (default, Irish) parish, St Rocco's Italian parish and St Stanislaus' Polish parish always have used the same rite but culturally are different. (Like what the Anglican Use is now.)
So it will be, God willing, with this. Roman Rite, old and new, with old Anglo-Catholic panache, part of Pope Benedict's Catholic revival in the Roman communion.
A Prayer Book-like option is fine for the American ordinariate.
I don't think, LBS, that I was excluding the AV. That would be wrong (though some of the Paulines are a bit inaccessible in that version – and 'inaccessible' is not itself a criticism). Nor was I suggesting being selective about the Coverdale Psalter, as if some sort of quality control were necessary. What I think I should do, if it were left to me – and I did this when I was a parish priest – is make sure that the liturgy includes the great moments of the AV that have become most entrenched and whose loss would be greatest (the Lucan Infancy Narrative, for example) and make use of the RSV (which I grew up on in the 1950s) where comprehension is thereby greatly enhanced. As for the psalms, I should want a congregation that encountered the psalter only incidentally and occasionally to encounter a certain number of psalms for sure. Again, as a boy, I remember an anthology of the Coverdale Psalms, known as the Southwell Psalter, which every boy attending the school would have got to know thoroughly over the course of his school life. There were about 25 0f them. 1, 8, 15, 23, 24, 46, 47, 49 &c. I was horrified to discover that, participating in our contemporary choral tradition as boy and young man, my son, singing evensong daily never encountered 'Fifteenth Evening'. Now, there's Anglican Patrimony for you (what we had not what we seem to be losing….)!
Things may be better in Yorkshire, LBS. I hope N Yorks is another N Devon…..
+A