Fr. Anthony Chadwick

Father Anthony Chadwick was born in the north of England into an Anglican family. He was educated in one of the Church of England’s most well-known schools, St. Peter’s in York, at which he was nurtured in the Anglican musical tradition. After several years studying and working in London he studied theology at university level in Switzerland, Italy and France. Still living in France, he has been a priest of the Traditional Anglican Communion (under Archbishop Hepworth) since 2005. Fr. Chadwick is charged with chaplaincy work among dispersed Anglicans in the north of France, is married and lives in Normandy. His interests outside the Church and directly religious matters include classical music, DIY and sailing. As a non-stipendiary priest, he earns his living as a technical translator.

Homepage: http://pagesperso-orange.fr/civitas.dei/


Posts by Fr. Anthony Chadwick

Light on Clerical Celibacy

I have a document that probably sheds a considerable amount of light onto why the authorities of the Church are retaining celibacy as a rule and allowing generous dispensations from this discipline at the same time. I am sure most of our readers are aware that not all Catholics are orthodox or traditionally-minded. Many have exactly the same agenda as the Anglican churches we once belonged to and had to leave for reasons of conscience.

I found a statement on the website of the European Federation of Catholic Married Priests commenting on the Apostolic Constitution, and was quite flabbergasted on reading it. The document in question is a pdf, and can be downloaded from here. Rather than praise what might seem to be the thin end of the wedge towards abolishing celibacy, the attitude is sneering, as we will see from the quotes. It’s unfair! – they protest.

Before going on with the appropriate quotes, the uppermost idea in my mind is that celibacy can be compared with the issue of Latin in the liturgy at the Council of Trent. Making of celibacy a dogma or something irreformable would be the biggest blunder the Church could ever make, but that does not mean the flood-gates should be opened at this time. The implications go so far, that a general relaxation of celibacy is simply not opportune. It is a question of a whole conception of the priesthood, as the quotes will illustrate. Many lay apologists make the cardinal error of nominalism – singling out issues and failing to see the big picture or the connection between everything.

The European Federation of Catholic Married Priests made a statement about the Apostolic Constitution and commented on the proposal to dispense from celibacy generously. They firstly manifest their appreciation of the idea of there being a choice between marriage and celibacy, and that this would contribute to a healthy diversity of vocations in the Church. So far, so good.

Here comes the big tamale:

(…) it is difficult to see how this decision by Rome can ever be justified as there is not a shred of supporting ecclesiology to sustain it — that is unless it is also accompanied by the offer of re-admission to ministry of those catholic priests who have married and who wish to resume ministry. More than 100,000 married catholic priests have been prevented from exercising their ministry. Our view is that to consider these latter as traitors while at the same time believing it is alright to encourage a group of married Anglican priests to break their allegiance to the Anglican Communion is hypocritical. When the situations are compared there is clearly a danger that this will give rise to great confusion within our communities.

It is such an arbitrary and difficult to understand decision – unless, of course, we take for granted the fundamentalist and conservative views which are at the core of this group of married priests for whom the Catholic Church is throwing open its doors. They are against the ordination of women and the possibility of homosexuals being priests in the Anglican Communion, both of which were agreed as acceptable by a majority vote of that communion. However, the Vatican seems to have decided that the type of priest in which it places its trust is not one that is aligned with Gospel openness nor capable of reading the signs that the Holy Spirit is at work.

It seems to us that this gesture damages ecumenism because it fails to take account of the many years of dialogue in order to pursue a return to Catholicism. Rather than bearing in mind the progress made during Vatican II and in the ARCIC discussions on the eucharist, ministries, and authority in The Church, the Vatican is dishonestly recruiting by allowing Christians to get around a decision of their own Church. By doing this it increases division in a Church that is already having so much difficulty trying to sort out disputes touching in particular on important issues of morality.

This is quite mind-blowing stuff, considering that those liberals would like to impose their own “type” of priest as normative and compulsory for all. Their argument is that if it is good for dissident Anglicans, it is also good for all those Latin American base communities and their Congregationalist ecclesiology to have their own! Little Jonny has to have four sweets, and little Cynthia has to have four sweets. If there’s any squabbling, all eight sweets will go right back into the bag and into the kitchen cupboard. Then it’s fair for all!

Now, we have come to the crux of the matter. Is accepting Anglicans into the communion of the Church a matter of just another dose of inculturation to make the bitter pill of the Gospel relevant and meaningful, or is it a question of the revival of Catholic orthodoxy? Well, we’ll have to give it to these liberals: they hit the nail on the head. They’re dead right.

It is a question of a conception of the priesthood. The flood-gates are not being opened because it would be further secularisation in the Church. For the liberals, the ordination of married men (and the marriage of priests) is an issue that cannot be separated from the cause for the ordination of women and same-sex pseudo-marital unions.

That is the reason. About a year ago, I discovered this organisation in France and contacted one of the priest members. My wife was keenly interested in the idea of contacting married (laicised) priests and perhaps learning a thing or two. We entered into correspondence, and invited this priest and his wife to dinner at our home. And very pleasant they were too. However, we soon began to understand the issues. The priest in question is in his late 70’s and was involved in the worker priest movement in the 1950’s. Those men, fundamentally, had concluded that Christianity had run its course and that the only power in the world that could implement the radical ideals of the Gospel was Marxist Communism.

They become “committed”, meaning that they were acquired to the cause of the Revolution and the class conflict between workers and the factory owners and bourgeoisie, etc. This priest’s charming wife had been a religious sister, and they were married in about 1968. We spoke about non-controversial things like children, non-religious interests like sailing or fishing, but we understood that we had nothing in common in religious terms. I was marked by the fact, according to this laicised priest, that the vast majority of married former Catholic priests are so secularised that they have forgotten every last vestige of their vocations. None says Mass (fortunately, not only because they were no longer serving as priests under a Bishop, but also because they had celebrated in lay clothes on the kitchen table when they were in good standing). A good proportion no longer attend Mass or have any identifiable belief. They would not be asking to return to the priesthood as they have gone so far away from orthodox Catholicism.

The day this vital distinction will be made, and it is understood that married Anglican priests moving towards the Ordinariates and the married laicised men described above have nothing in common, it will be possible to help people understand what superficially looks to the average journalist like hypocrisy.

The issue, in short, is not whether or not we priests have wives – but whether or not we are Catholic in our doctrine, spirituality and understanding of the Catholic Priesthood.

Realignment of Anglican Groups

There is some legitimate speculation going on here and there about what will happen to any parishes or individuals who might be inclined to exercise their liberty of conscience and go off at a tangent, whilst the majority of the TAC forms the material for Ordinariates in communion with Rome. The question needs to be addressed.

Archbishop Hepworth wrote in his Pastoral Letter On the Gathering of Anglicans the following:

What of those who are not yet ready to make this decision?

I have been discussing this question with national groups of our bishops and with some of those whom Catholic Bishops Conferences have appointed to liaise with us. There is no time limit on the acceptance of this Constitution. It is designed to have a lifetime of centuries. Some people are ready and anxious to move now; others are seeking more time for prayer and reflection. Others are confused by the surge of public argument about the Constitution. We are committed to the pastoral care of all our people, those who will quickly move into full communion and those who are not yet ready. We are already discussing the structures for this. The Traditional Anglican Communion will not disappear, but will endure for the same purpose that it was created to fulfil, and which is so clearly described in the text of our petition.

I am unable to say what will be decided in practical terms. However, it would seem to be a temporary provision for those requiring more time to make a decision, grapple with the more difficult aspects of Catholic teaching and perhaps also to make some crucial personal decisions.

For those who have made up their minds, negatively, it would seem that they have a choice of becoming Orthodox or seeking a new settlement, either a new schism or an agreement with one of the continuing Anglican Churches. Continuing Anglican clerics and lay people are painfully aware of the suffering brought by fragmentation and internal strife, above all when these problems are the doings of rival bishops and jurisdictional problems.

We must respect those who reject the Catholic Church for reasons of informed conscience, invincible ignorance, or prejudice, but we will certainly be watching to see whether those groups of Anglicans prove capable of solving their own problems. It is too early to say whether we will be seeing new episcopal consecrations or efforts to reunite and realign under existing bishops and stable jurisdictional structures. This will be a test of whether such ‘lifeboats’ can be taken seriously and seen as viable.

Perhaps these small jurisdictions look different in America than in Europe. We English are generally very cynical about minority churches and the old phenomenon of episcopi vagantes. It would seem to me that this jaded phenomenon has run its course, and that the thing to do is to align with mainstream Catholicism or pursue another avenue in life. At the same time, we do not have the right to sneer at those who have found themselves in that situation because there was no room at the inn, and they often carried their Christian faith with heroism and great courage. Their intention was to work for the unity of the Church, and not to deceive the faithful for questionable ends.

Perhaps, in the future, if the Continuum that decides to remain independent begins to demonstrate unity and ecclesiastical discipline, an ecumenical dialogue could be envisaged, in the same way that the ARCIC dialogues with the Anglican Communion have not been abandoned. This may not happen for some time yet, as certain blogs show signs of aroused emotions and wounded human pride.

One of the most positive signs we should look for of good will would be the small number of bishops compared with the numbers of priests and lay people in the parishes and missions. They seem themselves to recognise this problem. It is always possible for bishops who are not needed for episcopal ministry to shelve their episcopal status and serve their Church as simple priests, as signs of humility and realism, thus inspiring confidence and trust among priests and lay folk.

Instead of engaging in polemics against Rome or the TAC Hierarchy, it would be good to see the “others” begin to organise their independent church bodies and demonstrating their hard work, stability and unity over a number of years, showing that what they offer the world is able to withstand the test of time.

Let them take up the challenge.

Our Lady’s Dowry

I get quite emotional when someone talks to me about England. Just show me some pictures of medieval churches with their relics of pre-Reformation religion, the Malvern Hills, Sherwood Forest, my native Lake District or the City of York, and countless other favourite places – and play me something that had been composed by Vaughan Williams before the horrors of the Great War destroyed his faith and wounded his soul! I then inevitably have to wrench myself back to reality by realising that the pastoral English reverie is really the long dive towards Orwellian darkness with New Labour and the politically correct brigade.

It appears that the latest thing is an electronic detector in your household trash bin so that you pay as you throw away. England is possibly the most policed country in the world, other than perhaps North Korea and China. Am I like a Russian in 1917, condemned to take an increasingly greater distance from my native land, or might we really be at the beginning of that new spring?

A Cardinal for Canterbury? This is the title of an article here. Someone seems to be wildly hyping and having romantic notions. But that is not in the character of the streetwise and pragmatic Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop Emeritus of Westminster. Does he really think that England is going to be as Catholic as, say, Poland in the nineteenth century or the countries of the Hapsburg Empire in the really old days?

We can lament that the Reformation ruined England, as the 1789 Revolution ruined France to the core. But, will the English people and political institutions really forgo secularism and return to Catholic Christendom? Perhaps this is not the idea for some in the Magic Circle.

We are still getting a good dose of ‘London fog‘ when we hear of the Apostolic Constitution associated with the old ecumenism, as if everything was going beautifully in the Church of England (no one is reminding us of the inconvenient facts of women’s “ordinations” and same-sex “marriages”), and the Queen was about to bring the whole of England into communion with Rome. It isn’t happening like that! These myths were exploded as Anglicanorum Coetibus came into existence without interference from Cardinal Kasper. I really am surprised to read this stuff still coming from conservative Catholic sources.

It does not suffice to go on with secularised “religion” and kid people that it is moving into communion with Rome. The former Archbishop of Westminster said:

So, the English Church is a Church united and strong. It is out there in the areopagus, the market place of our diminished secular society which is looking for meaning and hope. This English Church would speak to the nation of true belief, of the dignity of the human person from the beginning of life to its natural end.

Uh? Sorry, I need a new pair of glasses and a hearing aid, or he does! The Cardinal dreams of

… this Church as one that would speak for life, the poor and all those without a voice. It would be one that defends the family and that “would continue to respect and dialogue with those who differ from us, people of other faiths, people with no faith, the agnostics and atheists. The English Church would be a strong voice, witnessing to all that is good and true. It would be a Church, sustained not only by Scripture, tradition and reason favoured by the Anglican Church but, crucially, by Scripture, tradition, reason and teaching authority. It would encapsulate that authority in teaching the truth and the beauty of the Christian faith.”

These are strong words indeed, but from a source I wouldn’t trust further than I could throw him! We have already read reams about an English Catholic Church that was doing everything to stick its heels in, promote the liberal Tablet line and keep ignoring “inconvenient” directives from Rome when it came to cleaning up the town.

Nice  try, Your Eminence, but you will have to do better to convince this sceptical Englishman.

Isolated Groups of Anglicans

Most of the Anglican groups, in the Anglican Communion or the TAC, live in countries where their bishops have territorial dioceses. It would certainly be assumed that one or more Ordinariates would be established in those countries more or less corresponding with the formerly Anglican jurisdictions concerned.

There are some very small groups of Anglicans living in countries where there is no such jurisdiction that would provide the ‘material’ for an Ordinariate. In the TAC, there are certainly some communities that are far too insignificant. For example, other than my chaplaincy on the European Continent, there is a tiny community in Japan. There is a small community in New Zealand under the able leadership of Canon Ian Woodman. Unfortunately, one of their priests seems to have aligned with another Anglican body. There must be others dotted around the world.

In the Traditional Anglican Communion, there is a canonical entity called the Patrimony of the Primate, allowing priests to be under the Primate’s jurisdiction without residing in his territorial jurisdiction (Anglican Catholic Church of Australia). This is my own canonical title within the TAC. It would be interesting to see whether such a concept can continue to exist under the Ordinariates.

In the 1970’s and 80’s, there were Catholic priests in Rome who made it their business to help more traditionally-minded seminarians to find a canonical jurisdiction in which they could be ordained. They found that bishops in places like southern Italy and Eastern Europe were less weighed down by diocesan bureaucracy and were inclined to incardinate clerics without requiring them to reside in their dioceses. The seminarians then did their studies in Rome, were ordained and returned to their own countries as priests. It was then a relatively simple matter for one of these priests to go to the local diocesan bishop, show his papers and obtain permission for ministry in that jurisdiction. The diocesan bishop has no need to consult his Council for such a simple thing, as he would if it were a question of incardinating that priest.

This was a canonical anomaly that was tolerated for a time, since canon law was observed and there were no breaches of discipline. Eventually, it became necessary and possible to establish permanent institutes and societies for these priests to give them a canonical framework and a more normal priestly life. The same principle holds when it comes to pastoral ministries: they obtain permission from the local diocesan bishop. Some diocesan bishops are mean and stingy, and others are generous to the point of allowing a personal parish in application of Summorum Pontificum.

The Ordinariates will be different, as they will enjoy the canonical status described by the Pope in Anglicanorum Coetibus. Perhaps for an isolated cleric or a group that is too insignificant to be considered for being made into an Ordinariate, it will be possible to belong to an Ordinariate in another country. With such canonical status recognised in the Church, it may be possible to collaborate in some way with the local Catholic diocesan bishop, or at least obtain permission to minister to the faithful.

I was tempted to call this article Crumbs from the Master’s Table!

How many TAC folk are in this kind of situation? Have you any ideas about how these things can be organised?

TAC Bishop Brutally Robbed in South Africa

I think most of us have missed the news item on The Messenger.

Bishop Michael Gill, Diocesan Bishop of TAC’s Anglican Church in Southern Africa (Traditional Rite), consecrated by Archbishop Hepworth in Portsmouth in October 2007, has been, with his family, victim of a violent robbery. It frequently happens down there, and priests are often murdered for no more than a small amount of money.

We should pray for Bishop Gill and his family, and perhaps find ways to help in some modest way as our Lenten almsgiving. I’m sure this would be possible through diocesan bishops of the ACA and other parts of the TAC — or through the International Anglican Fellowship.

Embolism

Oh dear! Embolism? That sounds like a very serious condition requiring immediate medical care. Actually, it is a prayer of the Mass.

I would like to examine another part of the Mass that needs attention for the purposes of a revised authorised Anglican liturgy in the Catholic Church. This is the beginning of what is often called the Communion rite following the Canon of the Mass.

There has been some variation as to the place of the Our Father at Mass, but that was settled fairly rapidly. There is evidence to suggest that Gregory the Great moved it from after the Communion to its present place in the Roman rite. Its place in the Eastern Rite is always just before the elevation and fraction. In all rites then it comes at the end of the Eucharistic prayer. The embolism is an expansion of its last clause, praying the Lord to deliver us indeed from all manner of evil.

Its form in the older Roman form and the Use of Sarum is thus:

Deliver us, O Lord, we beseech thee, from all evils, past, present, and to come: and at the intercession of the blessed ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with thy blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and with Andrew, and all the Saints, graciously grant us peace in all our days: that by the help of thine availing mercy we may ever both be free from sin and safe from all distress. Through the same Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. R. Amen.

The Byzantine Liturgy, imitated by the modern Roman rite, ends this prayer by another ending –  “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory”. This ending is often added to the Lord’s Prayer in the Anglican tradition, but with the Embolism entirely omitted.

The modern Roman rite (new ICEL translation) gives this abbreviated form:

Deliver us, Lord, we pray, from every evil, graciously grant peace in our days, that, sustained by the help of your mercy, we may be always free from sin and safe from all distress, as we await the blessed hope, the coming of our Saviour, Jesus Christ. R. For the kingdom, the power and the glory are yours now and for ever.

The old Roman rite and most uses thereof have the Fraction during the doxology of the Embolism. The modern Roman rite does not. Instead the order is radically altered to incorporate the Pax before the Fraction. Only after the Fraction and Commixture is the Agnus Dei said:

Taught by the Saviour’s command and formed by the word of God, we have the courage to say: Our Father …

Deliver us, Lord, we pray, from every evil, graciously grant peace in our days, that, sustained by the help of your mercy, we may be always free from sin and safe from all distress, as we await the blessed hope, the coming of our Saviour, Jesus Christ.

R. For the kingdom, the power and the glory are yours now and for ever.

Lord Jesus Christ, who said to your Apostles, Peace I leave you, my peace I give you, look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church, and be pleased to grant her peace and unity in accordance with your will. Amen.

The peace of the Lord be with you always. R. And with your spirit.

Let us offer each other the sign of peace.

Fraction.

May this mingling of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ bring eternal life to us who receive it.

Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.

Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.

Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, grant us peace.

The present Anglican Use Mass is even more terse:

And now, as our Saviour Christ hath taught us, we are bold to say,

People and Celebrant

Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy Name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.

The celebrant breaks the consecrated Bread and puts the third part of the Host into the chalice saying:

May this mingling of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ bring eternal life to us who receive it.

A period of silence is kept. Then shall be sung or said.

[Alleluia.]  Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; Therefore let us keep the feast.  [Alleluia.]

In Lent, Alleluia is omitted, and may be omitted at other times except during Easter Season.

The following anthem may be sung or said here:

O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us.

O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us.

O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, grant us thy peace.

Our Lord at the Last Supper took bread and broke it, and so it follows that the consecrated bread is broken in all liturgies. The Gallican and Eastern rites have always been much more elaborate.

The Commixture is intrinsically associated with the Fraction, and this is the dropping of a part of the Host into the chalice containing the Precious Blood. The ancient Roman rite (Ordines Romani I, II, III, etc.) was highly complex, and present practice is but a remnant. At the end of the Embolism, the archdeacon held the chalice before the Pope and he put into it the Sancta. The Sancta were a particle consecrated at a former Mass and reserved till now: the Pope had saluted it at the beginning of Mass. He made three signs of the cross over the chalice and put the Sancta into it at the words: Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum. This rite illustrates the continuity of the Sacrifice between one celebration of the Mass and the next, for in the absolute, there is only one Mass, that of Christ.

The Pope then took a loaf (yes, it was leavened bread at the time, or large unleavened breads like Jewish families use for the Seder), broke off a part, left it on the altar and went to his throne. It was only at the moment of the Pope’s Communion that he would make the three signs of the cross with the small piece of consecrated bread over the chalice held by the archdeacon, saying: Fiat commixtio et consecratio corporis et sanguinis Domini nostri Iesu Christi accipientibus nobis in vitam aeternam. Amen. Pax tecum. R. Et cum spiritu tuo. and put it into the chalice. He communicated under the species of wine. There were thus two distinct commixtures, first of the Sancta at the Pax, secondly of the newly consecrated species at the Communion. By the eleventh century, the rite of the Sancta disappeared, leaving the second commixture, as we have it now. This is seen in Ordo Romanus XIV.

It would seem that the distinction between the Sancta and the Fermentum come from this. The latter is the Blessed Sacrament sent by the Pope to all the churches of Rome to emphasise the communion of the Church. The order of this rite in the Roman rite and the slight variations thereof in northern European local uses thus come from a long evolution and simplification of the rite. The Sancta is certainly the origin of our practice of reserving the Blessed Sacrament in a tabernacle or a hanging pyx. It emphasises the unity between yesterday’s Mass and today’s.

I would very much like to see the Embolism and Fraction / Commixture rite restored in the Anglican Use to the Sarum model:

Let us pray. As our Saviour Christ hath commanded and taught us, we are bold to say :
Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy Name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.

Deliver us, O Lord, we beseech thee, from all evils, past, present, and to come : and at the intercession of the blessed ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with thy blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and with Andrew, and all the Saints, graciously grant us peace in all our days : that by the help of thine availing mercy we may ever both be free from sin and safe from all distress. Through the same Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. R. Amen.

The peace + of the + Lord be + always with you.
R. And with thy spirit.

O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us.
O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us.
O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, grant us thy peace.

May this holy + mingling of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be unto me, and to all who receive it, salvation of spirit and body, and a wholesome preparation for eternal life, through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.

Introducing Father Louis Bouyer

We Anglicans can be awfully insular at times, and I have often expressed my conviction that we are being allowed to bring our suitcases and carry-on baggage because we have something to contribute to recovering Catholic Patrimony. The “apologists” are forever repeating that we will have to conform and allow ourselves to be squeezed down an ever-tightening funnel of stinginess and loss of personality and identity. Becoming a Catholic should be like a flower opening in spring, a discovery of hope, joy and wisdom.

One of the greatest lights in the twentieth century in this work of reconciling Anglican Catholicism (in the widest understanding of this term) with Catholicism was Father Louis Bouyer (1913-2004).

When this great theologian died, Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger said these words at his funeral: “He was the least conformist of theologians and among the most traditional”. This was not to say he was unorthodox, but he was unconventional. He worked alongside the great biblical scholar Jean Daniélou, Henri de Lubac and many others of the theological renewal of the years between the end of the war and Vatican II.

Born in Paris, he was originally a Lutheran and became a pastor. His spiritual journey brought him to visit Orthodox and Catholic communities, and he was received into the Catholic Church at the Abbey of Saint-Wandrille in 1939. From 1943, he was very involved in the liturgical movement, but also was very keen on Patristics and Biblical studies. His whole Christian vision was influenced by the monastic life, and his work was very much in harmony with that of Joseph Ratzinger become Benedict XVI. Bouyer worked with the then Fr Ratzinger, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac, Jorge Medina and others during Vatican II and founded a periodical called Communio.

Bouyer did not renounce what was good in his original Protestantism, but saw his journey to Catholicism as a fulfilment, not a rupture. He was particularly influenced by Archbishop Ramsey, and by Fr. Serge Bulgakov and Vladimir Lossky of the Russian Orthodox Church. His discovery of Newman was a turning point in Bouyer’s intellectual life.

Bouyer’s passion was ecumenism, bringing Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox intellectuals together to rediscover the meaning of the Church, the Sacraments, the liturgical life and the life of prayer. It was reading Newman’s books that brought Bouyer to become interested in that Roman Socrates – Saint Philip Neri. Bouyer joined the French Oratory of Cardinal de Bérulle.

In his liturgical work, he brings us to discover that great German Benedictine liturgical theologian Dom Odo Casel and the Kultmysterium, the continuing real presence of Christ in the Church in his whole salvific Mystery through the liturgy. Bouyer was of the high theology school of the liturgical movement. He promoted reforms in the liturgy, but violently denounced the post-conciliar excesses and abuses in his famous works La Décomposition du Catholicisme (1968) and Religieux et clercs contre Dieu (1975). He denounced the substitution of the traditional liturgy with a fabricated pseudo-liturgy, the loss of the sense of the sacred, the despising attitude of clerics for the ordinary lay folk. What was good in the liturgical reform was never applied! Never had the religion of priests (or lack of religion) been imposed so impertinently on the faithful!

A pioneer of the ecumenical movement, he was equally critical of false ecumenism – “a kind of pan-Christianity whose fundamental pragmatism leads to indifference in regard to revealed truths”. Authentic Christianity could only lead to Catholic ecumenism following the example of the Oxford Movement. Hating mitred bureaucrats as he did, he doggedly defended the mystery of the Church: “Do away with the Church, and Christianity will be no more than a dream that each person lives to his tastes, and Christ would be no more than a myth”.

Bouyer spent most of his teaching life at the Institut Catholique in Paris, and went on many lecture tours. In 1982, he retired to the Abbey of Saint-Wandrille.

His output in terms of the books he wrote is phenomenal. Many of them have been translated into English. We will find him promoting a fairly Platonic kind of philosophy and a moderate and non-heretical Gnosticism. His book on the Divine Wisdom is awesome. It stands on my bookshelf under the title Sophia ou le Monde en Dieu. The influence of Fr Serge Bulgakov is striking! I find a beautiful synthesis between good solid Judeo-Christian biblical theology and Hellenic and Alexandrian wisdom.

Bouyer, like the present Pope, was also a Christian humanist following the example of the Renaissance. He studied Saint Thomas More and Erasmus in depth. The only real humanism is eschatological humanism, because it is integral humanism (influence of Maritain?) – a humanism that opens self to the other, a reflection of divine life in the community of the Trinity.

He read Mircea Eliade, the great Christian anthropologist who wrote on the sacred, myths and symbols. Here we find a theory of the psyché very similar to that of C.G. Jung, the great Swiss psychiatrist who sought a less materialistic view of the human soul than Freud. We are led to a depth of anthropology, philosophy and theology that no “apologist” could ever imagine. But, let us leave the absurd to one side!

I recommend you to discover this wonderful mind and the whole movement of Ressourcement theology, and perhaps I would recommend one book that no Anglican joining an Ordinariate should forgo reading: Tracy Rowland, Ratzinger’s Faith which is a recent book and still in print. Discover and enjoy!

The Great Prayer

This is the title of a wonderful little book by Hugh Ross Williamson written in 1955, dedicated to the sacredness and beauty of the Roman Canon, sometimes called the Gregorian Canon. For your meditation and consideration, I reproduce an extract from the introduction of the this book.

* * *

Whether or not Jesus Christ was born of woman, lived, suffered, died, was buried and rose from the dead to ascend in glory to Heaven cannot be established by ordinary historical evidence. The only witness is in the traditions and writings of the Church.

The story of Christ rests entirely on the word of His early followers. The New Testament, (which was not finally authenticated by the Church till three hundred years later,) supplements and in part embodies the traditional teaching of the Church. And in the New Testament we can read how Christ consistently refused to give the kind of’ sign ‘ which would have found its way into ordinary history. When tempted to perform a miracle by throwing Himself down from the Temple when Jerusalem was crowded with visitors from all over the world, He refused to do it. When He was on the cross and Jerusalem had come out to see Him die, He was challenged again: “Come down from the Cross and we will believe.” It would indeed have been stupor mundi, but again He refused. When He rose from the dead, He did not show Himself to Pilate or to Caiaphas or to the crowds who had watched him die. He showed Himself, as Peter admitted: “Not to all the people, but to us . . .”

More >

Reflections on Liturgy and Much More

As some of the older clergy in both Anglican and Catholic traditions are what I would call ‘1970’s dinosaurs’, still thinking about what needs to be discarded in order to be relevant to modern man, some of the younger folk are labouring to recover what the older men spent their careers on destroying. We have recently discussed the language of the liturgy, namely archaic and modern English. Language is important, but not the only consideration in the liturgy.

One of the very first articles I wrote for The Anglo-Catholic was on the Eastward Position. There is also an extremely interesting article in The New Liturgical Movement on Bringing Verticality and Presence back to Free-standing Altars. In our pilgrimage to the Catholic Church, we are obviously concerned for our Anglican patrimony. We should also take Catholic patrimony to heart, the very patrimony that Pope Benedict XVI is trying to recover – and for which he needs the help of Anglicans. It is a task for which men of vision and energy are needed, men who are capable of seeing far beyond the confines of the ‘establishment’ box which perhaps nurtured them.

The concept of the ‘horizontal’ liturgy is hard to explain without an illustration. I have carefully avoided the caricatures many traditionalists choose of clown masses or other such extreme abuses. This is a run-of-the-mill concelebrated Mass one would find in the vast majority of Catholic churches in the world. The main celebrant is wearing a chasuble, and the concelebrants are wearing albs and stoles. What strikes me in this scene is the horizontality of everything. The altar table has nothing on it other than the cloth, the chalice, paten and ciborium (or a metal dish), a missal and perhaps a microphone. The candlesticks are free-standing and the crucifix is off to one side. Asymmetry is often a device for destroying verticality. One very often comes across a pair of stubby candles on one end of the altar (facing the people) and the crucifix on the other end, the microphone in the middle. Here in France, a common arrangement is the chalice and paten on a corporal on the side of the altar facing the people, and the missal in the centre of the altar between the priest and the corporal. Everything is symbolic.

My objective here is not to raise polemics against the modern Roman rite, but to highlight the fact of an emerging tendency within our journey to Rome. Most of us in the TAC are somewhat more ‘traditionalist’ in our liturgical orientations and geared to contributing towards a revival of traditional forms of the liturgy. I think most of us are much more tolerant in regard to the other emerging ‘tendency’ among us that is more inclined to melt into the landscape of contemporary English Catholicism. We should be tolerant and engage in dialogue, that progress be made in our learning and our spirituality. At the same time, I am convinced of the necessity for us to have clear and lucid minds. The world to which we are walking – the Catholic Church – is a difficult one, and we must proceed without romantic ideas of a ‘perfect’ Church as was often dreamt of in the nineteenth century. The Catholic Church (or at least her Pope and the more lucid bishops and clergy) is seeking to recover her own identity and sacredness in the liturgy.

I respect Anglicans who have opted for the modern Roman rite, knowing that they frequently celebrate it in a reform of the reform spirit using traditional music and celebrating with a profound sense of the sacred. I have already said that I am prepared to celebrate the modern Roman rite in situations where it would be the right response to a specific pastoral need. Like the good priests presently in the Church of England, I would interpret the texts and ceremonies in the light of Tradition. It can be done. However, I am convinced that the liturgical spirit can be fully recovered in the Church by the mutual inter-influence of a number of rites, as the Pope has allowed through Summorum Pontificum.

So it should be in the future Ordinariates. How it will all work out is not up to me, but up to men with authority and much more wisdom and experience than I. However, I am positive and hopeful that everything will continue to be impregnated with a spirit of generosity and pastoral welcome. I certainly await the day when it will be possible to minister alongside the many heroic priests here in France who have suffered everything but dungeon, fire and sword for their priestly vocations and pastoral charges.

We must work to understand each other, and walk forward in our long Lent of 2010, perhaps the most historic Lent of our lives, and remembering those who died before seeing the wonders we see today.

Solitary Mass

A comment from Fr Michael Gray drew my attention to the prevailing Anglican usage regarding the celebration of Mass. Indeed, I attended the TAC Bishops’ College meeting, and found most bishops and priests assisting at Mass in the manner of the laity rather than celebrating Mass on the side altars of that lovely church of St Agatha in Portsmouth. Fr. Gray said in his comment – (…) many priests will (…) at worst will not be celebrating at all (at least within the Ordinariate) for want of a congregation!

I remembered that the Anglican tradition, like Orthodoxy, has been rigorous in prohibiting Mass or Divine Liturgy at which only the priest is present. The 1662 Prayer Book contains this rubric: And there shall be no celebration of the Lord’s Supper, except there be a convenient number to communicate with the Priest, according to his discretion. This is remarkably flexible, one must admit.

One of the things the Reformation condemned was the practice of celebrating Mass for particular intentions, in chantry chapels, in side chapels in churches, and the priests concerned receiving endowments and stipends. This was one of the “good works” that went against the barrage of solas!

One of our regular commenters, Joshua, has written a beautiful article about priests celebrating Mass alone for the simple motive of piety and love of the daily Mass.

The old rule always was that even at a private Low Mass, there must always be a server, or, in default of that, someone (even a laywoman) kneeling at the altar rail to give the responses.  In fact, even if he or she couldn’t give the responses, that person’s mere presence would minimally suffice: for at least someone had to be there as well.

Just as the priest acts in the person of Christ the Head, there must be a member of the Church present (the server, so to speak, acts in the name of the Church when he gives the responses – for at High Mass, the choir sings the responses, as ideally the whole congregation does).

After some years, Bl Charles de Foucault obtained special permission from the Holy See to say Mass entirely alone – since there were no other Christians anywhere at all nearby, and the local Muslims were hardly to be expected to come and assist at Mass (seeing as he never converted any of them).

Joshua then points out that –

Firstly, the strictures against Mass entirely alone have been much relaxed in the new Code of Canon Law, since the priest’s desire of and devotion to saying Mass, even if no one be in attendance, are considered a solid reason for doing so.

It is indeed interesting to find that desire for the Sacrament of the Eucharist and devotion to daily Mass are accepted as the good reason required for saying Mass alone rather than packing everything up and going home.

Obviously, it remains that the priest should have a server or someone attending Mass if this is possible, because the Mass is a function of the Church and not a priest’s private prayer.

The modern Roman rite gives a form of Mass without a congregation, with or without a server. When faced with the choice of celebrating alone, or not celebrating, both canon law and the law of grace recommend celebrating Mass as the better thing to do.

According to each rite, there are special rules for a priest celebrating alone, but I will not go into them here.

There are important spiritual considerations. For example, the priest should see his solitary Mass as being a public Mass, even if no physical persons are present. The priest is interceding for those to whom he ministers. Each day I offer Mass for all who write and read The Anglo Catholic, which has become a kind of “teaching ministry”.

Like Anglican clergy attending Mass like lay people, Catholic priests since Vatican II have been encouraged to concelebrate. Whilst this is more than normal at ordinations or at the Chrism Mass celebrated by the Diocesan Bishop, it is not compulsory. Many priests, especially regulars in communities, have found that daily concelebration instead of daily Mass at a side altar is detrimental to their piety and fervour. I have had the experience of being in the Benedictine Abbey church at Fontgombault (France) at about 7 in the morning (after Matins and Lauds) and seeing a priest at each side altar silently offering Mass as if it were his last. The piety and spirit of prayer are overwhelming in the golden candle light reflecting on the stone walls of the ancient church.

I would like to encourage priests and bishops in the TAC and other Anglican communions to take up daily Mass, even if no people or servers are present. I fear that many Anglican priests celebrate only on Sundays, and more rarely than that when they are not charged with parish or chaplaincy work. I am sure that if I dropped daily Mass, the Office would soon follow, and nothing would remain of my priestly life.

There are many wonderful points about Anglican priestly spirituality, but this aspect of daily Mass (which is recommended and not a canonical obligation like the Office) certainly needs to be improved.

The Limits of Apologetics and ‘Book Religion’

The idea of this article came about on reading some recent comments in The Anglo Catholic, in particular from an Evangelical Anglican who converted to the Catholic Church some time ago. There are others, both courteous and insolent. In a spirit of logic and fairness, I can “hear” the question – “You want to bring your baggage with you. Why not also the Evangelicals?”. Indeed, there are gems of Methodist and German Pietist preaching, spirituality and hymnody. As time goes on, and other communities having their roots in the Reformation begin to cross the Tiber by that beautiful bridge the Holy Father has given us, these elements of historical Christian patrimony can also be assimilated into Catholicism.

That being said, I came across a number of persons and associations in the early 1980’s in London. One was the highly-respected Catholic Evidence Guild which gave lessons in apologetics and instruction in the Faith to those who wanted then to go and test their apologetic wit at Speakers’ Corner in London’s Hyde Park. As most people know, Speakers’ Corner is a symbol of free speech in English common law. You can go there and say anything you like without fear of prosecution. You can even deny the Holocaust and speak in favour of the revival of Nazism! However, beware and be prepared for relentless heckling and insults from your audience. They are all there on their soap boxes on a Sunday afternoon, speaking on every subject according to the usually strong and convinced opinions of each speaker. The Catholic Evidence Guild goes there, and finds both the usual Protestant hecklers and open minds who have contrasted the beauty of Christianity and the ugliness of murderous political ideologies. You will also find the Protestant Truth Society, established at some time to counter the ‘Papists’, and they also have their opinions to express.

The Blogosphere seems to have become a kind of virtual and electronic Speaker’s Corner. The blogger writes instead of shouting through a megaphone against the noise and heckling, and then the comments come. There are two types of comments, as two types of response from people listening to the speakers at Hyde Park – those intended to demolish the blogger’s article and impose his own opinion, and those intended either to ask questions or encourage developments of the article’s weaker points. In this way, knowledge is built and developed, and it is a learning curve for us all.

After my early enthusiasm to learn the Faith, I went on to study philosophy and theology. I came out of it all aware that I was more ignorant than ever, and that learning is the task of a lifetime. However, these studies have given me another vision, a more critical sense for intellectual coherence and honesty.

With our former Evangelical apologist, I had the impression of someone who went through Frank Sheed’s apologetics at great speed, and perhaps acquired a smattering of formal logic and epistemology as well as natural theology. An amazing quantity of literature was written in the nineteenth century in the wake of the conversions of man like Newman and Manning, and especially between the wars. All those books had one thing in common: the contrast between a strong and beautiful Catholic Church under Pius XI and Pius XII and Anglicanism with increasing evidence of encroaching liberalism and relativism in matters of doctrine.

I was amazed in the early 1980’s to hear of the Catholic Church as if everything was going just beautifully, and everything was perfect (societas perfecta and all that…). Cognitive dissonance indeed! In those old books, one would read – as a major argument of Anglicanism – the fact that they were using a vernacular liturgy! I had the impression of being in a madhouse, a House of the Blind!

How did I came to all this? It was through a young man living in lodgings in the same East End Methodist students’ hostel as where I had a room. He was someone from no religious background who had been bitten by the bug, and was under instruction with a Jesuit priest at Farm Street. He was as enthusiastic about this as his project of inventing an ‘infinitely variable gearbox’, a ‘perpetual motion machine’ and a motorcycle designed to be incapable of falling over. I had never met someone so intense and with such an unhealthy passion. To express the reality, he was a crank. I have met many other cranks, nothing to do with the genuine English eccentric, since! Having researched the name of this person on Google, I was flabbergasted to learn that he was still working on these projects thirty years later, and no working prototype had ever been built. The more scientifically-minded among us will know that perpetual motion is impossible. Amazing! Indeed, I have moved on in life.

Let us go from anecdote to some more substantial reflections. Apologetics are a very superficial and unreliable way of getting people to become convinced of the truth of Catholic doctrine, for the simple reason that the life of the Church is not merely doctrine and books. It is also liturgy, experience and spirituality. Our Evangelical convert will try to work as he did when he was a Protestant: at all costs work on a person and get him to recite that magical saving formula “Lord Jesus, I accept you into my heart. I regret my sins and ask forgiveness”. Admittedly, the Catholic Catechism is more complex than simply the Bible and the Creeds, but it is still a book.

Apologetics are the art of demonstrating that beliefs are reasonable, and they show why the objections against them are unreasonable. But, it cannot be proven by reason that the articles of Faith are true. It is a beginning, and one way of many of accomplishing our duty of evangelism.

Evangelism? I yield again to the temptation of going into anecdotes and personal experience. When I was about 16 years of age, I sang in the choir of Kendal Parish Church during the school holidays (I was boarding in York). This was, under the then incumbent a central-to-high Prayer Book parish with a good Willis organ and a fine choral tradition. I was as religious as I was, not having yet discovered the real ‘spiky stuff’. My sister attended the parish of St Thomas in the same town, in fact the parish where I was baptised, but which was lower than low. They still had north-end celebration in the 1970’s, and the whole place reeked – not of candles and incense – but heating oil! The smell of diesel fuel, when I fill up my van, still reminds me of that church! After Sunday Evensong, I used to go to the prayer group at St Thomas Vicarage, because my sister had my mother’s car and drove us home afterwards. How I heard that the religion of Kendal Parish Church was ‘dead’, because we didn’t have their choruses and solas. At the time, I didn’t really understand why there should be so much enmity between two parishes of the same Church of England.

I was supposed, as a Christian, to be peddling the Bible and the Faith to other people, getting them to ‘save themselves’ through the ‘magic formula’. How cheap and tawdry! I preferred to find God in the beauty of choral music and the sonorous prose of the Prayer Book. God will always find ways to draw people to Himself. My encounter with Evangelical religion began to gnaw away at my very soul and belief. Either I had to reject religion as just another vain ideology, or look for God in deeper things, experiences, and above all, in beauty.

Between my sister and myself, I saw two types of personalities: the in-the-box conformist and the anarchical searching personality that drove me to search ever further and further, though it would create other problems.

The Evangelical Christian is the “democratic” type of personality, oriented to the life of society and the collective. Their view of life is prosaic. “I have given you milk”, said Saint Paul, “not solid food, for ye could not bear it: and ye cannot bear it even now, for ye are yet carnal”. The Church needs to feed her infants on milk, since many are indeed infants in the Faith. But milk is not enough for one who has grown to the extent of needing solid food. There is a hierarchy of temperaments and gifts. If the religion of St Thomas’ Parish was the one true Christianity, then I would have felt profoundly repelled and destined to life in quest for some other spiritual principle, paganism or ‘natural religion’ perhaps. Since my theological studies, I understood that Christianity is finely balanced between Judeo-Christian monotheism and Hellenic philosophy. There is the whole tension between Biblical faith and Greek / Alexandrine gnosis.

Fundamentalist Protestantism is a religion of words, of a Book, like Judaism and Islam. I will not digress along this line, as it is another subject for study, but it does form the mentality of the neo-Catholic apologist. The Bible remains, but is then supplemented with the Code of Canon Law (with the same hermeneutic key) and apologetics. The results can be quite startling, especially among American traditionalists.

I have always been impressed by the old saying of St. Ignatius of Loyola – “For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who disbelieve, no amount of proof is sufficient”. Even the Resurrection was not enough for the more hard-hearted Jews of the first century. I am very much of the conviction that faith comes from experience of God. It is informed by hearing Scripture and the teaching of the Church, but its origin is visceral.

A point I would like to make before closing is that we are all a community on the way to Rome (or back to Rome in some cases). We do not need cheap preaching or trite apologetic arguments. They are often an insult to us. Some of us, with no pretence to holiness or perfection, have spent years in the desert wrestling with the Hound of Heaven. We have not known where to turn, except away from religion salesmen.

Some of us are university-trained intellectuals and some of us are ordinary people. I prefer to identify with the latter. We don’t need the Church justified for us, because we are convinced and are heading there. We don’t need to be told to “jump into the Tiber” because the Pope has built us a bridge, but it isn’t opened yet.

I’ll simply ask the hecklers and those who want attention to come up with something original. Don’t go on like the ‘programmed’ Jehovah’s Witness. It turns us right off. Experience of life is a great place to start, and you don’t need libraries or universities for that.

Western Orthodoxy Revisited

I have had to comment on a comment coming from a well-known English priest of the Russian Orthodox Church outside Russia. It is not my intention to raise any polemics against our Eastern Orthodox brethren, I think it is important for you all to know that attempts to create ‘Anglican-friendly’ structures in Orthodoxy are very different to the concept of the Personal Ordinariates in the Catholic Church.

Here is a scholarly article by Dr. Jean-François Mayer, a researcher at Fribourg University in Switzerland I have known personally.  Dr. Mayer himself had become Orthodox after having explored a number of so-called ‘independent Catholic’ churches. I know nothing of his present ecclesial affiliation, but his academic speciality is that of new religious movements, sometimes known as cults and sects and he has a website – Religioscope with articles in French and English.

His position on western Orthodoxy is frankly sceptical, but he seems to give a fair appraisal of the Western Orthodox movement. The translation from the original French version is mine.

* * *

ATTEMPTS AT CREATING
A WESTERN ORTHODOX RITE


Historical outline[1]
by Jean-François Mayer

Religioscope – May 2002

N.B.: This article resumes, with a few updates and the addition of a “sitography”, large extracts from a text named “Must Orthodoxy be Byzantine? Attempts at creating a western Orthodox rite”, published five years ago in a collective work called Regards sur l’Orthodoxie. Mélanges offerts à Jacques Goudet (under the direction of Germain Ivanoff-Trinadtzaty), Lausanne, L’Age d’Homme, 1997, pp. 191-213. Religioscope thanks the publisher Ed. L’Age d’Homme for having authorized this article and takes advantage of the occasion to remind its readers about the considerable production of this firm, and especially its major contribution to publishing Slavonic literature.

Westerners who join the Orthodox Church feel that they are the legitimate heirs of western Christianity of the first millennium. This, however, brings up the question about the ways to find attachments to this heritage: Will this simply be a question of incorporating it as a fundamental spiritual element of Orthodox tradition, or can we try to find the specific practices of an Orthodox West, or even “orthodoxise” western liturgical practices? It is not surprising that some individuals or groups have attempted to find a western Orthodox way with its own rites. Historically, this phenomenon has found itself in interaction with several other developments: the emergence of ecumenical concerns, Anglo-Catholicism, Old Catholicism, the liturgical research movement, the Russian emigration and the Orthodox diaspora in general. We will sketch out a summary of the attempts to create a western Orthodox rite, by endeavouring not to simply repeat already existing studies[2].

More >

Liturgical Archaeologism

Yesterday evening, I commented on a comment on an old posting of mine on the liturgy. Without rehashing the conjectures of what might be the official Roman ‘Anglican’ liturgy for the Ordinariates, I often come up against the same arguments for going back to sources.

I believe the 1962 missal and the Novus Ordo missal, as well as the various prayerbooks should all be scrapped and the starting point again be a liturgy based on the Ordo Romanus Primus.

A few years ago, a friend invited me to accompany him on a visit to the organ of Poitiers Cathedral, a rather splendid eighteenth century instrument, an original Clicquot, that had recently been restored. It has the most uncomfortable console I have ever come across. The pedalboard is of the baroque French type, and the organ is tuned to mean-tone temperament. In other words, it was a purist restoration. It was impossible to play Bach, and the temperament gave an excruciating comma even when playing in E minor – just one sharp in the key signature but with a sharpened leading note, the D#, in the B major dominant chord, which was like drinking lemon juice! What is the point of spending hundreds of thousands of euros on an organ restoration when the use of the finished product is so restrictive? You can play seventeenth and eighteenth century French music on this organ, and nothing else. You can’t even accompany the liturgy if the key signature exceeds more that two sharps or flats, and don’t even think about minor keys! So much for authentic restoration. I’m all for preserving the past, but what’s wrong with a modern pedalboard and a less excruciating unequal temperament for tuning? It is a question of respect for tradition, but with intelligent innovation and development.

The real problem here is what is desired. Do we want want an organ that is exactly as its original builder left it, or a functional church organ, or a wise compromise between the two? In the case of Poitiers Cathedral organ, I would have made a few careful alterations to increase the instrument’s scope. If that were impossible for technical or aesthetic reasons, then one can only leave the original organ for French baroque music experts, and install another organ in another part of the Cathedral for more general use. I see the same problems in the liturgy. The old Tradition has to be carefully preserved, lest things should be destroyed through ignorance and the phenomenon of fads and fashion. On the other hand, there has to be something to which the faithful and clergy can relate.

I have often gone on about Sarum, which has not been regularly in use since about the seventeenth century (recusants and expatriate English priests in France, etc.). Is this not also archaeologism? I would argue that this is not the case, since it is a developed liturgy that stopped, and can be resumed in exactly the same way as the older form of the Roman rite which also was ‘stopped’ and replaced by the new rite in 1969.

Strain at a gnat and swallow a camel! Some would baulk at ‘re-booting’ a recent and developed liturgy, and would seek to restore the Missal to the pristine form and rite of the holy Fathers in the words of Pope St Pius V. When I researched the Tridentine missal, I was quite flabbergasted to discover these words coming from a Pope, so that Paul VI in 1969 could claim to be doing nothing different. We are led to believe that both Popes scraped the barnacles from the bottom of the hull and gave the boat new sails. “Returning to pristine antiquity” was the leitmotiv of the Jansenists of the Synod of Pistoia and Archbishop Bugnini.

In actual fact, despite these surprising words of the Pope, the Tridentine Missal was simply a prune-back of the 1474 Princeps Missal with some reference to available sources, and above all, the mature Roman Rite of the 11th century. It was not a ‘reconstruction’ or a new creation, even though only five sequences remained and the lectionary is left rather impoverished. What the Jansenists and the 1960’s reformers envisaged was something else. The former wanted so-called antiquity, and the latter wanted something inculturated into secular modernity.

Archaeologism is the only coherent response if you do not believe in organic development. If no continuous development is desirable or possible, then the liturgy has to be constantly on the drawing board and in the workshop, and as Luther said, the closer the Mass is to the Last Supper, the more Christian it is, or words to that effect. Always this Heraclitan notion of constant motion, noise and disturbance! The Church needs to become a spiritual home, and we need a minimum of stability!

This idea of the liturgy being in a perpetual ‘restoration workshop’ negates the ‘organic’ liturgical development identified by Newman and others in the Church’s doctrinal life and teaching. We do really have to know what we want: periodically prune away accretions according to the limitations of our scholarship, and take the risk of throwing away the baby and keeping the bathwater, and chasing the shadow of a paradise that probably never existed? The early Church was in a constant state of strife and conflict, compared with which the Continuing Anglican Churches with their squabbling bishops and dreamy priest bloggers are but a choirboys’ picnic. Peace only began to come to the Church after centuries of Ecumenical Councils, and the troubles continue to this day as soon as two people disagree about something!

The Prayer Book was supposed to be a restoration of pristine antiquity. So was the new Roman missal, and that is found to need extensive work to cover the cracks left by the faulty scholarship of the 1960’s. Perhaps we could sweep everything away and have a tabula rasa, and then what? No liturgy at all like the Unitarians or the Quakers? We need to know what we want.

Falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus

Following on from my article on Legal and Moral – a Vital Distinction, another phenomenon came to my mind as I was writing a comment to Fr Gray’s article The Language of Canaan. It is a widespread way of thinking among many of our Catholic brethren, both in and out of communion with Rome.

It took me while to begin to analyse the reasons behind some of the odd views of some people. I came across this question on a traditional Catholic blog.

Can a priest wear a chasuble and other vestments for a traditional Latin Mass that were previously used in an Anglican Catholic Church for their services? I am not sure if it is permitted to use such vestments.

I would be tempted to answer in a cynical fashion and allude to the medieval Inquisition and exorcisms of objects as somehow inhabited by evil spirits. As it stands, its represents the opinion of a number of Catholic lay people and occasionally even of priests and seminarians, who should know better. In philsophical terms, like the confusion between law and morality, it is a failure to distinguish between law and ontology. It is the essence of the heresy of Donatism, saying amongst other things that illegal Sacraments (or Sacraments conferred outside the canonical limits of the Church) are invalid. It is also the basis of Feeneyism, that rigorous idea according to which we would have to conclude that the only souls inhabiting Heaven are those who were in their earthly life formally and canonically members of the Roman Catholic Church, and that the analogical notions of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood are invalid. That erroneous opinion was condemned by the Holy Office in 1949.

In the question above, we have the notion of vestments that have somehow been profaned or abused by “heretical worship” and unfit for Catholic use. The answer to this question is situated at a disciplinary level. Whenever liturgical materials (vestments, chalices, etc.) are sold and bought, even from “kosher” Catholic sources, it is usual to bless them for liturgical use as if they were new or never used. It is said that a chalice and paten are consecrated by simply using them for Mass, though there is a special rite in the Pontifical involving anointing the chalice and paten with the Holy Chrism. Using an item that has not been blessed is not sacrilege, though it is better to use the blessings of the Church whenever possible.

A priest in a concentration camp would have had no scruple saying Mass with any object capable of containing liquid, some wine bribed out of the guards, a piece of ordinary bread, and no altar or vestments. Mass in such circumstances is not only not wrong, but an act of heroism. On the other hand, if we have the required objects and vestments, it would be wrong not to use them. The Sacrament and the Mass would still be valid, but sinful through a despising attitude in regards to what the Church requires in disciplinary terms.

The title of this article means “wrong in one thing, wrong in everything”. Anglo Catholics are often stigmatised as “false Catholics” by Catholic folk, not only because they are not “in the Church”, but because they might believe or do some things at variance with usual Catholic belief and practice. There was the old story about the storming of the Cathar stronghold of Montsegur in the middle ages. The question was put to the Inquisition about how one could distinguish between orthodox Catholics and heretics. The answer was Burn them all and God will know his own. In other words, all the people in the castle were “infected”.

Another fallacy we often find is guilt by association. This is the reflection of someone for whom the entire Church is discredited through a minority of iniquitous priests who abuse children. The Nazis used this ploy to condemn all the categories of people they wanted to exterminate.

I ask both Catholics welcoming us into the formal and canonical communion of the Church and our own to reflect very carefully before saying regrettable things or asking regrettable questions, which can cause very intensely hurt feelings and hamper the unity process (the Church is one ontologically, but divided in her human members) between Anglican Catholics and Latin Rite Catholics. We all have much to learn and many prejudices to undo.

The Language of Canaan

This article was submitted to The Anglo-Catholic by Fr. Michael Gray of The Traditional Anglican Church, the English province of the TAC.

* * *

The question of the language of worship has been raised recently. This is not just an issue for English speakers, but of course if amongst any Western Rite Roman Catholics the transition from Latin to local language has been well managed, then we thank God. However, it is notorious that there have been problems with English, and it is only fair to explain the special sensitivities which Continuing Anglicans have about the subject. It is to some extent necessary to write from personal expertise, so I should explain that my first degree was in Greek and Latin, and my second and third degrees gave me some knowledge, not as much as I might like, of Hebrew, Aramaic and other early Christian languages.

Up to the 1960s, there was in most English speaking countries one liturgical language, which can be summarised as that of the Prayer Book and Authorised Version. Hymns usually conformed to that language. Even where later translations of the Bible were in use (and neither the Revised Version nor the Revised Standard Version penetrated parish worship very much), these generally conformed to the liturgical language. And the “English Missal” tradition also conformed to it.

More >

Legal and Moral – a Vital Distinction

I began to write a comment under the recent article dealing with the objection by the Church of Wales against the use of its logo by the Friends of the Ordinariate website. It suddenly dawned on me that this little controversy hinged around something very simple (Occam’s Razor has a very sharp blade!). It is distinguishing between morality and legality.

In legal terms, the institutional organisation bearing the name is the owner of the logo.

In moral terms good Christian clergy and lay people in the Church of Wales have been marginalised by the liberal powers-that-be and it is understandable that the former object to the latter appropriating what should belong to all.

Now this little distinction brings me to a much bigger and important subject. We English can be very rigid in our interpretation of law. The law is what the words say. Were it so simple! We have to have lawyers and judges, not just to apply the law and make wrongdoers pay the price for their misdeeds – but also to interpret the law. As Roger Scruton said in his lecture (see my previous article), the role of the judge is to discover the law.

Now, we come to what I’m really on about. I read a definition by an intelligent young gentleman living in Pennsylvania and running a fascinating blog, defining the Anglican as “one whose Bishop is invited to the Lambeth Conference”. The notion is totally legal and in no way takes subjective factors into account. Legally, he is right. Continuing Anglicans like the TAC or the Anglican Province in America or the APCK are not Anglicans but distinct denominations. Legally, the parent Churches (TEC under the direction of Ms. Schori, the Church of England, etc.) have the right to accuse Continuing Anglicans of abusively using the name Anglican and sue them in consequence.

I have heard that German law forbids the use of the word Catholic by any group not in formal communion with the Episcopal Conference itself in communion with Rome. Of course, being in communion with the Bishops is being recognised by them as being in communion with them. This law does not take the orthodoxy or continuity of internal principles of the parent Church into consideration. Under the law, the Church is a legal entity and a moral person.

Of course, we can then find that a Church has deviated so far from orthodoxy that its activity as a human corporation no longer conforms to the definition and purpose given in the organisation’s constitution or statutes. That is another problem, one on which I am incompetent to judge.

There is another category, that of morality. Morality is not law, but a consideration of principles seen from a more complete perspective. It considers human acts in accordance not only to laws, but also in terms of the finality and the subjective dispositions of the person (physical or moral) concerned. I would strongly recommend reading the works of one of the greatest moral theologians of our times, Fr Servais Pinckaers OP, whom I was lucky and highly privileged to have had as my moral theology professor at Fribourg.

In moral terms, extra-mural Anglicans (and extra-mural Catholics) are those who are defined by their characteristics: doctrine, liturgical tradition, self-identity and others. Morally, extra-mural Anglicans are Anglicans. There are always problems when law becomes detached from morality, and becomes a means for the strong to exploit and oppress the weak. I am brought to think of that fascinating article from a few years ago by our own Bishop Robert Mercer on Extramural Anglicans. Fundamentally, if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck, it probably is a duck. An Anglican is one who does Anglican things and identifies as an Anglican. This happens because a community is forced by motivation of conscience to leave the original Church for a serious reason (typically because the parent Church has introduced unacceptable changes and attempted to impose them on all, tolerating no diversity in the matter).

This happened in Anglicanism, and also happened in Catholicism. I think particularly of the Society of Saint Pius X in spite of their having received severe canonical sanctions from Rome, including excommunication of their bishops (the excommunication was lifted in January 2009, but the clergy concerned have no canonical mission for their ministry). They insist on being considered as Catholics. In spite of their legal separation from Rome (which separation is now blurred), they do Catholic things, believe in Catholic doctrine and have valid priests and bishops. There were other schisms in history, where the dissidents were the conservatives, the so-called Jansenist Old Catholics of Utrecht (1725) and the Petite Eglise (1801). There was also the schism of the Old Believers from the Russian Orthodox Church under Czar Peter the Great in the seventeenth century.

Where is the line drawn? Since about the end of the nineteenth century, there has been the phenomenon of men like Joseph René Vilatte and Arnold Harris Mathew, called episcopi vagantes by authors like Peter Anson and Henry Brandreth. This ecclesiastical subculture features hundreds of men claiming a valid Episcopate by virtue of a line of succession (which is no guarantee of validity in most cases). Episcopi vagantes tend to confuse people (or do they?) and draw discredit on the Church every time one of these bishops gets involved in fraud or sexual abuse, or worse. So, Churches get very nervous about who is the real thing and who are the impostors. This problem is more widespread in America, but there are a few in England and Continental Europe. Some of them build up communities that can be seen and visited, and prove to be devout and pious men – and so the question can be asked whether they are genuine “extra-mural” churches rather than frauds and quacks.

We do hope all these issues will become academic and moot as we move into official, formal and canonical communion with Rome. We will not only be praying una cum the Pope in the Canon of the Mass, but we will also have bits of paper signed by the Pope to say that he recognises us to be real Catholics! The years of wandering in the desert will be at an end, and legal and moral will be reunited in their happy marriage.

I hope, that once this happens, we will not be tempted to sneer upon others from our ivory towers of canonicity, but rather reach out to all Christians with compassion and understanding for why they are in that particular situation. The Pope could have sneered at the TAC, saying that we were vagante quacks. He did not, and has opened his arms to us in our poverty and the humility of our bishops being ready to lay their own necks on the block. Let us read the Parable of the Two Debtors – many times, and meditate upon it!

We have understood a vital distinction. Many others have not and continue to cause confusion and heartbreak to the simple. Let us get to work!

Sarum Code

The story is doing the rounds that a wall memorial in Salisbury Cathedral had been removed for cleaning or repairs, or something of the like.

Experts in medieval texts are invited to interpret the fragments of writing on the wall, dating from the fifteenth century. Perhaps it will turn out to be a rota for those responsible for changing the candles and cleaning the pricket stands.

The bright red lettering is not on the wall but superimposed on the photo.

Now, let imagination run wild and think of what Dan Brown would have made of this, presumably after finding the Faith through some kind of revelation. Could this be a prophecy of the conversion of England through the Ordinariates and the revival of the venerable Use of Sarum?

Wishful thinking or an intention for our prayers?

English / Anglican Patrimony – Eccentricity

Another aspect of our English heritage perhaps has little to do with institutional religion, but is strongly associated with the Englishman’s individuality and “homeliness”. But, don’t go to England and expect to find sixty million eccentrics. However, you might find more of that colourful breed in England rather than France, Germany or Switzerland.

One of my favourite characters was a man I have personally known, Fr. Quintin Montgomery-Wright (1914-1996), who is mentioned in the Valle Adurni blog. I spent several months with Fr. Montgomery in 1982. He was originally an Anglican, serving as assistant Curate in a north London ’spikey’ parish during the war. He went with his faithful down the tunnels to the London Underground railway, which was used as an air raid shelter during the horrific bombings of the 1940 Blitz. He became a Catholic during the war and after a stint in the Westminster Archdiocese joined the Diocese of Bayeux. Why France? From what he told me, I don’t think he found a good convert’s welcome in the Catholic Church in England at the time! Most French know just about zilch about Anglicanism, though I have found them just as suspicious of converts as anyone else.

Fr. Montgomery was an amazing fellow. He had stacks and stacks of vestments, and did the liturgy the old Norman way, like Sarum. There were little blue dalmatics for altar boys, and I often sang as a coped Ruler at Sunday Mass at Le Chamblac. He vested on the Lady chapel altar (the church’s south transept). The Judica me psalm was said at the Lady altar and in procession. He likewise said the Prologue of St John on the way from the high altar back to the Lady chapel. At the time, I though he was just being odd, but this was the medieval and pre-Tridentine way of celebrating.

English eccentrics come in every variety, from the monocled priest in Normandy, to the train spotter, to the gentleman who keeps his lawn immaculate, grows a handlebar moustache or wears an Edwardian frock coat, from the crazy inventor to people who might actually be in need of professional help. It is particularly associated with the idea of being out of the box! Edith Sitwell wrote:

Eccentricity is not, as some would believe, a form of madness. It is often a kind of innocent pride, and the man of genius and the aristocrat are frequently regarded as eccentrics because genius and aristocrat are entirely unafraid of and uninfluenced by the opinions and vagaries of the crowd.

Sir Barnes Wallis (1887 –1979), Engineer and inventor of the famous Dambusters' bouncing bomb among innumerable other achievements

A point could be made for comparing the English eccentric with the Fool for God of Russian spirituality. He doesn’t care what others think, and differentiates himself from bourgeois convention. He is the ultimate non-conformist. They are often men (and a few women) of giftedness, genius and extreme creativity. The mind of this sort of person is original, anti-conformist and anarchical.

Some eccentrics are cranks, rather than geniuses. Others still have mental disorders like Asperger Syndrome that handicap one aspect of their cognitive functions and enhance another. Thus an uncommunicative boy is able to do calculations way beyond the mental abilities of many mathematicians! Some people put on an affectation of crankiness or dottiness to draw attention to themselves, whilst remaining untalented and sad individuals. I have no pretence to expertise in this field of human psychology, and some things are best left to the professionals.

The Englishman is wildly eccentric, or self-effacing, or just down-to-earth ordinary. Perhaps eccentricity is as hard to define as “normality” and toeing the line. Who are we to judge? Were not some of the greatest Saints eccentrics in one way or another – the Curé d’Ars, St Philip Neri, St Francis of Assisi and the Russian Fools for God I mentioned above?

It might seems a strange subject for The Anglo Catholic, but we might find that much of the creative genius of Anglo-Catholicism has been the doing of many an English eccentric.

The Use of Hymns

This article was submitted to The Anglo-Catholic by Fr. Michael Gray of The Traditional Anglican Church, the English province of the TAC. We are thankful for this contribution to our reflections on sacred music.

* * *

A guide to the use of hymns, a study in practical patrimony

It is too easy to take the use of hymns for granted, and to decide what is to be sung at the last moment, without serious consideration. There is a better way, which gives respect to a significant part of our patrimony! For convenience, I assume that most English parishes will (and generally should) use either English Hymnal (EH) or Ancient and Modern Revised (AMR) as the main book – in both cases not the recent revisions but their predecessors. The even older version of Ancient and Modern (“Standard Edition”) is also possible. References in this text are to those versions.

A historical survey

The Church of England has only ever had one obligatory hymn, if we define that as a metrical text in English. That is the choice of translations of ”Veni creator spiritus” in the Ordinal, an office which is not likely to be encountered in many parishes.

The Church of England allowed but never required, before and after service but not within it, metrical psalms according to the “Old Version” (Sternhold, Hopkins and others) and later the “New Version” (Tate and Brady). A few of these survive in modern hymn books, such as “All people that on earth do dwell” (EH 365) and “Have mercy Lord on me” (EH 74). In practice, both the Old and the New Versions had a slightly wider repertoire than psalms. There were metrical versions of the ten commandments, Lord’s Prayer and creeds. There were even a few original compositions such as “O Lord turn not away thy face” (EH 84) and “While shepherds watched their flocks by night”(EH 30).

More >

Anglican Patrimony – Englishness and Stability

Part of our Anglican patrimony is simply being English. That sounds chauvinistic to our American and Australian brethren, not forgetting the South Africans and people living in every other corner of the erstwhile Empire. Anglicans are also to be found in Wales, Scotland and the two Irelands. I write from the point of view of being myself an Englishman. I was born into a family carrying one of the most widespread surnames of Lancashire and Yorkshire, one hundred years after my great grandfather who, among his other achievements, navigated the Cape Horn under sail.

There are probably as many ways of being English as English people living in England, and many English people are not Anglicans, but are Roman Catholics or Christians of various non-conformist denominations. Perhaps one of our greatest characteristic (and weaknesses) is our reticence to affirm “absolute truth” or any other absolute principle, and to tolerate other people in our sense of fair play and our desire for social harmony and peace.

More >