Posts tagged Anglican Identity

Ottawa Citizen Reports on Cardinal Levada’s Kingston Talk


My colleague at the Ottawa Citizen, Jennifer Green, has a report in today’s paper on Cardinal William Levada’s talk in Kingston, Ontario Saturday night, March 6.

I will be writing a longer version for Catholic papers that I hope to file about midday today.  Here’s an excerpt of Jenny’s piece, with my bolds.  I think she did a pretty good job of encapsulating some of the key points, though I have some minor quibbles (see below).

William Cardinal Levada, prefect the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told a dinner of about 300 in Kingston that “union with the Catholic Church is the goal of ecumenism (at least), we phrase it that way.”

“Yet the very process of moving towards union works a change in churches …”

The Catholic Church is enriched when another group adds its means of worship, although he hastened to add it would not be any “essential elements of sanctification or truth.” Those were already provided to the Church by Christ.

“Visible union with the Catholic Church does not mean absorption to the greater whole, as a teaspoon of sugar would be lost in a gallon of coffee.”

Instead, he compared it to an orchestra with “… all instruments tuned to the piano, … all playing same notes of doctrinal clarity … the beautiful and inviting sound of the world of God.”

The issue has become pertinent after Pope Benedict XVI made overtures to traditional Anglicans, particularly in Britain, who cannot agree with recent moves to ordain female bishops and accommodate gay clergy and “marriages” or unions of gay congregants.

In October, Levada announced that new rules would allow disaffected Anglicans to convert by parish or even by diocese. They would have their own governance within the Roman church, meaning they could keep traditions such as their liturgy.

Rome said it wasn’t “poaching” Anglicans, just responding to requests from traditionalist bishops.

Just as I don’t like the word “disaffected” as the adjective to describe us, I’m not crazy about “traditionalist” either.   “Traditional” is better and more accurate.   The “ist” smacks of ideology, as if our being traditional is some kind of fetish, or form of legalism, a focus on the externals of rites and rubrics without regard to the content of the Catholic faith.  We are capital “T” Traditional in that we believe in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition as our authority. And interestingly, the bishops in the U.K. are not “traditionalist” in the sense of being Prayer Book traddies, while we in Canada can be accused of that.

Cardinal Levada did not (as I recall) mention the TAC in his talk.  I’ll correct this if I discover in going over my notes this morning.  Were gay blessings on the horizon in the early 1990s, shortly after the TAC came together, and the first informal talk with Rome took place? I don’t think so.

Our desire for unity has always been a positive desire, one of obedience to Christ’s command and prayer that we be one in Him.

One picture shows Cardinal Levada greeting Traditional Anglican Primate Archbishop John Hepworth for the first time at the gathering.  The group shot shows the crowd at the Catholic Christian Outreach fundraiser.  Jenny Green is in the bottom right corner, wearing the blue/green dress.  The empty seat next to her is mine.  For more pictures of the event, go here.

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.

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.

More Patrimony

A Trustees’ meeting at Pusey House today meant I was visiting Oxford for the first time since the opening of the restored Ashmolean Museum.  For me, the prize of their collection is the Alfred Jewel.  It is a marvellous piece of craftsmanship, but its historial connection is even more important than its beauty.  Alfred the Great reigned over a kingdom which had its centre in Winchester, our local Cathedral City.  When he sought to restore the monastic life after the depradations of the Danes, he equipped a number of monasteries with the Scriptures, and a copy of St Augustine’s ‘Pastoral Care’ which he had translated into English. He also sent them an aestel, a pointer to be used in public reading.  The Alfred Jewel is thought to be part of just such an aestel, and it was found buried in a Somerset field.  It too has an Old English inscription, saying “Alfred had me made”.

So I sought it out.  Once it was displayed, isolated, in a little display case among various Byzantine objects.  Now it is in its proper context, and even shares its case with a smaller but similar object, found nearer to Oxford, at Nuneham Courtney.  Alfred was greatly concerned with the recovery of learning among the clergy, both secular and religious, of his kingdom.  He was also the founder of the Royal Navy.  Both these very English concerns predate the invasion by the Norman French in 1066, who made us speak their language for nearly four hundred years.  The English of Shakespeare and of Cranmer would have been very different without the efforts of Alfred and his monks – and later of Geoffrey Chaucer.  Language matters, and the language of worship matters exceedingly.  How shall we achieve, in the Ordinariate, English which is “understanded of the People” yet has the rhythm and dignity appropriate to worship?  No good simply relying on history to provide our models.  The ‘Pastoral Rule’ is not easy to understand in the Early English of Alfred; and the Canterbury Tales take some fathoming.  Much as we may regret it, the same is increasingly true of Shakespeare and Cranmer.  We must do better than the Book of Divine Worhip of the Anglican Use.  But where are our liturgist-poets for today?

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 >

The Record of Anglicanism (Expanded)

This is the second part of a paper sent to me by Fr. Michael Gray on behalf of Fr. Michael Silver, who is priest in charge of St. Alban and St. Henry, Letchworth, a provisional parish of the TTAC in England. He has a web site.

The first part was published here last December 31st.

* * *

Not Anglicans but Angels?

There were once two pending possibilities that seemed remote: London getting the 2012 Olympic Games and the Pope making provision for the corporate reception of Anglicans. Ah well, applied-prophecy was not an option in my degree, no donkey-detection for us. Both prospects have struck alarm in some, whilst generating euphoria in others. Thus the Pope’s invitation was issued 20th October, 2009 whilst on the 8th February, 2010 the Archbishop of York was reported as saying that any such converts would not be “proper Roman Catholics.” This is excellent news because those Anglicans to whom this applies have no intention of becoming (whatever might be meant by) “proper Roman Catholics.” Traditional Anglicans are duty bound to seek the visible unity of Christ’s Church and the offer on the table is from Pope Benedict. One might have dared to hope that even an Anglican archbishop would have known the difference between a “Roman Catholic” and a separated, ethnic communion (and one cannot get much more ethnic than “Church of England”) reconciled to the Holy See. The Pope’s press-release has reopened that delicate topic of Anglican identity and purpose. The underlying irony is that it is we “continuers,” the upholders of Anglicanism, who were first to approach the Pope on this matter.

More >

Eric Lionel Mascall As Anglican Patrimony

February 14, 2010 marks the seventeenth anniversary of the death of Eric Lionel Mascall, one of the great luminaries of English Anglo-Catholicism in the Twentieth Century, a man to whom his distant kinsman through marriage, Fr. Aidan Nichols, O.P., dedicated his admirable book, The Panther and the Hind: A Theological History of Anglicanism in 1993 — a book of which a new edition may be in prospect — referring to Mascall in the dedication as magistro catholicae veritatis, which one might render as a “masterful teacher of catholic truth.”  He would be pleased, I think, at the prospect of the “rescue mission” for elements of the “Anglican patrimony” offered in Anglicanorum Coetibus, and at the place within that patrimony which his writings will surely come to hold.

Unlike his friend Dom Gregory Dix, Mascall did not espouse an overtly “Anglo-Papalist” ecclesiological stance, but neither did he espouse an anti-papalist one such as did Austin Farrer, another one of his friends.  His criticisms of some of the excesses and conundrums of a “hyper-papalist” ecclesiology in the last two chapters of his The Recovery of Unity: A Theological Approach (1958) are cogent and forceful because of their limited scope, and given his explicit acceptance of the postulates that Christ conferred a primacy over the Church and the other apostles upon St. Peter, that that primacy was transmissible to his successors, and that his successors are the Bishops of Rome.  One might even claim to find in the writings of Joseph Ratzinger, now happily reigning as Benedict XVI, some of the same kinds of criticisms and reservations, and one might likewise see in Vatican II the beginning of a remedy for some of these “excesses,” while the greater “excesses” of theological revisionists have underlined the need for a magisterial authority rooted in the Tradition which it both serves and defends.

Mascall has chronicled his life in charming and full detail in Saraband: The Memoirs of E. L. Mascall, which appeared in 1992, months before his death (he once told me that his preferred subtitle was “the memoirs of a senior citizen,” as he was much taken with that American term).  Briefly, here — he was born December 12, 1905, read Mathematics as a Cambridge undergraduate, taught Mathematics from 1928 to 1931, then studied for ordination, and was ordained in the Church of England in 1933.  Curacies followed, then in 1937 he became Sub-Warden of Lincoln Theological College, in 1945 a don at Christ Church, Oxford, and in 1962 Professor of Historical Theology at King’s College, London, from which he retired in 1973.  During his years in London he lived in a suite of rooms in the top floor of the presbytery of St. Mary’s, Bourne Street, an Anglo-Catholic “shrine church” close to Sloane Square, and he continued to live there after his retirement until ill-health necessitated his retirement to a nursing home in 1987 where he passed the remaining five years of his life in some loneliness and among mostly demented fellow patients.

I had discovered the works of Mascall on my own, as a library-haunting undergraduate at Georgetown University in the early 1970s.  Later, as a graduate student at Yale I happened to read in a newspaper that he was preaching the three-hour’s devotion at the Church of the Transfiguration in Manhattan on Good Friday, and so I decided to go down to the service, and after it met him.  He invited me to correspond with him, and when I told him that I would be leaving Yale for Cambridge in 1978 he invited me for tea with him at his flat.

That was for me the beginning of a long and valued acquaintanceship.  In the years that I lived in Britain, 1978 to 1986, we tended to meet three or four times a year, and more often during the two years I lived in London.  In subsequent summer stays in London I traveled to the nursing home in Sussex in which he lived to visit him, for the last time in August 1992, some six months before his death.  Our conversation ranged through many areas, theological, historical and ecclesiastical.  He gave me copies of many of his books and articles, and we discussed others.  In his earlier years he had professed a robust Anglo-Catholicism, believing that the Church of England was a truly “Catholic church,” although unfortunately (in his view) separated from the mainstream of Western Catholicism by the self-interested actions of Tudor monarchs in the Sixteenth Century, and the subservience to them of Archbishop Cranmer (for whom he expressed to me more than once a thorough detestation), and although interested in contemporary Roman Catholic theology, had many lively and ongoing contacts with the Orthodox world through the Fellowship of St. Alban and St. Sergius, of which he had been “present a the creation” in 1927 and in which he was to be active for over sixty years, but by the time that I met him his confidence in the tenability of such a view had weakened.

There were various reasons for this.  One was what he saw as the remarkable “opening” of the Roman Catholic Church to ecumenical activities, discussion and hospitality — a hospitality he personally enjoyed in various Catholic venues in Rome, Europe and America from the late 1960s onwards.  He had a strong admiration for Pope Paul VI, an admiration that seems to have been reciprocal, and as one who, as he told me, had always thought the 1930 Lambeth Conference’s acceptance of the practice of contraception an error, he was a strong supporter of that pope’s 1968 encyclical Humanae Vitae.  Secondly, he had come to believe since around 1968 and in connection with that year’s Lambeth Conference, that the Anglican Communion was becoming more and more “unprincipled” in its ecumenical dealings with other Christian traditions, and more tolerant than was wise of heterodox theologians and their theologies.  His correspondence, now in the archives of Pusey House, Oxford, contains some tense and even fraught exchanges with his old friend Michael Ramsey, the Archbishop of Canterbury, over some of the resolutions of the 1968 Lambeth Conference, and over the Anglican-Methodist unity votes of 1969 and 1972, which the Methodists supported, as did Ramsey, but which failed to achieve the requisite majority in the Church of England’s General Synod, and which, in their final form, Mascall opposed.  Thirdly, he was an “impossibilist” on the ordination of women, at least to the priesthood and episcopate (I never heard him express an opinion on the ordination of women to the diaconate) and felt that to “ordain” women destroyed the credibility of the “Catholic claims” of any church body that did so.

From the 1960s onwards his more “polemical” books, such as The Secularization of Christianity (1965), Theology and the Gospel of Christ (1977) and Whatever Happened to the Human Mind (1980) — none of which dealt solely, or even mostly, with matters of Anglican concern — reflected this concern with “things gone awry.”  His final unpublished book manuscript, now in the Pusey House archives, which seems to date from about 1985 and had the title The Overarching Question: Divine Revelation or Human Invention, is, like these other works, not primarily Anglican in its focus, but has a final chapter, “And Anglicanism Whither?,” in which he attacks both the synodical structures of modern Anglican churches, in which truth is “created” by legislative-assembly-style votes, as with the “ordination” of women, and the inability of successive Lambeth Conferences to exercise the type of authority which he believed was inherent in the episcopate as understood by Catholics.  In what seems to have been remnants of an earlier draft version of the book he attacked the Anglican theory of “comprehensiveness” and the related idea that it was the glory of the Church of England and Anglicanism generally that it possessed three “schools of thought,” the “catholic,” the “evangelical,” and the “liberal,” each one of which embraced a part of the truth but each of which needed the others to “complement” and “balance” it — he saw it rather as an administrative devise or plausible fiction to conceal the fact of three parties or groups “severally holding three irreconcilable views of the nature of the Christian religion” existing alongside one another in the same church; and in it he went on to criticize what he saw as a return of a form of the Anglican “Liberal Catholicism” of the 1920s and 30s, in which a “magisterium” of academic scholars would be the ultimate arbiters of Christian Truth and Church Tradition.

On my final visit to Mascall in August 1992 I found him visibly and emotionally upset in a way that I had never previously experienced.  The Women’s Ordination (Priesthood) Bill was to come up for its final vote in November of that year — it squeaked by the necessary two-thirds majority by only two votes, the votes of Evangelical laymen who changed their minds (or at least their votes) in response to the emotional pleas in favor of the bill by the new Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey — and he was alarmed a the prospect.  “I know what I shall have to do if the bill passes,” he said to me, “but I don’t know if I shall have the strength and health to do it.  I hope I die first.”  I didn’t dare to ask him what “it” was, and he did die first: the General Synod did approve the measure in November 1992, but the passage of the legislation through Parliament subsequently, and the “Act of Synod” providing compensation for those opponents of women’s ordination who would feel compelled to leave the church, and a scheme of Provincial Episcopal Visitors (or “flying bishops”) for those who wished to remain in the Church of England — a scheme now evidently to be withdrawn and terminated in connection with the legislation to allow women bishops — ensured that the measure did not come into legal effect until February 1994, a year after Mascall’s death.

What would he have decided?  After his death I made some attempts to contact the executor of his will, listed in his obituary in The Times as “Col. Robert Gould,” but to no avail.  A friend of mine inquired some years ago of the recently-deceased former Bishop of Chichester, Eric Kemp (1915-2009), a friend of Mascall’s, who in his memoirs said that in the unlikely event that he would ever feel compelled to leave the Church of England he would become Orthodox, who replied that he thought he would become Orthodox.  Another friend made the same inquiry of the late Msgr. Graham Leonard (1923-2010), a former Bishop of London who became a Catholic in 1994, and likewise a friend of Mascall, who responded that he was sure that he would have become a Catholic.  Then a chance telephone conversation with a friend led to another with a colleague of that friend, who identified “Col. Robert Gould” as in fact “Fr. Robert Gould,” a man who in his youth had been a colonel in the “territorial army” (the British equivalent of the National Guard), had then been ordained in the Church of England, served as a priest in it for many years, until he had become a Catholic at the time of Mascall’s death, and had resumed the use of the “courtesy title” of colonel until his subsequent ordination in the Catholic Church.  I was given Fr. Gould’s telephone number at the retirement home in which he lived, and in subsequent conversations with him learned that Mascall, whose confessor Fr. Gould had been, had after much agonizing come to the conclusion that he would have to leave the Church of England if the legislation should pass — but that by the time it did pass his advancing debilitation had reached such a state that he concluded that he did not have the mental faculties to make such a decision.  At the end, though, it seems that he was a Catholic in desire if not in fact.  We should remember him today, and on this day, as someone whose thought, writings — and lived experience — forms a bright tessera in the mosaic of the Anglican patrimony that is moving towards reconstitution within the Catholic Church.  Perhaps he might one day be a candidate for canonization, a suggestion made recently concerning Edward Bouverie Pusey, as one of the earthly inspirers and heavenly patrons of this movement.

Erastianism

Many Anglicans have heard or read the word Erastian or Erastianism without really understanding what the word really means. Erastianism is a political theory of absolute state primacy over the church. The idea comes from Thomas Erastus (1524-1583), a Calvinist who debated whether religious leaders had the right to punish sinners and dissidents in matters of doctrine. He argued that sinners (against church precepts or morality, or those who for example denied the Trinity) should be punished by the State.

The idea of the State in control of the Church is an old one, and the ultimate cause of the increase in the political power of the Papacy. The Church under Constantine is the first example of an official established Church. History is characterised by the Church being under the control of a strong State and being independent at times when the secular power was weak or non-existent. Soloviev quoted Saint Jerome as saying: Ecclesia persecutionibus crevit; post quam ad christianos principes venit, potentia quidem et divitiis maior, sed virtutibus minor facta est (The Church firstly languished under persecution. After this, she turned to Christian rulers who gave her wealth and power, but she thereby grew weaker in virtue).

The power the Church obtained from kings and emperors prepared the way towards the schisms between Rome and the Oriental Patriarchates, Luther, King Henry VIII and the Church of England, the Church of Utrecht and the Old Catholics. The principle of Cuius Rex eius religio (literally “whose king, whose religion” – the “Vicar of Bray syndrome” – not having any real religious convictions but just going along with one’s country’s ruler, and changing as the regime changed) ran parallel with the rival claims of the Popes. The Church in Russia and the Balkans was subjected to imperial domination, a sort of cæsaro-papalism, and in the West, the rule was papo-cæsarism. The Anglican theologian Eric Mascall, in The Recovery of Unity, made the remarkable observation that “the causes of Christian disunity are to be found in the agreements of Christians rather than in their disagreements”. Does not all this ring a bell in the collaboration of churchmen in present-day anti-Christian agendas?

The historian will easily identify the first step of the rise of the Papacy in the Gregorian Reform undertaken by after Gregory VII (1073–85). The essential theory behind this reform, which imposed clerical celibacy in the western Church, consisted of affirming that the Church was founded by God and entrusted with the task of embracing all mankind in a single society in which divine will is the only law; that, in her capacity as a divine institution, she is supreme over all human structures, especially the secular state; and that the pope, in his role as head of the Church under the petrine commission, is the vice-regent of God on earth, so that disobedience to him implies disobedience to God: or, in other words, a defection from Christianity. This, under Boniface VIII, who issued Unam sanctam in 1302, became the two swords. Both spiritual and temporal power were to be under the pope’s jurisdiction, and that kings were subordinate to the power of the Church.

Now we understand the reason for the revolt of Elizabeth I and Henry VIII before her against the Papacy! It was simple rivalry over who pretended political power, the local Monarch or the Pope as Emperor of the world. This is the whole key to understanding what has gone on in the Christian world since the fourth century, but especially since the mid eleventh century, which was – no coincidence – the fateful year 1054, the schism between Rome and the Byzantine Church.

As the power of the Papacy became extreme through centuries of weak kings and princes, that power went to their heads and corruption set in. What do you do when you want a check on the Pope’s power? You’ve got it. Put the Church under secular authority. That is what the Reformation was all about. The doctrines of Protestantism, the famous solas, was all about making priests and bishops unnecessary. If the clergy is not necessary for salvation, you do away with the Pope, bishops and priests at one fell swoop – but don’t imagine for a moment that this was to give freedom to the people! This is where Erastus and the tyranny of the Protestant State came in. The people would go on tithing, but no longer to the clergy but to line the pockets of politicians and corrupt officials.

When I consider all this, I look upon the demise of Establishment Anglicanism with a feeling of relief. I compare it with the demise of European Establishment Catholicism in the nineteenth century, in the wake of the French Revolution. The doctrine of the separation of Church and State, as it developed in nineteenth century liberalism, was called madness by Gregory XVI in 1832 when he condemned Lamennais. But, it was the only solution for the freedom of the Church from atheistic and anti-clerical political authorities. This is what the document on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae, was all about. The State and the Church are two radically separate entities.

Some traditionalists would like to see the State reinforce their agenda and uphold the Social Kingship of Christ. They are living in a fantasy world. The people they would ask to punish heretics by putting them in prison and making them pay fines are those who legislate for abortion, divorce, same-sex marriage and curbs on religious expressions in public places. But, the price of disestablishment is not having the grand buildings one had and the money to finance their upkeep. The Church becomes a private enterprise and has to be financed as such, either by getting people to tithe or earning money.

The Church lives in a world of negative secularism, the ideology that has reigned in France since the Revolution and the anti-clerical era of the 1900’s. It now characterises England’s New Labour and political correctness. The Church does just fine if it collaborates with all this stuff, accepts secular moral / ethical tenets, waters down any requirement religion will make of our moral conduct. But, from the moment the Church complains about abortion, equal opportunities laws to an unreasonable extent – and so forth, persecution is not far away.

I am brought to realise that one aspect of Anglican patrimony will have to go, that of Erastianism or its modern equivalent. It is ironic that some of those who are most vocal in upholding “classical” Anglicanism are those who live in countries where the Church is free in a free State. Isn’t it amazing that you don’t find this way of thinking in England? A few days ago, I received a series of highly rude and aggressive e-mails from a person claiming to be an ordinary Anglican lay parishioner in the north of England. I am English, and know our people have lived under the Established Church. I examined the headers of the e-mails in question, and found the IP address based in Florida – an American! Of course! Is it not amazing that those who live in a free country are those who often despise the freedom of other people’s consciences? Thank goodness there are some wonderful American Anglicans and Catholics who are grateful to be free and love the freedom of others!

At last, we have a Pope who is a theologian and a historian. He has no ambition to be a secular emperor, but he does take his role to govern the Church seriously, and will not allow himself to be trodden underfoot by the atheist and the negative secularist. The Church has to live in a secular world, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. The USA is an example of a secular state that traditionally respects the freedom of conscience and all religions. The price of the Church’s freedom from political interference is the freedom of non-religious people from specifically religious tenets. We can’t have it both ways.

For the first four centuries of the Church’s existence, Christians lived either under persecution or indifference. The Christian community celebrated the liturgy and the Sacraments, studied the Scriptures and the Fathers, prayed and waited for the Parousia. Today, it is the life of monks, and increasingly of the rest of us. We try to have a moral influence on the world as much as possible, but we should try to do so through positive witness and not violence and shows of fanatical behaviour. We are free, but we no longer have the power churches once had. The price is paid and our survival depends on the authenticity of our religion and the quality of our faith, love and prayer.

We will be observed and judged for our love for each other.

What American Roman Catholics Can Learn from Anglicans

This post is reproduced with the gracious permission of Br. Stephen, O.Cist. Please note that the church referred to in the article is home to a “broad church” Episcopalian congregation.
 

The very Richardsonian Christ Church, La Crosse.


 
It was a year ago yesterday, long before the announcement of Anglicanorum Coetibus, that I wrote the piece below on what American Catholics might learn from Anglicans.

Much has been written of late about the Anglican patrimony and what it offers to Roman Catholics in terms of liturgy. This piece is a bit broader in that it looks more at what some of us have been referring to as the “Anglican Ethos,” to identify those important intangibles that aren’t as easily cataloged or debated as the more concrete elements of the Anglican Patrimony such as prayers and hymns.

More >

Full Homely Divinity

I am quite surprised that this site – Full Homely Divinity – hasn’t been mentioned here.

It concentrates on the old folk traditions of English parish religion and spirituality, both in medieval English Catholicism and its survival in post-Reformation Anglicanism. I have often found this site useful for matters like Sarum Lenten Array (which I use) and things like hot cross buns on Good Friday and the Easter Sepulcre. Thus, liturgical rites fit in and harmonise with popular traditions.

This site (I don’t know who is running it) is entirely non-polemical and irenic in its tone. It seems to be independent of “party interests”. It supports the use of the Book of Common Prayer, but I see no sectarian objections to the use of the English, Anglican or Sarum missals.

Take a look at this site, and comments would be welcome.

Practical Problems Revisited

I wrote the following comment on Fr. Gray’s essay “An Anglican Patrimony” that was posted on The Anglo-Catholic yesterday.  As I see that it is at risk of being buried and lost, and in order to elicit input on what I believe is a very important subject, I have reposted it here.

Although I do not presume to have anything to add to the content of this essay, nevertheless I am struggling to find much here that can be pulled directly from our history and implemented in our present condition.

This is a real, practical concern for me personally, because I am just starting out as a priest and it is likely I will be tasked with leading a mission. Pretty much my entire Anglican life has been in the ACA, where an ASA of 100 is a pretty big parish, and the congregation commutes in from a wide area. Trying to conduct the Daily Office in church as described, under these conditions, would be a vain pursuit. Hardly anyone could come more than occasionally, and one cleric can’t write two or three 20-minute sermons a day and have time for anything else. Incorporating choir and organ (if you have an organ and an organist) would require yet more unreasonable effort. It will take a lot of people, money and time to (re)build that culture. If we have to stick our Anglicanism on the shelf for a century or more, then we may as well just forget it and become “regular” Roman Catholics.

So what can we do in the near term that will capture the essence, but that can be done within our resources? At the risk of oversimplification, much of it seems to boil down to the use, embellishment, and enjoyment of Holy Scripture. A good deal of that is built into the BCP liturgy as it is. Moreover, there is provision in the US 1928 BCP for an abbreviated Morning Prayer to be followed immediately by Holy Communion; that can be a way to introduce more psalmody and lessons on a Sunday morning. We can conduct honest-to-goodness Bible studies, to which folks respond very well in my experience. How about studying the aforementioned Anglican spiritual classics in men’s or women’s prayer groups?

Other ideas, anyone?

An Anglican Patrimony

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 called to be positive about our Anglican patrimony. So we will do well to consider what it is (or was) and how easily we can make it available to the wider church.

I do not think the specialist culture of cathedral music and spectacular buildings is important here, since we can generally bring neither. Nor are the great Anglican theological works (because anybody who can appreciate them can read them without our help). We should be looking at simpler aspects of recent Anglican practice. My own thoughts are of the England of my youth; others may have something else to contribute.

We should perhaps start from Sunday congregational morning and evening prayer. These are somewhat accidental developments – it was only with the Shortened Services Act that it was established that Morning Prayer could be a separate act of worship with its own sermon. We shall meet many of the components again, so I will at this stage merely mention the relatively long scripture readings, the psalms sung to Anglican chant, the hymns, the prayers which became familiar to the congregation by repetition, and the substantial sermon. Evensong lasted better because it was not in competition with the Eucharist for the main morning “slot”, but it has been in decline as a congregational act. We in the Continuing church have not generally been able to maintain it.

I have already mentioned hymns. These are quite recent in Anglicanism – the publishing of hymn books to companion the Book of Common Prayer only begins in the latter part of the nineteenth century. The main books are fairly easily found – not just English Hymnal (1933 revision), but also Ancient and Modern Standard Edition (1922) and (with reservations) Ancient and Modern Revised. All of them are largely built on the Prayer Book – contrast the way the Wesleys organised their hymn book around the stages of conversion. No hymn book is perfect; all contain dead wood and a few hymns best avoided because of dubious doctrine; none has all the hymns we want to use, or all the tunes. Most spoil the authors’ words. The point is less the preserving of the books than the congregational participation, which means that words and music enter into memory. We in the Continuing church have persisted with the hymns, but probably our practice has only used a third as many hymns a Sunday as the serious Christian of my youth might have experienced.

I have already mentioned sermons. In my youth one could still expect a twenty minute sermon at Evensong, with all the church in darkness except for the pulpit light. While the sermon never dominated the service as it did in nonconformity, it was a serious, well-prepared part of worship. This is a long-standing Anglican tradition – consult the internet site “Lectionary Central” for a selection of older Anglican sermons. It may be hard to restore; it requires trained hearers as well as competent clergy with time to prepare sermons (or indeed to make wise selections from published material).

There are many familiar prayers in Anglicanism. Curiously, the Prayer Book should mostly be recited to a passive congregation rather than spoken by them, but as in so many other matters the rubrics were increasingly ignored. One way or other, many prayers became part of lay experience – so that they could be recited from memory. This includes the better contributions to the “after the third collect” slot (Milner White, Colquhoun) which were one of the few generally adopted results of 1928. Again, our inability to sustain Evensong has not helped to preserve this as an active part of the patrimony.

Anglicanism had poetry long before it had hymns. Officially, there were the metrical psalms. But many writers wrote poems (not hymns) to assist meditative prayer. One can instance Herbert, Traherne and Keble. The books will not be lost; the task is to restore the lay as well as clerical practice of using them for the purpose.

Anglicanism never had a large Catechism. Instead, it had a tradition of what one might call “discipline manuals” if the term had not been reserved to puritanism. I mention Holy Living and Holy Dying, The Whole Duty of Man, A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life, The Way of Blessedness (less familiar than the others – Traherne). If these are from the classic period, there are also more recent works like The King’s Highway (Carleton). Our Canadian brethren benefit from His Worthy Praise (Palmer). The difficulty is that most of these works have to be used with intellectual adjustment for different conditions; we will have to pray that we be given somebody with the genius to write afresh.

Anglicanism had a strong tradition of popular theology. Major theologians sometimes wrote simple books (Gore, Farrer), as well as those who did not claim to be theologians such as C. S. Lewis and Dorothy Sayers. These books were printed and sold in large numbers; they were read. Of course, the confidence has gone, and part of the problem is that modern theological writing is generally highly technical. Also, many of us probably assume that any modern book is heretical; both SPCK and the main Evangelical chain of Christian bookshops have recently failed, which must be partly due to lack of demand for new books, partly due to loss of trust. We have all the rebuilding to do. It is no criticism of the simple books that they “date”. They were never expected to serve for long. Some may still be useful for a time, but we do need to recover the confidence to write – and read. Fortunately, we will probably be able to use electronic distribution rather than the printed book.

Some Anglican laity were given to disciplined Bible study. There is every reason to recover this. Indeed, the tradition of writing practical commentaries was important (Gore on Romans, Ephesians, Sermon on the Mount; Temple on John). There is no reason why this practice should be surrendered to fundamentalists. Indeed, we badly a need to recover an informed use of scripture (which does not deny modern knowledge).

Anglicanism had its own spiritual tradition. It is related to the great medieval tradition, of course, but did have a life of its own. Most of us know Underhill. One of the blessings of theological college was to be introduced also to Bede Frost, Martin Thornton, Hubert Northcott and others. Again, the straitened circumstances of Continuing Anglicanism have not helped us to maintain more than basic spirituality; we have to rebuild.

There was Anglican social concern (Temple is the most obvious figure, but even the papal response to Saepius Officio commends this aspect of the Church of England!) It has been lost; probably Christians have so little influence on English secular society that it is not a major priority to recover it.

There was Anglican humour and satire. Our defence of our origins has not advanced much beyond the Tale of a Tub (Swift) which we should probably all study. We are too tempted to use satire against each other (the Screwtape tradition should be abandoned). For fresh work, the time has passed.

I have said little about Eucharistic life. One reason is because this is not in our gift, as the content of the liturgy will be determined elsewhere and much of the detail will be constrained by practicality. Another is that others have already written much. Perhaps I agree with Dean Inge that the best of Anglican spirituality has not been centred on the Eucharist. Anglo-Catholicism is a special case, but I think it is important to realise that the Anglican patrimony (even with respect to the Eucharist) is much wider than a rather brief phase of a particular group within Anglicanism.

There is a patrimony; but it has already largely been lost in the last fifty years. Preservation will not be easy; restoring to life will be hard, in some cases impossible or unwise. But it was, at best, good. If the Pope wants us to make that our specific vocation within the general life of the Church, it is time to realise what has been lost and begin the task of recovery.

What Would Bring Men Back to Church?

I have been having another look around the Catholic and Anglican blogosphere, and found this interesting article by Ruth Gledhill. This journalist is probably simplistic, but she makes some very good points (though she might well be doing so unconsciously).

Being a married male myself, I find some of the stereotypes somewhat naive. For example, we men are supposed to like being forward and aggressive, decorating churches with symbols of weapons, sports and virility rather than flowers and finery. Do we really object to singing love songs to a man (Christ)? Do we really think that a priest in cassock is dressed as a woman?

An association in England advocates trying to adapt churches for men. That’s a thought! I cast my mind back to my bedroom of when I was a little boy. It was full of plastic aeroplanes and ships, cars and animal skulls (my father is a retired veterinary surgeon). I kept mice and gerbils and I enjoyed reading books about science and technology. I climbed trees in the garden, went fishing and occasionally got into a fight. Would a boy like that become a priest? Well, I did. I still enjoy woodwork, working in the house – and I go dinghy sailing on the sea (which in moderate to heavy weather can be very sporting). I have never thought of decorating a church with guns, planes and boats (other than ex votos like you see in churches in fishing villages). All that stuff about “masculine” leather, black and flaming torches! I’m not a football hooligan! I’m not even interested in football. I’m quite happy with the old churches as they are. I must admit I prefer Romanesque, gothic and renaissance churches to baroque and 19th century pastiche. But that’s just me.

It’s true that we men baulk at sentimentalism and like something more real and profoundly spiritual. Now this quote strikes me:

The problem has become male culture versus church culture. Too many sermons talk about Jesus’ love, compassion and grace which are great but not male concepts. Men want to know about his great decision making and leadership. That is what they recognise. Churches are very pastorally driven whereas blokes are looking for decisions not discussions. The breakdown in most churches is now 70 per cent women to 30 per cent men.

Now there’s something in that, especially the bit about decisions rather than discussions. I’m not so sure about wanting to give women a monopoly on love, compassion and grace. Have we not seen all these in men Saints, just as determination and courage in women like Saint Catherine of Siena? Now, we’re getting somewhere. What if the Church just got on with the business of being the Church rather than having endless bureaucracy discussions and sterile dialogues designed not to achieve their goals?

Perhaps we could get somewhere by getting behind the bureaucratisation of the Church and the 19th century sentimentalism that has overflowed onto contemporary prayers and sappy singing. I spent years singing in men’s and boys’ choirs, practicing good church music for all periods from the Renaissance to modern times. Some women make good organists, but they are rare. That is a part of male church culture that is practically gone in many places.

There’s nothing girlish about the liturgy and serving Mass. Sometimes you get embarrassingly prissy men whose interest in lace albs and cottas is unhealthy! But, on the whole, the sanctuary has always for me and men of my generation been a male place. I suggest something that really attracts men to church is traditional liturgy and profound monastic-inspired spirituality, the real meat and something for us to get our teeth into.

Forget that stuff about decorating churches with football scarves and knives. Most of us real men just wouldn’t be interested. Ladies of the media – get real!

A Word to the Wise

I’ve been laid low these past few days with a bad case of cedar fever – a scourge known only to those who have ever lived amongst the South Texas junipers.  It’s an affliction resulting from breathing in the profuse pollen from said trees that sets an otherwise healthy person into spasms of eye-dabbing, nose-blowing, throat-clearing and body-aching.  It’s probably God’s way of telling Yankees that they should have stayed in the north, since the indigenous population doesn’t seem to suffer from it quite so severely.  But I’m not writing this to educe your sympathy (although a little would be nice); rather, I wish to assert a hearty second to what Fr. Chadwick states so well in his article, Diplomatic Niceties, and to make some further but related points.

When our parish was canonically erected in 1983 we found ourselves living in an archdiocese which was (then) quite liberal.  Those Catholics who were of a more conservative or traditional bent had been living a rather submerged existence for quite some time, and with the genesis of our parish there suddenly was a place that seemed, for many of these Catholics, to be heaven-sent.  Attendance at our Masses and other devotions showed a dramatic and immediate growth.  Because I was undeniably a naïf when it came to the realities of Catholic life in the trenches, I flattered myself into believing that they had come flocking only because of the magnetic nature of the Anglican Use, and the dignified beauty of our liturgical life.  For some, that probably was true; however, I learned quickly that many of our visitors were there for other reasons. 

Suddenly, our parishioners were being inundated with brochures outlining all sorts of obscure (at least to me) devotions and apparitions.  Pamphlets were being pressed into the hands of our new converts, some claiming the Pope wasn’t really the pope, or trying to show the invalidity of the “new” Mass, or that “Our Lady says thus-and-so.”  I discovered that our little parish was being used as a fertile field in which some Catholics with a particular theological, ecclesiastical, and political agenda wanted to sow their seeds.  I had to mature as a pastor pretty quickly, so that I could protect our little flock from these several well-meaning but misguided people.

Our experience is not unique.  Other Anglican Use parishes have sometimes had similar experiences, and I’m quite sure those who come into the Catholic Church through Anglicanorum coetibus will have such stories to tell one day.  I don’t say this because I think we should be somehow exclusive; but we do need to remember the particular purpose of the Ordinariates.  There will be occasions when our parishes will get swept up in some cause or issue which really isn’t ours.  That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be concerned with those things that are of concern to our fellow Catholics, but we have our own work to accomplish in the building up of God’s Kingdom, and the Holy Father has outlined it pretty clearly for us.  And as my grandmother used to say, “tend to your own knitting.”

Diplomatic Niceties

It is not my intention here to labour certain points made over the last couple of days, but I need to address a serious concern. This is a question of diplomacy and decency with the authorities with which we have asked to be in communion. All along, we have known who the Pope is, who is the Prefect of the CDF, who is Bishop of which Diocese, and so forth.

I have partly gone into this is my Pastorally and Progressively post. There is another thing to consider, the fact that we are not traditionalists or sympathisers with the work of the late Archbishop Lefebvre. We know the Society of Saint Pius X has its own ongoing dialogue with the Holy See, and I wish them well. We have certain things in common when it comes to specifically religious and doctrinal questions, but we come from different origins and have little in common in political or ideological terms.

We in the TAC and other Anglican groups recognise that Rome has been exceedingly generous to us so far, and we have no reason for fear. It would certainly be bad manners for us to demand this and that, especially when we have no no reason to believe that our desires will be denied. It would certainly be most inappropriate for us to make public denunciations or accusations of Vatican officials, above all on account of matters unconnected with the matter in hand. The matter in hand is Anglicanorum Coetibus and what is being done to make us formal and canonical members of the Catholic Church to which we already belong by desire and in spirit.

I made a point elsewhere that denouncing the liturgy of Paul VI as invalid or heretical (I’m not saying that anyone here has done so) would be a deal-breaker. Such excessive judgements would close down any relationship between those in authority and those of us who are petitioners. However, making a good study of the modern Roman liturgy, and showing up its weak points in liturgical and symbolic terms is rendering a service to the Church. The latter has been the approach of the present Pope in his many writings and interviews, and of other distinguished scholars like the late Monsignor Klaus Gamber.

It does not behove us to condemn the ordinary form of the Roman rite or any part of it, or refuse to use this rite if pastoral circumstances should warrant it. The Apostolic Constitution says:

III. Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.

The provision allowing the use of the Roman Rite serves a purpose. For example, other than the BDW which is presently available only in the USA only, there exists no approved Anglican liturgy. Many of our priests would like to be able to help out in local parishes. Most importantly, most Anglo-Catholics in the UK already use the modern Roman Rite. This is not a question of Rome trying to push the Ordinary Form on Anglicans, or engage in some kind of “bait and switch” operation.

I do not believe that, if we use either form or both forms of the Roman rite, we would forfeit our privilege of using the specific Anglican liturgy that is intended to be allowed for us. We can, for pastoral needs, use the highly faulty liturgical rite promulgated by Paul VI and criticise it at the same time, with courtesy and intellectual rigour.

One of the finest examples of a book giving this kind of criticism is Monsignor Klaus Gamber’s The Reform of the Roman Liturgy: Its Problems and Background. It exposes the extent of discontinuity in the post-conciliar reform, but in a way that enabled Cardinal Ratzinger to write a preface to this book and recommend it. Gamber’s approach is totally different from that of the traditionalists. For example, he readily accepted the idea of introducing the vernacular and some of the simplifications of the 1965 revision of the Roman missal.

As we read from Dom Alcuin Reid’s review of Gamber’s book:

It is Gamber’s brave but loyal ‘critical traditionalism’ that gives such importance to his writing. His theses are well documented, and his research is impressive. One hopes more of his writings will be made available in translation.

After reading Gamber (and also Bugnini) it is difficult if not impossible to maintain an uncritical acceptance of the new liturgy, even when it is celebrated devoutly and with the right intention. When we recall the doctrinal importance of the liturgy (lex orandi, lex credendi), we realise that the question of how we worship is central to our faith. What then is to be done?

What we need today … [are] bishops like those who in the fourth century courageously fought against Arianism when almost the whole of Christendom had succumbed to the heresy. We need saints today who can unite those whose faith has remained firm so that we might fight error and rouse the weak and vacillating from their apathy,” writes Gamber. A tall order, certainly, but not beyond the possibilities of Divine Providence.

I think that it is in this spirit that we can go forward towards Rome with our eyes open, but with faith and veneration in our pilgrimage. We are not blind or deceived, but loyal, courteous and critical. One does not exclude the other.

Certain Appellations

Pope Benedict XV (reigned September 3, 1914 – January 22, 1922) wrote in his encyclical letter Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum §24, (November 1, 1914):

It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as “profane novelties of words,” out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanasian Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.

The question often arises, what will we ultimately call those Anglicans who enter the Catholic Church under the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus — and does it even matter?

The Apostolic Constitution itself provides no clue to the answer to the first question, and while the Complementary Norms refer repeatedly to “former Anglican” bishops or ministers, there is no suggestion that the term “Anglican” need be abandoned altogether.  Indeed, inasmuch as the whole point of Anglicanorum Coetibus (Can you imagine an apostolic constitution called “Groups of Protestants”?  No, neither can I!) is to preserve within the larger Church a distinctively Anglican patrimony as “a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared,” it seems very unlikely that the use of the term would be anything other than encouraged.

Archbishop Hepworth has repeatedly assured our folks that we would be welcomed into the Church as “Anglican Catholics” (as distinct from “Roman Catholics”).  He addressed the subject in his talk at the recent Forward in Faith UK National Assembly.

There will be an Anglican leader who relates to the Holy See on behalf of the Anglican Catholics.  Thus establishing a body that is Anglican Catholic as distinct from Roman Catholic, Ukrainian Catholic, Maronite Catholic, or whatever.  It’s not a rite but it looks awfully like one…

And William Cardinal Levada signalled the CDF’s acceptance of the term in his formal response to the bishops of the TAC in quoting the text of the original Petition (the October 2007 “Portsmouth Letter”).

…a communal and ecclesial way of being Anglican Catholics in communion with the Holy See, at once treasuring the full expression of catholic faith and treasuring our tradition within which we have come to this moment.

It seems fairly clear that, at least in some contexts, we will employ the term “Anglican Catholic” to distinguish ourselves from other “varieties” of Catholic.  But why will we do this?  And, as Pope Benedict XV observed, will this not “give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics” (and especially our own people)?

Though the personal ordinariates will not constitute a ritual church sui juris (the context in which one most frequently sees an “hyphen Catholic” appellative), their peculiar circumstances will, all the more, require such a qualifying term.  The personal ordinariates will essentially form a “church within a church” and we intend to (and the Holy Father desires that we) be “united but not absorbed”.  Members of the personal ordinariates will be legally Latin Rite Catholics, subject to the Bishop of Rome as their Patriarch, and bound by the (Roman Catholic) Code of Canon Law.  But the personal ordinariates will be called to safeguard and foster our distinctive Anglican patrimony, a patrimony we must be able to name and to describe.  Further, the failure to make a distinction between Anglican Catholics and “ordinary” Roman Catholics may actually give rise to even greater confusion.  While particular disciplines of the personal ordinariates will have the approval of the Holy See, they will in some cases be derogations from the rule of canon law.  Certainly Roman Catholics should not conclude that the Pope desires to bring an end to the universal norm of clerical celibacy, for example.

And it should go without saying that our folks are attached to the name “Anglican” — as well they ought to be!  It is who we are.  And, much to the chagrin of progressives and ultra-traditionalists alike, the Holy Father has welcomed us into the fullness of communion of the Catholic Church as Anglicans.

But we would do well to heed the words of Benedict XV.  The Catholic Faith “must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected.”  Our Anglican distinctiveness might color how we approach certain theological questions but ultimately we must be obedient to the Magisterium of the Church.  The appellation “Anglican Catholic” must not “give rise to great trouble and confusion” amongst our own people, being viewed as license to deviate from the doctrine of the Catholic Church.  Those aspects of our past that do not accord with the Catholic Faith are not part of that Anglican Patrimony the Church desires to be maintained.

The Relevance of Geert Wilders’ Trial to Anglo-Catholics

Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders is on trial in the Netherlands on hate speech charges.  Here’s an English translation of his speech at the trial opening today posted at JihadWatch (my bolds):

It is not only a right, but also the duty of free people to speak against every ideology that threatens freedom. Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States was right: The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

I hope that the freedom of speech shall triumph in this trial.

In conclusion, Mister Speaker, judges of the court.

This trial is obviously about the freedom of speech. But this trial is also about the process of establishing the truth. Are the statements that I have made and the comparisons that I have taken, as cited in the summons, true? If something is true then can it still be punishable?

How do you establish that there is even such a thing as truth in a postmodern universe?

Here in Canada, we have similar encroachments on fundamental freedoms or the so-called “negative rights” that are part of the British Common Law tradition and enshrined in the U.S. Constitution if you believe in original intent.

In Canada, we have human rights commissions that have been used by political activists to silence those who don’t toe the politically correct line on the latest identity group that is on the ascendancy at the moment.  Truth is no defense before these bodies, because the concern is the impact of the speech on so-called disadvantaged identity groups.  Of course, as in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, some groups are more equal than others and Christians need not apply.  I’ve been working on a story today about a pastor in Calgary with a street ministry who had the tax dept. revoke his charitable status because he preaches against abortion, divorce and homosexual behavior.  Oh oh.

What role can the Anglo-Catholic ethos play in reviving some of the philosophical underpinnings of the Common Law and the English Enlightenment (as opposed to the horrible stuff coming out of France at the time) within the Catholic Church?

Anglicanorum Coetibus: The Duty of the Clergy of The Traditional Anglican Church (TTAC)

by Father Michael Gray

1. This unofficial note considers the situation in the United Kingdom. Circumstances are very different elsewhere.

2. It is the policy of TTAC to be positive about the papal initiative. The clergy are accordingly under an obligation to commend it. At the very least, they should inform their congregations about it and commend study of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. This will remain true until there is a new decision by the Assembly. As was made clear at the last Assembly, we are not a body in which every priest and congregation does what is right in their own eyes and ignores lawful authority. One of the fruits of the Affirmation of St. Louis and the TAC constitution was to abandon the chaos of the Church of England for a more Catholic order.

3. That said, any cleric with a cure of souls has a duty to his people. If it is certain that they will not as a body accept the initiative, then the cleric will have to minister to them, at least until some other provision can be made.

4. More often, unfortunately, the people will be divided. Much depends on the size of the majority and minority, but in some cases this may mean no change, if it is possible to preserve the congregation only in that way. Again, the cleric will have to minister to them.

5. In my opinion, the choice has to be seen in the widest possible context. It is tempting to make judgements as if the alternative is to go on as we are. This is probably not the case. If some congregations accept the initiative (and TTAC is powerless to stop them), then TTAC is weakened. Even if the whole of TTAC rejects it, does TTAC have a future? Our fifteen years of experience are not grounds for optimism. We have not solved our problems. Even without the initiative, we might be questioning what future God has for us.

More >

Hermeneutic of Suspicion

One of the things that bedevil our efforts to work for unity and our response to the Pope’s Apostolic Constitution is what some call the hermeneutic of suspicion, the kind of mentality that tells us that if anyone does something nice for us, it is for an ulterior motive. The cynic tells us that nothing comes free in this world. Therefore, the Panzerpapst is poaching, because only the Anglican Establishment can give him something of political interest, and not our piffling little gate-crashing group, the TAC.

The most recent message of Fr Stephen Trott conveys exactly this message. I apologise to him for any bitterness or polemical message. I do not know this priest, mean him no ill, and have to admit that I myself been guided by my own mistrust of bureaucrats, functionaries and civil servants. That is my sinful nature. I understand his sense of caution and mistrust of the Roman authorities. The General Synod and Church Commissioners in England are highly bureaucratised, but perhaps to a lesser extent than the Vatican. The Vatican moves even slower than England’s bureaucracy, but there is a joke about Anglican parish councils taking hours to decide about the changing of the vestry light bulb, the budget decided upon to buy it, which brand, which shop, who is to go up the stepladder to change the bulb, how to dispose of the old bulb, and so forth. The usual quip about the Vatican is that it takes fifty years to change a toilet roll: thirty years to formulate the document and a further twenty years to translate the document into Latin! John XXIII was once asked by a reporter how many people worked in the Vatican. The good Pope answered “about half of them”! (By the way, it was this good Pope who doubled the wages of the Vatican gardeners and janitors.)

More >

The Reform of the Reform

A biretta tip to Rorate Caeli for this amazing article – Second Aim of the Motu Proprio: the Reform of the Reform.

The key of the new liturgy as it left the offices of Bugnini—the author of the liturgical reform—is adaptation to the world. This is the point on which Bux’s thinking, in unison with that of the reform of the reform partisans, is at its most radical: the essence of Catholic liturgy is to be “as a permanent critique that the Church addresses to the world, while the world continually seeks to convince her to belong to it.” Therefore one must bear in mind that revolution is not reform: “the reform cannot be understood as a reconstruction attempt according to the tastes of a specific time.”

Here it is, the whole difference between what we have had to endure for forty years – in the Catholic Church and the Anglican Communion – and the real Christian understanding of, not only the liturgy, but our entire religion and the Church!

If, therefore, there is a point on which one can expect legislation to promote the reform of the reform project, it is certainly this: the possibility of introducing the traditional Roman Offertory prayers into the ordinary celebration.

In sum, if this plan were truly to take shape, the inverse situation to what happened between 1965 and 1969 might eventually develop: to that time of brutal transformation when everything changed in a ‘progressive’ direction might correspond a period of slow evolution during which everything would change in a resacralizing direction.

Such an implementation of the reform of the reform would thus be truly reformative, in the traditional (and quite demanding!) sense of the term ‘reform’. It would proceed by ‘contamination’, to use a term familiar to historians of the liturgy when they mean to speak of one liturgy’s influence over another. In this case, it would be that of the traditional liturgy on the new.

In fact, one might even claim that the extraordinary form is perhaps the only chance to save the ordinary form in the long term, precisely by enabling it to become less and less ordinary. It might then become a step by which to reach the extraordinary liturgy. In any event, it would in no way compete with the extraordinary form, but would rather provide it with a far more favorable environment for its dissemination and its affirmation as the official form of reference.

Is this not why the Holy Father wants the Anglican Patrimony in this whole vast project? We must never lose sight of the big picture. Read, mark, learn and inwardly digest the article. It’s worth it.