Posts tagged Anglican Patrimony
Should Homilies Be Eight Minutes Max?
Mar 10th
I have never timed one of the homilies in our little Anglican Catholic Cathedral but on Sunday mornings they are a lot longer than eight minutes. But the secretary-general of the Synod of Bishops has said homilies should be less than that. Here’s an excerpt from a Catholic News Service story by Carol Glatz (my bolds):
Priests and deacons should also avoid reading straight from a text and instead work from notes so that they can have eye contact with the people in the pews, said Archbishop Nikola Eterovic, secretary-general of the Synod of Bishops.
In a new book titled, “The Word of God,” the archbishop highlighted some tips that came out of the 2008 Synod of Bishops on the Bible. The Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, reproduced a few passages from the book in its March 10 edition.
-snip-
Among the guidelines’ many helpful suggestions, he said, is that “the homily in general should not go over eight, minutes — the average amount of time for a listener to concentrate.”
A preacher would do well to find inspiration from not just the Bible, but from the newspaper, too, so that the homily can address the current concerns facing the world or the local community, he said.
Well, I recorded Cardinal Levada’s excellent homily March 8 at Notre Dame Cathedral Basilica and it clocked in at 12 minutes 15 seconds. Thankfully, he did not include any advice from the newspaper while he beautifully integrated the texts from the Old and New Testament that spoke directly to the youth from Catholic Christian Outreach, encouraging their evangelism.
There are people who can hold you riveted for hours, though.
I think that most people do not read a text well and it is better if they know their material so well that they can deliver it from notes. But that is no excuse for sloppiness or ers or ums. And I think that in some ways it is a lot harder to write shorter than longer.
What do you think? What does the Anglican patrimony have to contribute to the wider Church in the way of sound preaching? Is this one area where we have been touched by the Reformation in a good way?
Reflections on Liturgy and Much More
Mar 6th
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.
Patrimonial
Mar 4th
A few words in an earlier blog about the language of worship, and a great trail of comments followed. Now I know that many Anglicans (of every colour) in the USA are very concerned about Prayer Books, and the more Catholic they are, the more they want to hold on to ancient forms of prayer. I do understand. It has become for them the touchstone of orthodoxy, especially since many bishops refused to permit its use. Conversely in England the 1662 Prayer Book is defended by law, so it has been less important to us – a symbol of the Erastian State Church, even. Yet it is what I grew up with. Before Vatican II affected us all we were obliged in England to use the Book of Common Prayer – or something related to it. At any rate, whether English Missal or Interim Rite or 1927 (often referred to as 1928) or a compilation of the Vicar’s devising, the language was sort-of Cranmerian. After Vatican II, liturgy went in diverse directions in the Church of England. There were series 1, 2, and 3 and once parishes had been equipped with all those books they were rapidly declared illegal and instead we had what is naughtily referred to as Comic Worship (more properly ‘Common Worship’). But it was not Common, in the sense that the Book of Common Prayer intended the word. Common Prayer meant something shared by all. Common Worship had so many variants that you could not find it celebrated in the same manner in any two churches. So Catholics in the CofE increasingly turned to the Roman Catholic books. Whereas in an earlier generation it was only the extreme ultra-montanes who dared use the Missal, it became more and more THE touchstone of Catholicisim in the latter part of the 20th Century. When I toured my patch as a ‘Flying Bishop’ it was generally the Roman Missal that the Priest opened for me on the Altar. Sometimes he would apologise and say that for the Canon we had to use something from Common Worship because the Diocesan required it, but that was not generally the case. And just now and again, more in country parishes than in town ones, I would be asked to use one of the older Prayer Book variants.
Since the announcement of the Ordinariate, one of the more frequent questions I have had to answer is “Will we have to use Prayer Book Language?” – generally with the rider that if we did, you could forget it so far as THAT priest was concerned. So I have tried to explain that the Apostolic Constitution makes it clear that any of the Masses of the Roman Rite may be used, as well as whatever is provided in “Anglican” form – which we suppose will be something like the Book of Divine Worship of the Anglican Use Catholics in the USA.
Then if we do not cling to the Prayer Book, what do we have to bring to the party? Some suppose that the BCP and the King James Bible are all that we have, and without these we might as well simply become Roman Catholic Converts without the Ordinariate.
I believe that is a profound misunderstanding both of what the Holy Father wants from us and what we have to offer. In England, at least, our Pastoral Rule is more important than the words we use in public worship. It derives from fifteen centuries during which the parish clergy have known that they have a responsibility for the entire Community, whether or not they declare themselves ‘Church of England’. At an induction the priest is given the cure of souls by the Bishop. That attitude pervades the whole of our pastoral ministry. We visit the sick when we know about them, though they may never darken the doors of our church. We pray for them, we call on newcomers to the parish, and we train our lay people to do the same. We seek out candidates for Baptism and Confirmation. We marry all comers, and we bury all goers. Although our parishes are vastly bigger than his, and the knowledge of our people will be far less thorough, many of us still believe that the sort of model that George Herbert set before us is one worth striving for. It also describes the sort of care that people expect from us – and it comes not just from the Caroline Divines or the Tractarians, but from as far back as the Pastoral Rule of St Gregory, taught by St Augustine of Canterbury and reinforced by King Alfred.
More, too, than the mere WORDS of worship, there is the style of worship which matters. Visiting diverse parishes on Sundays, it is usually the Roman Missal put before me. I still celebrate a version of the Prayer Book Rite from time to time. I did this morning, and so I do most Thursdays in my local Parish Church. Not everyone will find it easy to do. For us older ones the words are in our very being, we scarcely need a book at all. For those more recently ordained, they may have scarcely ever heard the words of the Prayer Book. Unless they were in a Cathedral Choir, they are unlikely to have met solemn high Mattins. Most of the Ordinands who came to St Stephen’s House in my time simply did not know the Prayer Book forms of the Holy Communion, nor of Benedictus or Te Deum. They may have to become familiar with some of these things in the Ordinariate. What matters though, whichever Rite we use and in whichever direction we face when celebrating, is that we have our focus on God, and that our personal idiosyncrasies are replaced with a stillness and focus which help a congregation to worship. But I am sure this applies to every priest, Anglican or Roman Catholic.
I think there is a difference of style which means that we stay after Mass to meet people and socialise. It is a luxury which in this country most Priests of the Roman Communion do not have, since they must rush off to another Mass. But whether this really is part of our Patrimony, or simply our good fortune, remains to be seen. Similarly I think that we spend more time with penitents – because we have fewer of them; but that also might be a myth to be dispelled by experience. I fancy we take preaching more seriously than others – but I might be wrong about this. I believe our hymn-singing is more varied and full throated – but that might simply be a prejudice on my part.
Above all, we cannot know what our Patrimony comprises except when others experience it. If it includes pomposity and a sense of superiority, then these must go. But the Holy Father, who knows Anglicans well, seems to think we DO have gifts to bring into the greater Church. I am very excited at the prospect: and even more at the prospect of exercising a priesthood which is rooted and grounded in the faith of the Apostles.
More Patrimony
Mar 3rd
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?
The Language of Canaan
Mar 1st
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.
In Which I Respond to Terry
Feb 26th
In response to my post about the launch of the Friends of the Ordinariate site, Terry from Japan chided me in the comments section. Since then, I’ve had some experiences I want to share that have a bearing on his criticisms and given me food for thought. Here’s an excerpt of what Terry said:
You may have a very low opinion of the Catholic mass, which is very evident in your posts, but in a lot of the world, particularly in Asia, Latin, thees and thous are alien to them and have no relevance.
-snip-
If keeping the poetry, thees and thous, costly vestments etc. result in just a small group of worshippers who think they’re a class above the rest, than you can keep it.
-snip-
I’ve met many people who only attend the NO who are ten times better Christians that those who only attend the full bells and smells form of mass, turn up their noses at everything else yet cannot find any charity in their hearts.
-snip-
If you’re going to keep thumbing your nose down at everything that doesn’t fit in with your idea of worship, you won’t be happy even when you are fully accepted in the Catholic church.
English / Anglican Patrimony – Eccentricity
Feb 24th
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
Feb 24th
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).
Anglican Patrimony – Englishness and Stability
Feb 24th
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.
A Papist Strives to Understand Patrimony
Feb 23rd
Some of you may be familiar with our generally liberal-leaning English Catholic periodical, The Tablet. Its cartoonist is almost never funny, but I will confess to having smiled at a picture a couple of weeks ago. It shows a clergyman holding a bottle of gin, and leaning over to fill somebody’s glass. ‘More Patrimony?’ he is saying.
‘Patrimony’, one might almost say, is a new word to have entered the Catholic vocabulary since Anglicanorum Cœtibus. In fact, if I can say so without offence, it’s a splendidly Anglican word, because everyone can agree that it is a good thing without having any idea what it really means—though everyone has his own idea of what it ought to mean.
Here in England, the meaning of Patrimony is surely even more fuzzy than elsewhere because very few Anglo-Catholics have the same wish-list of items that they would like to tuck into their suitcases before possibly crossing the Tiber. The late (and sore lamented) Graham Leonard was said to have been stumped for an answer when asked by Cardinal Basil Hume just exactly what he would regret leaving behind were he to join an ordinary English diocese, and this is not an uncommon reaction.
Looking around the blogosphere, it seems to me that few in England would like to bring the Book of Common Prayer, though some would like to retain Evensong in some form. Fewer would like to bring Common Worship, for all that you can approximate a pretty good Catholic Mass with it. Is there really that strong an attachment to Walmsley in D minor or Knitwoddle in B? Some hope that the English Missal would be usable in the Ordinariates, others the Sarum. Most will almost certainly use the Roman Missal, especially in its new translation. Some will regret Cranmer’s prose, or the Authorised Version of the Bible (King James) but most won’t regret it very much. There is spirituality and theological wisdom among the Anglican divines, and the preservation of these things can be the work of some and to the benefit of many, inside but also outside the ordinariates. I once opined (half joking) that what constituted the distinctiveness of the Anglo-Catholic ethos these days was really the English Hymnal.
Perhaps we are looking in the wrong area; perhaps it is not any identifiable group of things that we might call Patrimony, but something else, something more personal.
In a fit of spleen a few days ago on my own blog, I suggested that effortless superiority might be some people’s idea of Patrimony, but that was unfair, really. It’s not stand-offishness. In England, at any rate, it seems to me that maybe what really counts is the fraternity; the group that can identify that, for better or for worse, this is our story; this is the road that we have travelled together, and we want to stay together identifiably, as we have struggled and fought our corner, and grown together over these last hundred or more years. To simply merge into the soup of the English dioceses would not lose any identifiable thing, perhaps, but simply to dissolve might suggest, in some wordless way, the final abandonment of something that has been beautiful, and which once had glorious dreams of bringing the whole Church of England, Westminster Abbey, Church Army, Church Times, the working classes, the aristocrats, the Houses of Parliament and Twinings Tea back into that communion with the Church Catholic from which it had been partly severed five hundred years ago. It would be in some way to turn one’s back on Father Tooth, Father Stanton, Our Lady of Walsingham and the Society of the Holy Cross. This way, something possibly valuable to the Church as a whole might well be preserved, at least in part. In any family there are family jokes, a shared language and memories: nobody can give these things up entirely without regret.
Patrimony, in this understanding, may be understood as being the story not of a ritual or a book, or even, perhaps a theology, but of a people with a shared (and largely noble) history, and it seems to me to be only enriching to the Catholic Church to have this group existing within her very ample arms.
I would be interested to know whether I am in the right area here. I do understand that things are different in different provinces of the Anglican Communion—they tell me that the Book of Common Prayer is a very important part of the Patrimony in the US, but this particular poor Papist would appreciate your views on this, the better to welcome you.
Salvete, fratres!
Feb 22nd
I would like to thank Christian Campbell and everyone at The Anglo-Catholic for their kind welcome. It seems peculiarly appropriate that I should be able to write this, my first post, on the feast of the Chair of St Peter, as much for the fact that it represents the feast of the Communion of the Churches in communion with Peter, as for the fact that it is the special day of prayer in the British Isles for those contemplating taking Pope Benedict’s offer in Anglicanorum Cœtibus, and again the patronal feast day of the principal church in the parish where I serve.
I am very touched to have been invited to contribute to such a site: after all, I am a ‘Roman’ Catholic, and a convinced one. I suppose that my presence here as an invited participant on this blog is the most tangible evidence of the extraordinary times in which we live: Pope Benedict, the ‘Pope of Christian Unity’ as he is becoming known, has simply cut the Gordian knot to present to you, those who I hope very soon to call my brothers and sisters in the faith, a chance to share the riches of your tradition with what one might call the Catholic mainstream.
My own interest in Anglicanism, though, goes back a long way: as a teenager, I was the organist in a Roman Catholic parish some four miles from my home, and so was required to walk there twice a week. The route took me past two Anglican churches, the second of which, St Martin’s, Epsom, had (and for all I know still has) a fine choral tradition. I would pause outside on my long walk listening to their choir practice, and was, frankly, envious. I longed to participate in this myself. Not long later, one Friday evening, I presented myself at the other church, St Paul’s, Nork Park, a few doors away from the house in which I grew up, during the choir practice, and was taken on as an occasional assistant organist and choir member.
My goodness, it was a steep learning curve! St Paul’s had a liturgical tradition of the three major services on a Sunday; Sung Eucharist, Sung Matins and Sung Evensong, all with organ and choir. This was made all the more impressive for the fact that St Paul’s was no major town-centre church, but an unremarkable mid-twentieth century building lost down an ordinary residential road in a suburb; as plain as you could find. And yet it managed in those first days of the late 1970s to produce a truly respectable music list, typical of its day. Not only were there the regular services, but there would be the occasional extra thing to work on, such as Maunder’s Olivet to Calvary or Stainer’s Crucifixion; there were always enough singers of sufficient talent to provide the solo parts.
At the organ, I sweated! Anglican chant was a new world to me, and I struggled with chant book, psalter, manuals, pedals and registration, trying to get the notes right in the right place and absorb not just the strange rhythms but the received manner in which the chant was to be sung; the particular pacing that everyone but me had grown up with; nice and straight through the verse, and then at the end, just as it gets all complicated, speed up through the difficult bit and then, before you have time to select a fresh registration, corner on two wheels and on to the next verse without a breath.
Then there were the Coverdale psalms. My first shock was on my first singing engagement at St Paul’s. I was duly engaged among the gentlemen to sing bass or to reinforce the tenors when required. Psalm 68, Exsurgat Deus, was on the menu, and my jaw nearly dropped off when the verse ‘Praise him in his Name, JAH!’ (pronounced like the vessel you put jam into) was bellowed into my ear by my South African neighbour. Then, on another occasion, there was ‘One deep calleth another, because of the noise of the water-pipes’ which gave me the giggles.
Another problem concerned me on the organ. Not only was the organist required to accompany the psalms, and, with contortions, manage not only his instrument but also several books with several pages to turn at the same time, but he was required to ‘illustrate’ the psalms too. ‘Glory be to the Father’ was fine (loud!), but what was I supposed to do with ‘I am become like a pelican in the wilderness, and like an owl that is in the desert’? An owl’s hoot, I suppose I could approximate with a good stopped diapason, but a pelican……? What noise does a pelican make, for Heaven’s sake? I nearly gave myself a hernia with ‘The words of his mouth were softer than butter, having war in his heart; his words were smoother than oil, and yet be they very swords’. I smiled to myself when required to accompany the ‘Tedium’, or the ‘Benny Die City’.
Anglican Priestly Spirituality
Feb 18th
I give you a few reflections in the light of a wonderful book I have had for about twenty years – Placid Murray, OSB, Newman the Oratorian, Leominster 1980. Much of this book consists of Newman’s previously unpublished Oratory papers, and beautiful meditations they make, especially during Lent.
Certainly, Newman was not a typical Anglican parson of his time. To begin with, he remained a celibate and was an intellectual. His College quadrangle was his cloister. He was a contemplative. The Oratory of St Philip Neri, as founded in England, became a Catholic form of clerical university life. However, Newman was also a pastor, and this was an integral part of his spirituality.
Dom Murray identified four aspects of Newman’s ministry: – the care of souls, liturgical preaching, the Eucharistic ministry and prayer. The starting point is the notion of responsibility for souls. This pastoral aspect is probably the greatest bond of continuity between Newman’s Anglican ministry and Catholic priestly life. This care of souls was for him primarily an apostolate to the intellect. This is the one thing we all have in common. I would have loved to be a village parish priest here in Normandy (and perhaps, God willing, it might happen), but my ministry is presently my liturgy and prayers in chapel and my work for The Anglo-Catholic. Newman’s ministry was essentially the same between his tutoring work at Oriel, teaching at Propaganda Fidei and his apostolate at the Birmingham Oratory.
We Anglicans hit a nerve with the Holy Father as one of the most brilliant theologians of modern times. Each at our own level, we strive to teach and guide, through training people to use their brains and minds so that they can reason instead of being manipulated by the baser instincts of humanity. Perhaps the most characteristic element of Anglican ministry is expository preaching, an art of which Newman was a master. His approach was essentially liturgical, which is precisely something that was demanded by the Council of Trent and Vatican II.
There is another element that I personally share with Newman, and it was brought home to me as I observed that rather ugly situation in a French parish less than two hours’ drive from my village. The issue here is the priest’s stability and his right to an intimate life, either in marriage or in a community of celibate clerics. For him as for myself, small and intimate is beautiful. Newman’s vocation was nurtured in his Oxford college, and he found his Catholic vocation in the Oratory – a one-off Catholic institution that allows secular priests to live in the same place for life and grow into it and intertwine with priests and faithful alike. The Oratorian’s “nest” is important – Yea, the sparrow hath found her an house, and the swallow a nest where she may lay her young : even thy altars, O Lord of hosts, my King and my God (Ps. 84).
We are, even as Anglicans, different from each other, but I very much identify with this idea of putting down roots and living a spiritual life in a close relationship with a place and the people of that place. These days, in most Catholic dioceses, the priest must be prepared to lose any attachment to his roots, and forsake both family life and stabilitas loci. A diocesan priest is utterly alone. Monks give up private property, but they receive everything they need from the Abbot and the community. They have stability, security and familiarity with the buildings and the community. Perhaps the Bishops are not wrong to move parish priests every six to eight years, and have them serve more than thirty or forty churches. I cannot think of anything more soul-destroying and discouraging of young vocations. The solution to the vocations crisis will be found when these questions are taken seriously by diocesan bishops. If there was ever a question of my being a parish priest, I would accept such a ministry only if I knew I could stay as long as I would be welcomed and appreciated by the laity, and as I thought right – perhaps for the rest of my life. But, I doubt that will happen.
Perhaps, and this would be the supreme irony as it was instituted by Blessed Pius IX, the Italian Oratory as it was adapted for the Oxford converts of the 1840’s, was a “personal ordinariate” before its time. It was designed to be kind to the vocations of former Anglican priests and academics who became Catholics.
As we find in the example of the present Pope, all these subtle characteristics of Anglican priestly spirituality are not peculiar to Anglicanism. There is a strand in continental Catholicism of that gentle kindness in St Philip Neri and St François de Sales, and this gentleness comes from having prayed, read and reasoned with the eyes of a child. What a contrast to the harshness and vindictiveness of so many others in the same Church! The English Oratories, founded in the mid nineteenth century, are still flagships of the “reform of the reform” liturgical spirit, lofty beauty, and a gentle and kindly priest in the confessional.
Life in the Ordinariates will certainly not afford us the luxuries of large Victorian churches and houses for fifteen or more priests to live in community. Our life will be poorer and rougher, and most of us don’t have the intellectual edge of Newman. I certainly don’t! Most of us are married and will continue to live our normal family lives. I hope we will find every encouragement to continue in our ministry of prayer, administering the Sacraments and preaching (whether it is from the traditional pulpit or using modern media like the Internet).
May we continue to be gentle and kind with our people and penitents who find the courage to approach us for confession and spiritual direction. It is an awesome responsibility.
The Record of Anglicanism (Expanded)
Feb 15th
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.
Eric Lionel Mascall As Anglican Patrimony
Feb 14th
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.
What American Roman Catholics Can Learn from Anglicans
Feb 8th
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.
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.
A Fragile Thread
Jan 30th
Fr. Anthony Reader-Moore, SSC has responded to Robert Ian William’s most recent polemical feature in The Catholic Herald. Williams had attacked this excellent piece written by Fr. Reader-Moore in defense of the Anglican Patrimony.
Anglo-Catholicism: a 19th-century invention or the full flowering of the Catholic spirit?
From the Rev Anthony Reader-Moore SSC
SIR- I am sorry that Robert Ian Williams has responded to my recent article, “Anglo-Catholics do have a real patrimony” (December 11), in such a negative and indeed unhelpful way (Feature, January 15).
It is clear that he feels the Anglo-Catholics are an illegitimate development within the historical life of the Church of England and their self-understanding is founded on a myth. Apart from the fact that this designation can be understood in more ways than seeing something as false and that myths often contain much that is true, my purpose was not to suggest that Anglo-Catholicism is the only genuine tradition within Anglicanism, which is patently not so, but that it represented a full flowering of that Catholic spirit which even the thoroughness of the Protestant Reformation could not entirely extinguish.
Like a thread, perhaps very fragile and slender at times, it has always been present within the Church of England, even at the lowest points of her history. If that were not so, why did Rome offer Archbishop William Laud a cardinal’s hat on the very day of his appointment to Canterbury in 1633? Also, as Fr Michael Rear has recently pointed out, at the Restoration of the Monarchy 27 years later, a further approach was made by the Holy See proposing the setting up of what amounted to a uniate church.
Does this not suggest at the very least an implicit recognition of a certain residual Catholicism within the life and structure of the national church? It is tragic that this got no further and divisions became even more entrenched, but does it not also suggest a greater flexibility on Rome’s part at the time in her understanding of the exact nature of the Church of England than was true later on, say in the 19th century?
It is interesting that Mr Williams mentions neither of these episodes in his rather slanted account of Anglican history since the reign of Henry VIII. He has every right, of course, to present his own version of things and even to suggest, as he does, that mine is entirely wrong, but he should not imply that things are so “black and white” as he clearly does. History is rarely like that, as every truly open-minded student knows, and the need is that we should learn from it so that we can build a better future rather than be tied to a narrow and restricted interpretation of the past which does little or nothing to dispel ancient prejudices.
Yours faithfully,
Anthony Reader-Moore
Northampton
In the same edition is printed the following letter by Robert Ian Williams defending his piece.
From Mr Robert Ian Williams
SIR – I must take exception to Dr Richard Lawes’s comments (Letter, January 22), claiming that I am “lambasting the Pope’s initiative” as regards the proposed Anglican ordinariate. I have never expressed such an opinion, but simply pointed out that Anglo-Catholicism is not the mainstream of the Anglican patrimony, and is largely an invention of the 19th century, with much of its liturgical ornaments actually appropriated from Catholicism.
If Dr Lawes read my pamphlet on the subject of the Anglican Use liturgy, he would also see that I do not question the orthodoxy of the Anglican Use Mass, as its integrity is preserved by its use of the Roman Canon instead of Cranmer’s eucharistic prayers. But I do raise legitimate questions about other Cranmerian phrases and prayers which are retained within the Use. For instance, the use of the phrase “In sure and certain hope of the Resurrection unto everlasting life” is totally inappropriate in the context of a Requiem. Likewise, I point out how the Use uses Cranmer’s further Protestantised version of the prayer of humble access and not his 1549 original.
I have been informed that the Holy See is working on a revision of the Anglican Use’s Book of Divine Worship and it is quite legitimate for Catholics to critique it. The Anglican Use attracted less than a 10th of one per cent of American Anglicans, and is today mainly attended by cradle Catholics.
Although I may be wrong, I think that the response from Anglicans here will be equally restrained. How any well-informed Catholic can be so enamoured of prayers written by a man who died despising the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Pope and the Catholic Faith is a mystery to me.
Yours faithfully,
Robert Ian Williams
Bangor is y Coed, Wrexham
As I understand it, Mr. Williams is a convert from Evangelicalism (who only briefly identified himself as Anglican); how it is that he conducts himself as an expert on Anglo-Catholicism and liturgy, I do not know. His ignorant pamphlet on the Anglican Use liturgy seems to be premised on the notion that prayers authored by persons not in the full communion of the Catholic Church must be rejected outright and that the Anglican Use imports into the Catholic Mass dangerous, nascent Protestant heresies (simply because he chooses not to see the biblical and patristic roots of particular words and phrases which themselves exist in other Catholic rites).
Evidently, the Holy Father, as he puts it, is indeed “enamoured of prayers written by a man who died despising the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Pope and the Catholic Faith”! Once again we should be thankful that we are being welcomed by a pope who respects our glorious Anglican Patrimony and who considers it “a precious gift nourishing the faith” and “a treasure to be shared.” The opinions of zealous converts who consider themselves “more Catholic than the Pope” thankfully count for nothing!
Full Homely Divinity
Jan 29th
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
Jan 28th
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?
Clues about the Liturgy
Jan 28th
I wander into this subject again with care, mindful of my own words exhorting respect and courtesy in regard to the Roman authorities. There are two clues from sound sources that leave us with hope and optimism about the liturgy in the future Ordinariates.
In a comment by Woody Jones on Cardinal DiNardo’s explanation of the Apostolic Constitution, we find:
(…) possible revision/use of the Book of Divine Worship (it was very interesting to note here that he volunteered that the Novus Ordo offertory language in the current BDW eucharistic texts might be revised with something closer to the older offertory texts, or perhaps something else).
It looks like the question of the offertory (and by association other imported material from the modern Roman rite) is under consideration, and that my observations based on that book by Fr. Tirot may turn out to be germane.
Now, Cardinal DiNardo suggests that there may be single Ordinariate in the USA, which then would presumably cover present Anglican Use parishes and at least the majority of those presently belonging to the ACA. Now I quote this extract from Archbishop Hepworth’s Pastoral Letter:
In the norms, it is further explained that clergy will have the right to celebrate not only the Anglican liturgy but also both current forms of the Roman rite. A great deal of work has already been concluded in the updating and expanding of Anglican service books. The calendar of saints for instance in the Prayer Book of 1662 has no additions since then, in spite of the manifest sanctity of so many Christians since that date. Much more work needs to be done and will be a very high priority for those engaged in implementing the Constitution.
There seems to be a basis for some diversity of liturgical usage. On one side, there is question of revising the Book of Divine Worship. On the other, Archbishop Hepworth writes of updating and expanding of Anglican service books. Which Anglican service books? The only book referred to is the 1662 English Prayer Book, which is not used as it stands by any priest or parish in the TAC. A great deal of work has been concluded. When we were in Portsmouth, Mass was celebrated at least on one occasion according to a rite similar in some respects to the 1965 revision of the Roman rite and authorised in the Australian TAC. It contains both the Roman Canon as in the Anglican Missal and an Anglican Eucharistic Prayer that appears to be taken from the American 1928 Prayer Book.
The ancient liturgy of the English Church is one of the glories of Christian history and of the English Language. The Book of Common Prayer brought to its generations of worshippers a vibrant combination of history, holiness and scholarship. The ancient usages that preceded the English Reformation are clearly visible, and so is the hand of the Reformers.
The Prayer Book serves two functions for the Anglican Church. It is the definitive statement of doctrine, to be read with the Scriptures and the General Councils to discern matters of apostolic faith. It is also the book of Anglican Liturgy, setting both the standard and the tradition by which Anglicans conduct the Divine Service of Eucharist, Sacraments and Hours of Prayer.
As a form of worship, the Prayer Book Eucharist gives a text with little indication (beyond the Ornaments Rubric) of the nature of the liturgical action. Styles of worship, based on the Prayer Book, have evolved considerably in four hundred years. The rise of the Oxford Movement, the early twentieth century growth of ecumenical awareness, and the growth of modern liturgical scholarship, have all shaped the way in which the rites have been practiced.
In countries such as Africa, India, the United States of America and Canada, revisions of the Book of Common Prayer have come to be honoured and much loved for their scholarship, beauty and vibrant catholic spirituality. Liberated from the control of the English Parliament over matters ecclesiastical in that country, Prayer Book liturgy in Provinces beyond Canterbury and York has flourished.
This usage is within the tradition of the English Missal, in which the Prayer Book text was ordered according to a better understanding of traditional English rites, particularly that of Sarum, and according to the evolution of Western liturgical use, the result being a synthesis at once Catholic and Anglican. Much has changed since the English Missal. In particular, there has been a great advance in the use of Scripture in the Eucharistic rite, made necessary by the now almost universal custom of conducting the Eucharist apart from the Morning Prayer and Litany. The treasures opened to the faithful in Morning Prayer have had to be restored within the Eucharist. The understanding of antiphonal and processional psalmody has also been given practical effect. The words are the words of the Prayer Book. Where they have been revised, and the revisions have won acceptance from both lawful authority and popular usage (as in the Prayer for the Church) the revision has been included. The order is that of the Western Rite, achieving yet again a fusion both Catholic and Anglican.
Where Anglican formularies are silent, Proper texts may be taken from the Missal. Provision is made for either the Lectionary of the Prayer Book, or that now known as the Common Lectionary, first published in response to the Second Vatican Council and now used ecumenically by churches of the Roman, Anglican, Lutheran and many other traditions.
The ancient Eucharistic Prayer of the Western Church, known as the “Roman Canon” is also included and authorised, to bring this Liturgy into closer agreement with the Anglican Use published in 2003. The translation is that of Coverdale, in order to preserve as closely as possible the linguistic harmony of the rite.
Authorised in the Anglican Catholic Church in Australia.
+John
15th August 2003
[In the last paragraph, I think he means 1983 as the date of publication of the BDW. Please coreect me, Fr Phillips, if I am wrong.]
I do not pretend to know whether this will be a version to be imposed or authorised in the Ordinariates, so please self-moderate comments. I would make many suggestions for improvements and corrections in the light of liturgical studies of medieval and older rites. But, the fact remains that this is a very noble step in the right direction.
God, a Book, and a Boy
Jan 27th
I grew up on a farm in Connecticut. It wasn’t like one of those high-class places in the movies. No pristine white rail fences, just plain old barbed wire to keep the livestock off the road. The house had sections which pre-dated the American Revolution, but it couldn’t have passed as elegant. It was just comfortable, as well-used farm houses are comfortable.
We shared it with my grandparents. Families used to do that sort of thing. They lived in one part, and we had ours. Visiting them was as easy as walking through a door from our front room into their kitchen, and it was a route I knew well as a child.
In my grandparents’ part of the house there was what was known as the back room, which had been a bedroom when my father was growing up. The reason for its demotion from bedroom to back room was evident: its location in the northeast corner of the house gave it little protection from howling winter winds, and since insulation was nearly unknown when the house was built, it was pretty darned cold in there. Certainly no place someone would want for a bedroom, if it could be helped.
Its changed status meant that it became a repository for everything that had no other place to be put. It became my treasure-trove. Old pictures, Nana’s unwanted knick-knacks, boxes with forgotten contents, all of it found its final resting place in there.
There were two things in the back room that I came close to coveting. One was an oval-shaped bas-relief carving of the Descent of Christ from the Cross. How such a thing found its way into the possession of a protestant family, I’ll never know. But I loved it, and when I asked my grandmother if I could have it, for some reason she told me that if I was ever ordained I could claim it. I was, and I did, and it hangs in my rectory to this day. The second thing was a book, a very particular book which had belonged to my English great-grandmother, who had been staunchly Anglican. It was a combined Book of Common Prayer (1662 edition) and the Holy Bible (King James Version), and although my family subsequently wandered off into Methodism, they had kept this book because it had been Nana’s. Its leather binding was cracked, but not badly. There was an ornate brass cross attached to its front cover. I wanted it very much, and it was given to me. So began my love affair with the formality of Anglican prayers and with the Holy Scriptures.
It seems odd that a ten year old boy would be able to find something of God within cracked leather and yellowed pages, but I did. It was as close as I had to a Real Presence, and my inability to understand all the words emphasized the Mystery I was seeking. There would seem to be little use for “A Table to Find Easter-Day; From the Present Time till the Year 2199 Inclusive,” or for “Forms of Prayer for the Anniversary of the day of the Accession of the Reigning Sovereign,” or even for “A Table of Kindred and Affinity,” although it was fascinating to learn that one’s mother’s father’s wife may not marry her mother’s mother’s husband. But for the rest of it, these were my first faltering steps towards Catholic beauty, Catholic order, Catholic truth.
The prayers did it for me. And the words of the Scriptures. I would speak them sotto voce in my room, just because the words sounded so beautiful, even to my ignorant ears. I suppose, by most external points of reference, it was an odd thing for a child to do. Certainly, I had plenty of friends, activities at school, involvement in the local church, duties at home. But my soul had a hungry corner that would not stop its demands until it was satisfied. I had never heard Augustine’s words about the restless heart, but I surely knew what he meant.
One of the wonders of the Catholic faith is that it reaches into such unexpected places and in such extraordinary ways to draw the unsuspecting to itself. Indeed, this is its catholicity. It feeds both farm boy and pope.



