I wrote the following paper at the suggestion of Fr David Ousley, who (along with fellow-contributor Cav. Michael LaRue) contributed significantly to its content. After receiving the approval of Bishops Campese, Falk, and Moyer, it was sent to Fr Scott Hurd (Cardinal Wuerl's assistant for the ordinariate process) in case His Eminence wishes to circulate it among the members of the USCCB. It makes no pretense to be the last word on the subject, but to help start a discussion that will benefit both us and our brethren and soon-to-be co-religionists.
WHAT IS THE ANGLICAN PATRIMONY?
By the Rev’d Samuel L. Edwards,
with the Rev’d Dr David A. Ousley and Michael D. LaRue, K.M.
The recent meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops featured an eagerly awaited report by the Cardinal Archbishop of Washington, Donald Wuerl, on the steps toward the creation of a Personal Ordinariate in the United States. If nothing more — and there was considerably more — this report had the salutary effect of putting to silence (assuming that is possible) those nay-sayers within the Anglican community who have been suggesting that such a structure would never be erected here. It is evident that it will be, and fairly soon, and that the Vatican means to issue the decree sooner rather than later.
In spite of all the good things about the report, during the subsequent question-and-answer session there was some evident uncertainty amongst the assembled bishops as to just what constitutes the Anglican patrimony (or heritage) for which the soon-to-be established Personal Ordinariate is to serve as the conduit for the further enrichment of the Catholic Church. The Archbishop of Chicago, Francis Cardinal George, articulated this when he said, referring to the ordinariates’ mission to preserve elements of the Anglican tradition, “I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an explanation of what those elements might be.”
The Bishops cannot be faulted for not having a clearer grasp of the particular elements of our patrimony, since many self-defined Anglicans do not really follow the classical Anglican way. Moreover, those of us who aspire to do so have not set forth the matter clearly and concisely.
To further complicate the matter, the fact that the majority of those clergy and congregations that so far have entered the first Ordinariate in England — the motherland of the Anglican Way — use the English translation of the Roman Missal instead of any version of The Book of Common Prayer tends for now to obscure the fact that outside England, the classical Prayer Book tradition is very much alive and well. (The reasons for this are complex and beyond the immediate scope of this paper.)
Another reason why there is uncertainty about the content of the Anglican heritage may well have to do with its very pervasiveness — it is a part of the general environment of anglophone European culture, especially its literary culture. The two most influential monuments of English literature are The Book of Common Prayer (1549ff.) and the Authorized Version of the Bible (1611), commonly known as the King James Version, which in very real ways have formed not just the cadence but the content of Western civilization in its Anglo-American form.
In the interests of removing the uncertainty about its nature and form, it is the purpose of this paper to set forth some of the key elements of the Anglican patrimony and in the process to foster a better understanding of it among the Latin Rite Catholics — particularly our Fathers in God — with whom we soon will be joined. These are things which we value and believe constitute the precious heritage of the Anglican way of being Christian, and which we hope to offer for the enrichment of — and where necessary correction by — the Catholic Church.
The Anglican Mind
Let us begin with a general description of the characteristics of the Anglican mind, which the particular elements of its patrimony (which will be discussed later) express.
The Anglican mind (also referred to as the Anglican Way or the Anglican ethos) was a variety within the species of the Christian mind. To be sure, there was a distinct flavour to its mixture of aesthetic, moral, and intellectual styles — a sort of golden moderation, reflecting a blend of the temperaments of the British, Celtic, and Norse cultures which were a part of the making of England, yet there was never any serious contention that such things as distinguished the Anglican mind from, say the Roman or Gallican or Iberian or Germanic or Slavic or Greek or Syrian or African or Oriental Christian mind were indicative of a difference in kind. All these were at least implicitly considered to be local or cultural streams flowing from the great well of Christian orthodoxy, and the Anglican mind habitually enriched and renewed itself by drinking liberally from all of them.
The Anglican mind, in its highest state of development, was supple without being flaccid, liberal yet disciplined, conservative yet open. It recognised that the opposite of protestant is not catholic, but corrupt, and that the opposite of catholic is not protestant, but sectarian. Even at its most polemical, it sought more reconciliation with its opponents than triumph over them. In every generation of its life — from Hooker and Field to Taylor and Cosin to Wesley and Wilberforce to Keble and Pusey to William Temple and Michael Ramsey — it has produced pastors and theologians who exemplify these characteristics. Its ethos informed an entire family of national Churches. Now, however, though the Anglican intellectual tradition remains alive in certain individuals and groups of Anglicans, it can no longer claim to have any substantial influence on what passes for life in the national and international institutions of the increasingly moribund Anglican Communion.
[Samuel L. Edwards, “Anglicanism and the death of the Anglican Mind,” in Quo Vaditis: The State Churches of Northern Europe (Leominster, Hertfordshire: Gracewing, 1996), pp. 10-11.]
In our present context it might well be added that, because of Anglicanorum coetibus, the treasury accumulated through the Anglican habit of drawing from the different ethoi which are comprehended under the roof of the great oikos of the People of God — together with those which shelter under its eaves or in its lee — now is made available as a resource for the whole of the Church in communion with the Successor of Peter. This conduit, which now can carry its contents in both directions, is available for mutual enrichment, recovery, and renewal.
The Content of the Anglican Heritage
So what, particularly, are the contents of the Anglican patrimony that are consistent with the Catholic faith? Without any pretense at completeness, they would certainly include the following:
A distinctly domestic approach to Christian corporate life.
This finds expression in such diverse things as the Prayer Book tradition of worship and the re-founded Shrine of our Lady of Walsingham. The Prayer Book itself, at least in its central 1549 English — 1928 American (not to forget the 1962 Canadian) editions, is the linchpin of a parish-based ascetical system which, while it has the Eucharist at its center, augments and thereby buttresses the center with the Daily Office. The Office itself is, both in spirit and historically, more the descendant of the parochial and cathedral offices of the middle ages than of the monastic offices, more inherently suited to the participation of lay people than the more clerically-oriented offices of the Roman breviary. This greater accessibility — together with well-framed lectionaries — has been a major contributor to genuine biblical literacy amongst Anglicans. The Eucharistic lectionary, which is essentially the Medieval one, provides the depth of reading Scripture as a doctrinal instrument of salvation. The lessons become familiar through the Eucharistic preaching. The Daily Office lectionary provides the breadth by covering virtually the whole Bible every year.
A distinctive tradition of pastoral care.
This grows out of the previously mentioned domestic approach to parochial life and is, at least in part, a function of the typically small size of our parishes. Spiritual direction, counseling, and confession are approached in a way that emphasizes that which is pastoral, practical, and empirical rather than juridical.
The Book of Common Prayer provides the structures of the parochial system of pastoral care, providing in a distinctive way for initiation, catechesis, formation in morals and ascetics, nourishment in prayer and sacraments, clear teaching on the responsibilities of clergy and laity in the good order of the Church.
An ascetical structure for a distinctive way of being Christian.
The Book of Common Prayer defines the Anglican way of being Christian, with three essential elements: the Sunday (and Holy Day) Eucharist, the Daily Office, with its Psalter, Scripture and set prayers, and the “private” prayer of quiet and meditation.
A characteristic theological method and temper which is, at its best, at once scriptural, traditional, and patristic.
While (with recent exceptions) the Anglican Way has insisted on a well-educated clergy, theology has been done largely within a pastoral context. The greatest of Anglican theologians were pastors (Hooker, Keble, Newman, Ramsey).
The classical Anglican theological method might be characterized as more Benedictine than Jesuit. It is focused on Scriptural foundations, as Scripture is presented by the Fathers and the living tradition of the Church. We expect this method to find its perfection in the authority of the Magisterium: Indeed, those of us who are accepting the generous offer expressed in Anglicanorum coetibus are doing so because we have been brought to the conclusion that it is only in communion with the Magisterium that it can be perfected.
The aspiration of this method is best summarized by the formula of Saint Augustine of Hippo, “In essentials, unity; in doubtful things, liberty; in all things, charity.” Populated by believers chastened by the four and a half centuries of the “Anglican experiment,” the Ordinariates can serve as a vehicle whereby it may be demonstrated that unity in essentials cannot be maintained on a basis of theoretical consensus, but must have in this world a personal focus who can speak authoritatively in the Name of the Personal Savior of man.
A tradition of reverence in the practice, and especially in the language, of public prayer.
For nearly five centuries, Anglican worship has been characterized by the use of reverential language for liturgical prayer. In this, it follows a well-established pattern dating back at least to the patristic era and likely to the beginning of worship, which is the use of a more classical form of the vernacular, in contrast to the contemporary form. (Contrary to popular assumptions, the language of the Prayer Book and the King James Bible is not, nor ever was intended to be, the daily vernacular of the street and the marketplace. The compositors and translators of these great monuments of the English tongue were very concerned with writing in a “language understanded of the people,” but they never made the mistake of confusing that with the form of that language commonly spoken by the people. The gift in all this for Latin Rite Catholics is that it will help foster the practical re-integration of a fundamental principle of human spiritual development, which is that we are first taught reverence by being taught to act and speak reverently. (The new English translation of the Roman Missal represents another major and parallel step in this enterprise of recovery.)
There is in this aspect of the Anglican heritage a strikingly harmonious resonance with the longstanding concern of Benedict XVI with the re-sacralization of ecclesiastical life, in which the re-sacralization of worship has an instrumental role. (This concern seems to be very closely connected in principle with his and his predecessor’s urgent desire for the re-evangelization of Western society.)
A musical tradition which is both broad-based and consistent with the ethos of the Anglican tradition of common worship, of which it is an integral component.
The Anglican patrimony has as one of its notable elements a hymnody which, while spanning the ages from the late patristic to the contemporary, and styles from Gregorian monophony to modern polyphony, is directed toward the enhancement of worship and being the handmaid of the liturgy. Most Anglican congregations — including those in which a choir plays a major role in the offering of the liturgy —are notable for the quality and natural willingness of the concerted singing of the members.
Again, there is here a noteworthy resonance with the concerns of the Holy Father, which include the recovery of much of worth in the musical treasury of the Church that has been eclipsed in recent decades.
A long experience with lay participation in church governance as regards temporalities.
This is an element that is not unfamiliar to the other members of the Latin Rite after several decades of Parish Councils. However, because of its longer history among us, we may be able to assist our brethren in pointing out some of the pitfalls of the system as well as its positive potentialities. Its continuation in a form consistent with Canon Law is certainly anticipated, especially in Article X, §4 of Anglicanorum coetibus.
Married Clergy.
For the last 450 years Anglicans have had married as well as celibate clergy, as the Latin Rite does now, ordaining as a rule celibate men to the priesthood, but married men to the permanent Diaconate. Anglicanorum coetibus recognizes the fact, and provides for it, while also affirming the discipline of the Latin Rite of which the Ordinariate will be a part.
Conclusion
We wish to emphasize most clearly that we wish to offer the riches of the Anglican patrimony in a spirit of humility and gratitude both for the gift of the patrimony itself and for the gift of the means now made available by the Holy Father for the incorporation of this patrimony into the living treasury of Holy Church. We claim no inherent superiority for the Anglican Way, and are mindful that Anglicanorum coetibus provides not just a means of incorporation, but a means for correction, if necessary. We wish to retain only that which is consistent with the fullness of the Catholic Faith.
22 June 2011
Eve of Corpus Christi
Commemoration of Saint Alban,
Protomartyr of England
Related posts:
What a very helpful attempt at describing Anglican Patrimony — from a North American perspective. It admits that in England there has been less devotion to the Book of Common Prayer. This is not least because it has been understood, despite attempts at catholicising it, it is at heart a Protestant book. It may well be that when a rite is approved for our use which is fully Catholic we shall begin to rediscover some of the riches of that part of our history. There is, though, one other element in English Anglicanism which seems to be distinctive; a sense that the Church is not a club for like-minded people, but that its ministry is to the entire nation. Catholic priests have tended, not least because of the pressure of numbers, to minister to Catholics. Anglicans in England have always assumed, until proved otherwise, that everyone they meet is a member of the Church of England; and even if they are not, they have the right to use the parish church where they live — for funerals, weddings, baptisms. This has been our way of conducting mission. It has been especially the case in Anglo-Catholic parishes, where priests have visited homes across their parish, and sought to minister to all in need or sickness. This same approach could bring great benefits to the Catholic Church in England, when once we suppose that everyone is meant to be a Catholic Christian, and we will treat them as such hoping that by accepting them as children of God they will discover their true Christian calling.
Interesting points, Fr. Barnes.
Although the Book of Divine Worship is incomplete and in need of revision, nonetheless those of us who have been using it for the better part of a quarter of a century have found that in it, the Book of Common Prayer catholicizes quite nicely! Huge chunks of the BCP have been approved by the Holy See as the foundation of a completely Catholic liturgy. I think my parish is much like the other Anglican Use parishes, in that we have a rather complete representation of most ethnic groups and racial backgrounds, families both large and small, along with single people, all from a wide scale of income levels.
If the Anglican Use is in any way a foreshadowing of the Ordinariates, and if the Book of Divine Worship is a template for the Ordinariate liturgy, we can have every expectation that the life and ministry of the various Ordinariates will be thoroughly Catholic in every way, while nurturing and sharing our Patrimony with the wider Church and the world.
Fr. Edwards has done a commendable job in explaining what is meant by Anglican Patrimony, a term I, too, have thought about for quite some time. I came into the Continuing Anglican Church about fifteen years ago, and I was continually surprised at how varied the Anglican way of faith was practiced.
The following was taken from 'RichHooker', poster on VirtueOnline:
"Cardinal Wuerl said that the only part of the Book of Common Prayer that will be permitted is that which has been incorporated into the Book of Divine Worship. Not only that, but he basically said Anglican distinctiveness would decrease over time in the Ordinariate. My response is that without the Book of Common Prayer there is no Anglican tradition. This is pure absorption by Rome. In fact the cardinal could not even state the aspects of Anglican tradition that are to be retained. Part of that tradition is that we have a married clergy, which the cardinal said would end after the initial entry of Anglicans. The problem with Rome is that it only dictates, never negotiates. With all of these restrictions I cannot understand why any priest or congregation would want to enter the Ordinariate."
Indeed, and this is not what Pope Benedict had in mind.
I wouldn't worry too much about that off-the-cuff Q&A after the Cardinal's official presentation to the U.S. Bishops. When the Ordinary is chosen for the American Ordinariate, by design of the Holy Father, Cardinal Wuerl will decrease (with all due respect for him as well as his office), and the Ordinary will increase.
I know I am not an Anglican Catholic so do not really understand the personalities involved, but why does anybody take seriously what is posted on Virtueonline when it comes to the Ordinariate? Again and again, remarks have been made which have proven to be untrue. Whilst much I have read on the website is interesting, so much of what is said in terms of the Ordinariate is shown to be, at best, mistaken, that it makes one question the whole basis of all the reporting and commentary. Indeed, it is often only mildly less wrong than the other blog I have looked at in the past, Anglican Continuum.
Could I suggest you do as I have done and never bother reading the latter again and only taking what the former says with a healthy pinch of salt.
If you doubt me – have a look at the news from yesterday than claims that only 15 parishes of the ACA have expressed any interest in joining the Ordinariate. It also contains the historically inaccurate, but oft-repeated claim, that the Anglican Church entered communion with Rome in 664AD. The conversion of the Anglo-Saxons (and, hence, the birth of Anglicanism) began with the mission of St Augustine of Canterbury in 596AD. sent by Pope Gregory the Great.
The Synod of Whitby dealt agreeing on the dating of Easter and questions of the Tonsure. It was only to do with the Northumbrian Church (the dating of Easter in line with Rome had been agreed by the Irish back in 603AD), so not a 'Celtic' Church or English Church issue.
Bishop Campese mentioned to me the other day that Frs. Edwards and Ousley "were putting together a little paper on the Anglican Patrimony." Having read it, I think that was an extraordinary understatement. Fathers Edwards and Ousely, along with Michael LaRue, should be commended for such an excellent short summary of the Anglican Way.
And the comments above by Frs. Barnes and Phillips simply add to the building corpus of what actually constitutes the elusive, but very real, Anglican Patrimony.
Excellent article, Father Edwards.
And, "Hear! Hear!" – Father Phillips.
"…this is not what Pope Benedict had in mind."
If only we knew for certain!
You can know for certain, LBS, that much of what is quoted from Cardinal Wuerl above was mis-conveyed by that poster on Virtue's blog. One easy example is ongoing confusion regarding clerical celibacy. From the video'd address to the USCCB (I viewed it a day after the fact) it is apparent that questions about 1/AC and the Complementary Norms on the possible ongoing receiving of married clergy into an Ordinariate from outside and 2/the already-stated policy that from the second generation within an Anglican Use or Ordinariate parish, celibacy of candidates is a requirement, were conflated, as were the answers given about 1/ and 2/. And no great wonder since, just from my awkward sentence above, it appears it's hard to talk about it all in the same breath.
Folks, Cardinal Wuerl is the midwife here. He is helping to bring this new Ordinariate into the world. But he is only the midwife. He may know something about "birthing babies", but he isn't the one that's charged with doing the parenting. As parents know, the character of that new creation comes to the fore as with age, growth and development, while hopefully taking on characteristics of both sides of the family. In making this analogy, I suspect the Pope and the Ordinary will be much like the proud parents – molding and shaping this entity to not just be part of the greater Catholic family, but also to fully develop its own character and personality. How about we put some faith that the "parents" of this process will have this creation's best interests at heart, will want to nurture and protect this new creation as a profoundly miraculous gift from God?
BTW, That's the best and most succinct explanation of Anglican patrimony that I've ever seen. Well done, gentlemen!
We're grateful for this helpful and clear essay. In fact, I've blogged it, facebooked it, and tweeted it! Is there any other avenue I've overlooked?
As a Roman Catholic, I liked very much the tone and the content of this article, including the quote contained within it.
I sense that the article, among other things, points to a nascent reflection on the relationship between a particular culture and the Christian civilization, plus the parallel relationship between one's ethnicity and the Faith.
I feel that this subject, except for certain papal pronouncements, is perhaps somewhat neglected in our Church today. I think it would be of benefit to us all if the integration of the Anglican Patrimony, also helped spark a wider discussion of this aspect of our Faith.
Thank you for this helpful essay, Fr. Edwards. I’m delighted when thoughtful reflections on the Anglican patrimony make their way into wider circulation. Nearly anyone who was or is Anglican knows there is “something” to this concept of an Anglican patrimony, but articulating it is challenging to say the least. (And eluding a too-precise definition might be an aspect of the Anglican patrimony anyway.)
If the thesis I’ve put forth elsewhere (most recently published in _Anglicans and the Roman Catholic Church_, ed. Stephen Cavanaugh) is correct, most attempts to identify significant elements of the Anglican patrimony don’t go back far enough in time. It is by going back to medieval England, which was extraordinarily Benedictine, that one finds the important roots of the Anglican patrimony.
I believe this thesis meets resistance from at least two groups. The first are heirs of the Protestant Reformation. They claim that since Protestant Europe rid itself of monasticism, Cranmer and the early Anglican divines cannot have been the least bit influenced by monastic theology, spirituality. I consider this view to be inaccurate. Razing the monastic foundations for the sake of material gain was one thing. But a cultural, spiritual, theological amnesia would have been another – especially in a country as comfortable with tradition as England. The indications are that Cranmer actually wanted to preserve a very monastic/patristic spirituality but to make it available to the entire nation.
The other group that resists the thesis I and others have proposed is made up mostly of Catholics and scholars who tend to think of the term “monastic” as referring to consecrated religious life in general. We run across this confusion constantly, even from learned writers. One reads, for instance, of Franciscan or Dominican “monks” or that Martin Luther was an Augustinian “monk.” This might seem to be hair splitting until one considers that the different religious institutes reflected different spiritualities. As a Benedictine, I find that Anglicanism looks and feels more monastic than mendicant, more patristic than scholastic. You recognize this, especially when you write that the “classical Anglican theological method might be characterized as more Benedictine than Jesuit.” But since even educated Catholics too often conflate religious institutes and the various spiritualities, I can’t resist a few comments to help the conversation and reflection.
Concerning the suggestion that the Anglican Daily Office is more parochial/cathedral than monastic, if the sense is that by the Middle Ages the Daily Office of monks and nuns was in a language no longer “understood of the people,” I agree. But the parochial/cathedral Office doesn’t approach the psalter by means of _lectio continua_, whereas early monasticism and the Prayer Book do.
By the Middle Ages, the monastic Office had itself become a mixture of both monastic and parochial/cathedral liturgy. So this muddies the water a bit. But the monastic liturgy was not abridged into a breviary. The breviary was basically for everyone but monks (or for monks who had to travel). True, the monastic Office was prayed in such a manner that training in Latin and singing were necessary. But the monastic ideal is that the Office and _lectio divina_ (slow, meditative reading of Scripture) form an integrated whole that make of the deep reading of Scripture, to which you refer as an important aspect of Anglicanism, the very essence of monasticism.
Another distinction between monastic religious and other religious institutes is that the former take a vow of stability. Here too is a distinction of which too many are not aware. I remember a conversation with a very well educated Roman Catholic diocesan priest in which he was surprised to learn that my vows are not of poverty, chastity, and obedience but of obedience, stability, and conversion of life. The stability vow provides another link between the “domestic approach” you mention and monasticism.
The development of music in the Anglican tradition and its roots in the monastic (and non-monastic) choral foundations is a topic I, as a musicologist, had better not broach for fear I’ll ramble more than I’ve already done. But I’m grateful to you for mentioning this important facet of the Anglican patrimony. I hope and pray we can continue to develop it as the Ordinariates become established.
Dear Br John-Bede Pauley,
Thank you for your reflections here, as well as in your wonderful [!!] essay in 'Anglicans and the Roman Catholic Church', ed. Stephen Cavanaugh.
I have been through that essay at least twice & recommended it to several others (including my wife who is Anglican). It touched upon—at least for me, a non-scholar and Catholic—an intangible yet distinctly and decidedly discernable dimension of the Anglican spirit, now lovingly being received as a marvelous gift, and we pray, nurtured and further cultivated, in full communion.
I am very grateful for that spirit and look forward to how Mother Church may encourage it in all its fullness.
Greg
Thank you for this excellent article on the Anglican Patrimony. I will go so far to say that you have captured the heart of my understanding of my Anglican faith of 61 years as an Englishman. It is definitely the basis of good teaching material and I would urge you to further develop your thoughts in this area of an understanding of the Anglican Patrimony, so important and valuable to preserve and bring to the Catholic Church.
"The classical Anglican theological method might be characterized as more Benedictine than Jesuit. It is focused on Scriptural foundations, as Scripture is presented by the Fathers and the living tradition of the Church. We expect this method to find its perfection in the authority of the Magisterium . . . it is only in communion with the Magisterium that it can be perfected."
Thank you Father for this thoughtful summary of the Anglican Way and for the context you place it in. The Benedictine spirit of the BCP is surely a controlling principle in Anglican spirituality and practice within a truly pastoral Catholic ethos.
You raised, in a general way, another essential area for continuing reflection and discussion which Br. John-Bede picked up on: "The development of music in the Anglican tradition and its roots in the monastic (and non-monastic) choral foundations."
It is important that much reflective work be done especially in the development of the musical patrimony as the Anglican choral tradition along with other elements of the Anglican Way are carried to their true home under the oversight of the Magisterium. Sacred music along with the wonderful texts and translations which Anglicans have developed over the past 500 years (J.M. Neale, et al.) are a priceless treasure to be shared more widely through the reform of the reform.
Further reflection upon and articulation of the English Catholic and musical heritage will assist both those who are making difficult decisions about reception as well as many in the Latin Church who need a way to understand and welcome those who come even as they benefit from the gifts that Anglican patrimony can offer the universal Church.
Perhaps a further note on the Benedictine/monastic/patristic tenor of Anglicanism is called for, particularly when we take into account the Franciscan (i.e., mendicant) influence at so successful an Anglican Use parish as Our Lady of the Atonement. I don’t mean to claim that the Franciscan, Dominican, Vincentian, etc. charisms cannot expect to find a home in the Ordinariates. That, happily, is up to the Holy Spirit. (I have to confess, though, that it’s a bit difficult to imagine an Anglican-inflected form of the Carmelite or Jesuit charisms. Methods and stages of prayer aren’t really patristic/monastic/Anglican, in my opinion. But here too, I am open to whatever surprises God has in store for us.)
If Thomas Mudge’s essay, “Monastic Spirituality in Anglicanism” (_Review for Religious_ 37 [1978], 512) is correct, however, the Anglican re-establishment of religious life in the 19th century expressed a trajectory quite at variance with that of religious life in Roman Catholicism. To over-simplify, religious life in Roman Catholicism had moved from contemplative to active. Anglican religious communities, often forced to “justify” themselves in the beginning of their existence by pursuing active charisms, eventually moved from active to contemplative. My guess is that those Anglican religious communities that took up non-monastic rules (Franciscans, Augustinians, etc.) tended nonetheless to be influenced by this Benedictine/monastic character of Anglicanism. Conversely, by the way, there are those of us Benedictines in Roman Catholic Benedictine communities who are known for pointing out that our communities can sometimes look more like cannons regular or mendicants or oratorians or (etc., etc.) than monastics.
To add another speculation, it’s possible that the Holy Father (who chose the name Benedict) fully recognizes that the Anglican patrimony has maintained a monastic/patristic spirituality and wants to encourage its revival in the Catholic Church. This isn’t to argue that the monastic/patristic approach should eclipse other valid expressions of spirituality. Perhaps it’s time to accommodate true diversity.
An outstanding contribution to the general discussion concerning patrimony! I salute Frs. Sam and David and Michael for this salient piece, good for consideration now and by virtue of the commentary it is generating.
Hopefully we can continue this face-to-face in Ft. Worth in a week or so . . .
Well, Fr Nicholas, I wish so, but my underemployment continues and the bank balance says "not this time." This year's AUC is likely to be a great one, and I look forward to the reports on it.
Will there be reports on the Anglican Use Conference? I wanted to attend so much, but can't get away. I really hope someone will cover the speakers in depth.
Quite a helpful paper. Thank you gentlemen. We have been reading the book Stephen Cavanaugh edited for our "summer reading" here at Church of the Holy Communion. I shall copy this article to hand out as well.
Br. John-Bede,
This is indeed the Pope of liturgical diversity, but doctrinal unity.
D
Yes, I'm inclined to the view that doctrinal uniformity makes liturgical diversity much more possible. But liturgical diversity, though a given for those of us from the Anglican tradition, is a rather difficult concept for some Roman Catholics to accept at this period in history. I find it helpful to remind myself of this when I find resistance to the Anglican Use/Ordinariate from brother and sister RCs.
Father Sam, we tend to expect something outstanding in all that you write, and then, contrary to our expectations, you come forth with another lesson that surpasses those expectations. Your message is free flowing and rich in the wonders of what we carry with us, especially in the form of our liturgy and music. You, my friend, are a very important part of the Patrimony we are so proud of. Many blessings, Fr. Tom+
I am going to venture into dangerous waters here and say that the BCP is very protestant in places. No catholic or Catholic could ever embrace Cranmer's "receptionism" in the HC service as an example. I for one hope the future Ordinariate leaders in Canada and the USA seize the opportunity to leave behind non-catholic elements of the BCP when preparing the official liturgy.
What makes you think that there is even the possibility that they would not "leave behind non-catholic elements of the BCP when preparing the official liturgy"? And, in any case, that liturgy would have to receive the approval of the CDF in Rome before any use could be made of it.
A few comments are in order regarding the Prayer Book. First, the colonial prayer books prove that without losing its essence, the Prayer Book can be made solidly Catholic, devoid of explicitly protestant elements in the Communion Service or Mass. Secondly, most Anglicans in Canada at least (e.g. Fr. Robert Crouse) would argue that the heart of the Prayer Book and of the Anglican ethos in general is the medieval Eucharistic lectionary preserved in the BCP, together with its yearly cycle of collects. Hence, we must not only to retain hierarchic, sacral, Tudor English (as the BDW does sometimes), but also escape the new lectionary (which the BDW failed to do).
And note: the old Eucharistic lectionary in various forms was used for centuries by Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Lutherans. It is truly the "ecumenical" lectionary.
Yes, I remember Dr. Crouse making this point, and I would agree wholeheartedly. While it is the same lectionary in a lot of respects, there are some significant differences. Compare the gospels for Trinity Sunday in the Curial (i.e., "Roman" Use) and in the BCP (from the Use of Sarum). In addition, we Anglicans retained collects that are not found in the Roman Missal, and kept the numbering of Sundays after Trinity, which provides a certain theological emphasis. But being as our lectionary was in the vernacular, using a beloved translation, there is a strong association between lessons and particular Sundays and feasts, as well as a long tradition of spiritual reflection on those lessons: just look at all the Anglican sermons that have been published over the last 500 years, many of which are perfectly profitable for a Catholic audience. However we can do it though, I think personally it is extremely important, I want to say essential, for the integrity of the Anglican patrimony to retain our lectionary and cycle of collects, which is almost 800+ years old, in some parts very much older.
Something that did not get put into the paper, because it was not as significant, but which I think worth noticing, is a particular Anglican aesthetic, as represented for instance by the retention of the mediaeval choir vestments: long surplice, hood, and scarf. This can also be seen in Anglican music, in church architecture, et al. How to describe the quality of this aesthetic, I am not sure. Something to think about perhaps.
The purpose of Anglicanorum Coetibus is clearly set forth in the document, and it is two-fold. It is to reconcile communities of Anglicans to the See of Peter, bringing them into full communion with the Catholic Church, and to preserve the "liturgical, spiritual, and pastoral traditions" of Anglicanism, as represented in particular, though not exclusively, by "liturgical books". One can hardly talk about Anglican liturgical books, indeed you can hardly talk in any definitive way about Anglicanism, without talking about the Book of Common Prayer. Everyone agrees that it is a Protestant book, but it is a Protestant that contains an extraordinary amount that is Catholic in origin, and even in those things that are original to it, it contains a great deal that is consonant with Catholicism and makes a positive contribution to the Catholic Church.
Further, these two purposes, Catholic unity and preserving the "patrimony" are closely related. I have gotten a lot of e-mail and comments about this whole process, and the chief anxiety expressed to me is that the Roman Church is not catholic at all, but a totalitarian sect that enforces a mindless uniformity. Unfortunately many of the events of the past few months have strongly reinforced this impression among some who might otherwise be interested in Anglicanorum Coetibus. This has had the effect of seriously undermining the mission given us by our Holy Father. If we wish that mission to succeed then now is the time to prove them wrong, now is the time to rediscover what is distinctive about Anglicanism isofar as that is compatible with the Catholic faith, to show Anglicans that they will not be assimilated (Borg-like), that the Roman Church is truly Catholic, and not only tolerates legitimate diversity, but celebrates it.
As a Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic, I have taken a great interest in the process by which Anglican Ordinariates have come into being world-wide, and how an Ordinariate is coming into being here in the USA. There are many parallels between how my Church, _sui iuris_, came into union with Rome in 1646, and how reunion with Rome is occuring with the Anglo-Catholics. I would STRONGLY encourage all Anglo-Catholics investigating the Ordinariate option to also investigate the Union of Uzhorod in 1646, and its subsequent European and American history.
I found this treatment by Frs Edwards and Ousley and Mr LaRue to be remarkably succinct and straightforward. It is easily followed, and provides a most useful starting place from which to explain what Patrimony the Anglicans bring to this reunion through the creation of Ordinariates. The most profound item that struck me was the prominent role played by the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) here in the USA and Canada. Anecdotally, my exposure to the Anglican Patrimony through my wife, who was Anglican for some 20 years before joining the Byzantine Catholic Church, amply confirms for me this prominence of the BCP, in all aspects. One of the biggest indicators, if you will, of the content of a Patrimony will be its liturgical tradition, and for Anglicans, this is manifested through the BCP. As an aside, I do believe the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham will have significant problems down the road due to its lack of liturgical identity, but that is best left to another discussion.
I will not spend undue time discussing the positive attributes of this work, beyond what I have given above, as this has been very well articulated by the other commenters; nothing I can possibly say will outdo their just accolades. I should, however, like to point out what I see as some points that need further clarification, as they could lead to unnecessary misunderstandings later on.
First, it is said under the subtitle, "An ascetical structure for a distinctive way of being Christian," and I quote, 'We expect this method to find its perfection in the authority of the Magisterium: Indeed, those of us who are accepting the generous offer expressed in Anglicanorum coetibus are doing so because we have been brought to the conclusion that it is only in communion with the Magisterium that it can be perfected.' What I find unclear is how the term 'Magisterium' is being used. Magisterium (Teaching Authority) is exercised by all the bishops of the Church Universal, and thus, not only by all Catholic bishops, but also, for instance, by Orthodox bishops not necessarily in full communion with the Catholic Church. I will not get into here the debate of who has greater or lesser authority, but simply to recognize that this authority widely exists. What I would suggest to help clarify this particular sentence would be something to the effect that the Magisterium exercised within the context of the Anglican theological tradition can only be perfected when exercised within the communion and broader context of that Magisterium exercised by the Church Universal, to which communion with and submission to (in its proper ecclesial and theological sense) the Church of Rome represents. I think this could retain a proper understanding of a legitimate Anglican teaching authority, while recognizing that this Anglican teaching authority stands to gain so much more when exercised in a broader ecclesial context. I also believe the reverse could also be true, in that Magisterium of the Church Universal stands to gain a fuller expression when exercised within the context that includes the voice of the Anglican Patrimony.
Secondly, the two sentences under the subtitle "Married Clergy," from my reading, needs to be entirely restated. For 450 years, the Anglican Communion has had married and celibate priests and deacons, and has functioned well theologically, spiritually, and even doctrinally, till about 40 years ago (in my opinion). I would also point out that the Eastern Churches have also done so for more than 2000 years. The sacrament of Holy Orders is not predicated on celibacy, and mimicking Roman practice is neither essential nor desirable. This is not to suggest that the Romans need or even should change their tradition with respect to Ordination, for they are free to exercise their disciplines as they see fit. What I am suggesting is that, just as in the Eastern Churches, there has been tremendous spiritual and pastoral profit in having married and celibate deacons and priests for 450 years, and this point needs to be clearly and definitively articulated and emphasized!
This paper is an enormously valuable contribution to the on-going discussion of the Anglican Patrimony that is to be recognized and included within the wider Universal Church. I would even go so far as to suggest that this is a first step towards a wider catechesis of that Anglican tradition, and would commend the creation of something analogous to Abp. Mark Haverland's, "Anglican Catholic Faith and Practice." Please understand that my comments are meant to help strengthen this paper, and if they prove to be unedifying, I would encourage that they be ignored and discarded. These are exciting times from my perspective, and I want nothing more than to make a contribution that will help build-up the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ even more!
In His Peace,
Carl Krauthauser
As a follow-up to my post above, and to show what we are facing, an Anglican friend wrote the following to me privately, which I thought to be worth sharing:
"This statement [Fr. Edward's paper] is good as far as it goes, but it has two very critical omissions."
"1) It speaks of the classical BCP as 'the linchpin of a parish-based ascetical system which, while it has the Eucharist at its center, augments and thereby buttresses the center with the Daily Office.' Unfortunately, this does not clearly and unequivocally state that the BCP in its entirety (excepting here, for obvious reasons, the 39 Articles) — including all of its basic sacramental and occasional offices, not just the Eucharist and the two Daily Offices — is essential and indispensable to the Anglican patrimony. This needs to be said explicitly and plainly, as many will suppose (and clearly already do so) that an equivalent linchpin can be taken from the Latin Rite and substituted in its place, with only 'liturgical elements' of the BCP preserved (cf. the current Anglican Use Service Book, which Cardinal Wuerl explicitly stated would be used by the Ordinariate). While points of modification would obviously be required in e.g. the Eucharistic canon, the perpetuation of the BCP as a whole is a necessary desideratum entirely different from Cardinal Wuerl's explicit statement at the USCCB meeting that there will be no provision for any Anglican sacramental rites other than a Eucharistic rite. (I hasten to add that this necessarily includes preservation of Cranmer's Eucharistic canon to the maximum extent possible, rather than its replacement by canons from the various Latin Rite masses. Revision must adhere as much as possible to C. S. Lewis' wise dictum about changing no more than one word in the liturgy per century.)"
"2) Astonishingly, there is no mention whatsoever of the equally essential and indispensable need for the RCC officially to approve the KJV translation of the Scriptures in its entirety (not just lectionary excerpts) for use by the Ordinariate. Instead, there is only a single passing mention of the KJV as one of '[t]he two most influential monuments of English literature' — hardly a ringing endorsement of its irreplaceable role in the Anglican patrimony. Given that the 39 Articles (cf. Article VI) obviously will not be imported in to the Ordinariate; that the USCCB could approve the RSV with extremely minor changes (something like 44 words, as I recall); and that the USCCB approved an infinitely worse (and arguably herretical) translation of the Scriptures in the form of the NAB; there is no reason that the Ordinariate could not produce a version of the KJV with the Deuterocanonical books relocated back to the Vulgate positions."
"Far more than e.g. married clergy, the BCP and KJV are the two sine qua non elements of the Anglican patrimony. Without them, the Ordinariate is simply a non-starter, a liturgical Potemkin village. Unless both are preserved, this Anglo-Catholic for one will not enter the Ordinariate — and I know I am not alone in this."
—-How do we answer him?