Posts tagged Anglican Use
Thoughts on an Anglican Use Mass
Mar 8th
I would like to advance here a few disordered reflections about the form which an Anglican Use of the Roman Rite might take. These are nothing but my own ill-informed speculations interwoven with my own uninformed notions and prejudices, and should be taken as worth no more than such productions normally are, or perhaps, for those more charitably disposed, as written ruminations.
“The Anglican Use of the Roman Rite:” this phrase indicates that whatever form of liturgy this will be, it will take the form of a subset of the Roman Rite, and not a separate “Anglican Rite.” There has been a good deal of terminological and historical confusion in these areas. One often sees in the context of the Latin Church references to the “Ambrosian Rite,” the “Braga Rite,” the “Carthusian Rite,” the “Cistercian Rite,” the “Dominican Rite,” the “Lyonnaise Rite,” the “Mozarabic Rite,” the “Sarum Rite” and the like, but this seems to be a confusion of the past four centuries (or a little more), reflecting the dominance of the 1570 codification and reform of the “Roman Rite of Rome” as the “Tridentine Rite,” which was to replace all other variants save those that could document 200 years of history. All of these “rites,” save the Ambrosian Rite and the Mozarabic Rite, are or were, variants of the Roman Rite, and so more properly termed “uses” (as, in England, with the “Use of Sarum,” the “Use of Bangor,” the “Use of Hereford,” the “Use of Lincoln” and the “Use of York” before the 1540s); only the Carthusian and the Braga (that of the Portuguese diocese of that name) uses survive today in their integrity (the Carthusian “unreformed,” the Braga “reformed”) although occasionally one encounters celebration of the old Cistercian and Dominican Mass “rites.” The Ambrosian Rite of Milan (and neighboring areas) is either a very ancient variation of the Roman Rite, which since at least the Fourth Century has been subject to both Gallican and Eastern influences, or an originally distinct rite that has undergone waves of “romanization” from a very early date, while the Mozarabic Rite, which until recent decades, when it was revived (and “restored,” that is, “reformed”) in the Spanish monastery of San Juan de Silos and in several parishes in Toledo that were Mozarabic until the 1490s, was celebrated only in a side chapel in Toledo Cathedral, is an entirely distinct rite from the Roman.
One strong implication of “Anglican Use” is that it will have no other Eucharistic Prayers (EPs) or “Prayers of Consecration” than those found in the Roman Rite. The Mozarabic Rite aside, none of these other “uses” or “rites” — call them what you will — had any other than the Roman Canon; this was so even of the Ambrosian Rite, although for Maundy Thursday and Holy Saturday only it had versions of the Roman Canon into which substantial proper prayers for those festivals were inserted, a practice unique to Milan. (The 1970s “reform” of the Ambrosian Rite introduced two new EPs, additional to the three new EPs introduced into the Roman Rite in 1969.) I have to say that I agree with the distinguished English Anglican liturgist and historian of the Early Roman Rite, Geoffrey Grimshaw Willis (1914-1982), regarding his dislike of these banal and (as he thought) un-Roman disfigurements of the Roman Rite (see his outspoken “The New Eucharistic Prayers: Some Comments,” The Heythrop Journal, XII:1 [January 1971], pp. 5-28), and if the reports are right that in whatever reconfigured Anglican Use Mass is eventually promulgated by Rome the “contemporary English” Rite II will wholly disappear, and with it these EPs, I would judge it no loss.
And well it should disappear, along with the 1979 Psalter. An Anglican Use based on, and following the pattern of, the 1979 Episcopalian Prayer Book makes no sense on a world-wide basis. Moreover, since the lame and dreary ICEL translation of the Roman Rite liturgical books is soon to be replaced by one occupying a distinctly higher linguistic “register,” it makes little sense to use any other “contemporary English” than that in use in the Roman Rite itself. However, if one of the advantages of the Anglican Use of the Roman Rite is, from a “Benedictine” vantage, to inspire and in its distinctive way exemplify a “reform of the 1960s ‘reform‘” of the Roman Rite in the direction of resacralization and a recovery of lost ground, then it makes much more sense that it should be one distinctive and consistently traditional thing, in style as well as substance, than an attempt to be all things to all Anglicans. Those Anglicans whose liturgical sensibilities are “contemporary” may well prefer to seek out the more elevated version of the Roman Rite which I hope will soon make its appearance. This is leading us fairly clearly towards the “Missal tradition” of Anglo-Catholicism in the last century, the effort that produced the English Missal, the American Missal and the Anglican Missal. To adopt or adapt one of these — my own tastes incline me more towards the English Missal — would produce a coherent and dignified rite, and would eliminate once and for all the bizarre phenomenon of the 1970 Roman Rite Offertory in ICEL English thrust into the midst of the “Cranmerian English” Rite I.
Still, and despite what I wrote above, I have speculated at times about the possibility of alternative “Anglican-like” EPs, perhaps for weekday celebrations or for certain set days on which the length of the Roman Canon, especially if said or chanted aloud, might be an inconvenience. I am going to avoid (with one partial exception) Twentieth-Century Anglican EPs, and likewise the “mainline” 1552, 1559, 1662 English rite, and its derivatives, as inadequate for Catholic purposes — by which I mean, impossible for the Catholic Church to accept the use of which as a valid EP [1]. The leaves the 1549 English rite, and the Scottish Episcopalian tradition from 1637 onwards down through 1764 to 1929, with the American Episcopalian tradition from 1789 to 1928 as a side-branch of this.
As to the 1549 rite’s EP I have never been able to understand its attraction for some Anglo-Catholics. I accept the reading of Cranmer’s theology underlying that prayer as fundamentally Reformed (in the Swiss sense) that has been advanced by Anglican scholars such as Dom Gregory Dix (1901-1952) and Professor Edward Craddock Ratcliff (1896-1967) — the former a well-known Anglican Benedictine monk and Anglo-Papalist, the latter the holder of various academic posts in Cambridge, Oxford and London, culminating as Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, and who was on the verge of entering the Orthodox Church at the time of his death — even if expressed in the most ambiguous of ways and in very “traditional,” that is, “Western-Catholic-looking” — forms. An EP of such an ambivalent, if not heretical, nature would certainly not be suitable for Catholic use. The 1549 EP is also, very clearly, an attempt at “reforming” the Roman Canon, the traditional and unique EP of the whole Western Church for centuries before the Sixteenth Century, save in the Mozarabic Rite, as well as (until the time of the post-Vatican II “reforms”) the unique EP of the Roman Church, and it seems to be that an EP conceived with the presumption of setting to right the presumed errors of the Church of Rome, the prima sedes and mater et magistra of all churches, is to act very much as Ham did towards his father, Noah, and with even less occasion to do so. Like Geoffrey Grimshaw Willis, I admire the Roman Canon for its unfathomable antiquity, as perhaps the oldest EP in continual use in Christendom, alongside that of Addai and Mari in the Semitic Christianity of the Catholic Chaldeans and the “Nestorian” Assyrians, the roots of which probably extend back into the Third Century or earlier. Of course, as a Ukrainian Catholic I cherish as well the marvelous, and typically Hellenistic, integration of form and content in those EPs such as those of St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. James of Jerusalem (possibly the work of St. Cyril of Jerusalem), and many others (most of them preserved in Syriac versions) which form one of the great glories of Christendom, and which were possibly the gift of the Church of Antioch, on the crossroads of the Hellenistic and Semitic worlds, to the Christian world — and which had so beneficent an impact on Anglican high-churchmen in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries, to whose work we must now turn.
The ill-fated Scottish Prayer Book of 1637, which occasioned the overthrow of episcopacy in Scotland in 1638 and began the process which culminated in the outbreak of civil war in England in 1642 and the temporary downfall of the monarchy there and the execution of King Charles I, rearranged the sequence of prayers around the eucharistic consecration in the 1559 English Prayer Book (the mild revisions of 1604 did not touch the Communion Service) to give a fuller, and more traditional looking, EP, although their wording was not altered. When episcopacy was restored in Scotland in 1661, the Prayer Book was not, and it was only after the reabolition of episcopacy in 1689 that, in the years immediately after 1700 the remaining Scottish Episcopalians began to adopt set liturgical forms, some of them the 1661 English Prayer Book service, others the 1637 service, and still others their own rearrangements or revisions of the 1637 service. In this they were influenced to a considerable degree by the liturgical revisions of the English Nonjurors, although the never went so far as the main body of the English Nonjurors, who in 1718 substituted for the 1661 Prayer book EP a translation of the long anaphora found in the Liturgy of St. James of Jerusalem. In 1764 a group of Scottish Episcopalian bishops produced a revised “Communion Office” whose use subsequently became general among Scottish Episcopalians. There were, however, a number of “English Chapels” in Scotland which were under the authority of the Church of England and followed the 1661 Prayer Book, and after these were transferred to the Scottish Episcopal Church from the 1840s onward a determined attempt was made to replace the 1764 Communion Office with that of the 1661 English liturgy as the normative one. The 1764 service was never abolished, but various canons enacted in 1863 and in force until 1912 effectively marginalized its use — but then the tide turned, and in 1929 the SEC adopted a Prayer Book, the EP of which was a moderate revision of that of 1764. This remains the official Prayer Book of the SEC, although since the 1970s it has effectively been replaced by a more anodyne set of “contemporary Anglican” style of services, issued in 1970 and 1982. Meanwhile, however, and as a result of the consecration of Samuel Seabury on November 14, 1784 by bishops of the SEC and of Seabury’s promise to attempt to secure the adoption of the 1764 Scottish Communion office as that of the the newly-formed Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, in 1789 the Episcopal Church adopted a modified version of that 1764 service — “modified,” it has to be said, in a more Protestant and “Cranmerian” direction — which, as modified in 1892 and 1928 (neither of these modifications affected the wording of the EP, although that of 1928 removed the “Prayer of Humble Access” from its position between the Sanctus and the Prayer of Consecration, where, following its position in the English 1661 rite, it had been placed in 1789 to a position after that Prayer and the immediately ensuing Lord’s Prayer; in the 1637 and 1764 Scottish rites, as in the English 1549 rite that Prayer also was positioned subsequently to the EP and Lord’s Prayer) remained the official rite of the Episcopal Church until 1979.
The texts of these three EPs can be found here:
for those who wish to consult or compare them at this point. What I will now do is to present excerpts from these three prayers, make a few comparative remarks, and then, as one rushing in as a fool where angels fear to tread, to produce a melded version of the 1764 and 1929 EPs which may seem to some suitable, and almost ideal for use in any Anglican Use liturgy. I will thereafter, in a subsequent post, go on to consider the EP of the “Liturgy of St. Tikhon” which has been used in the 1970s in some “Western Rite” parishes of the Antiochian Orthodox Church in North America, which affords a striking example, as I see it, of how not to do this sort of thing.
Becoming a Family
Mar 3rd
Just a few hours ago I returned from meeting with the members of the House of Bishops, Anglican Church in America. I thoroughly enjoyed getting to know them, and we spoke extensively about the implementation of the Holy Father’s Apostolic Constitution, Anglicanorum coetibus. It was immediately evident that our common hope should become a common effort, and so the request being made to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith is a joint request.
Of course, our situation in the Anglican Use is somewhat different from that of the ACA. Our clergy and parishes are ready to act immediately because we are already in communion with the Holy See, whereas the Anglican bishops have a process to follow to reach that point with their parishes. For some of them, it will happen quickly; for others it will take longer. But we all agreed that having an Ordinariate “up and running” will allow them to enter it when each one is ready.
Entering into this closer relationship between the ACA and the Anglican Use parishes is a welcome gift from God. We’ve needed to get know one another as we prepare to become a “blended family” in the Ordinariate. I’m looking forward to having more occasions to be together. And let’s all pray for the speedy implementation of Anglicanorum coetibus.
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?
TAC Formally Requests Personal Ordinariate for USA
Mar 3rd
The House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America, the American Province of the Traditional Anglican Communion, have issued the following press release.
Orlando, FL – 1 pm EST – Bp. George Langberg
Released by the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America, Traditional Anglican Communion 3 March 2010
We, the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America of the Traditional Anglican Communion have met in Orlando, Florida, together with our Primate and the Reverend Christopher Phillips of the “Anglican Use” Parish of Our Lady of the Atonement (San Antonio, Texas) and others.
At this meeting, the decision was made formally to request the implementation of the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum cœtibus in the United States of America by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
ACA HOB Meeting Day 2
Mar 2nd
As I write this, the bishops have successfully concluded Day 2 of the conference. Due to the nature of the deliberations, there is little that can be reported except to say that things are developing very positively and that an official statement should be published on The Anglo-Catholic as soon as tomorrow evening. Please continue to pray for the bishops as they continue to meet on Wednesday.
ACA House of Bishops Meeting Begins Today
Mar 1st
Beginning later today, the House of Bishops of the Anglican Church in America (TAC) will assemble in Orlando, Florida for discussions expected to last several days. The ACA HOB is to be joined by Archbishop John Hepworth, Primate of the Traditional Anglican Communion, along with representatives of Forward in Faith UK and the Anglican Use/Pastoral Provision in the USA. This House of Bishops meeting is an important step toward the implementation of Anglicanorum Coetibus in the USA. Please pray the the Holy Spirit will guide the bishops in everything they do!
Burying the Alleluia
Feb 13th
For those who follow the traditional calendar with the “Gesima” Sundays, you would have done this on the day before Septuagesima. But for those of us who follow the revised Latin Rite calendar, on Shrove Tuesday all the children will place their decoratively written Alleluias in a small coffin near the entrance of the church. We’ll sing the “Alleluia dulce carmen” at the end of Mass, as we process to the Lady Chapel, where the coffin will remain until the great Easter Vigil.
There are many local traditions surrounding the “Burying of the Alleluia,” but the purpose is always the same: to mark the cessation of singing or saying the Alleluia during the penitential season, so that it can break out as a new song at Easter. As the 13th century bishop, William Duranti, wrote, “We desist from saying Alleluia, the song chanted by angels, because we have been excluded from the company of the angels on account of Adam’s sin. In the Babylon of our earthly life we sit by the streams, weeping as we remember Sion. For as the children of Israel in an alien land hung their harps upon the willows, so we too must forget the Alleluia song in the season of sadness, of penance, and bitterness of heart.”
The students in our parish school get ready for this every year, and take it very seriously. In fact, a few years ago just after Lent had begun, one of our very young students asked if he could see me because he had to tell me something “very, very important.” When he came to me, he wanted to tell me what one of the other boys had done earlier that day. It sounded serious, so I encouraged him to tell me about it. In a half-whispered voice the offence was reported: “He said the ‘A’ word!”
* * *
Ecclesiastical Sundries
Feb 2nd
- Cardinal DiNardo shares his views on the Apostolic Constitution during a special parish meeting at Our Lady of Walsingham, Houston, TX. Cardinal DiNardo made no mention of the ACA/TAC (or any Continuing Anglicans) during the talk and it is unclear if he had only the current Anglican Use/Pastoral Provision in mind. He seems to take a high view of the role that the USCCB will have in the erection of future personal ordinariates. While the local episcopal conference will be consulted in due course, I believe that the application and erection process will be principally the concern of the petitioning Anglican group and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
- The Archbishop of Westminster has assured the Holy Father that his invitation to Catholic Anglicans has not “seriously disrupted” the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Church of England! Well that’s nice to know. Certainly ARCIC III is on the verge of a real breakthrough. How careless the Holy Father has been in nearly derailing the whole thing! Archbishop Nichols is also willing to work with Anglicans interested in coming into full communion with the Holy See. How very generous of him!
Archbishop Nichols characterized the Holy Father’s response to Anglicans who have requested communion with Rome as “generous and paternal.”
And he affirmed that the groundwork of “close cooperation and deepening friendship and communion” between Anglicans and Catholics have “helped us to ensure that the various interpretations of and reactions to ‘Anglicanorum Coetibus’ have not seriously disrupted the relationships between our Ecclesial Communions.”
“Indeed,” the prelate said, “the commitment to commence a third round of discussions as part of the work of the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission has reinforced this relationship. We remain ready to explore with those Anglicans in England and Wales who wish to take up your generous and paternal response to their requests the ways forward towards full communion.“
- The Holy Father has officially confirmed his upcoming trip to the UK. In his address to the English and Welsh bishops at the end of their visit ad limina Apostolorum, Benedict XVI also challenged the bishops to teach with united voice, upholding orthodoxy, and not legitimizing dissent against the teaching of the Church.
In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a variety of opinions on every question that arises, it is important to recognise dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate. It is the truth revealed through Scripture and Tradition and articulated by the Church’s Magisterium that sets us free.
- The President Bishop of the Episcopal/Anglican Diocese of Eqypt, The Most Rev. Dr. Mouneer H. Anis, has resigned from the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. Bishop Anis says that there is no longer any place for orthodox Anglicans in the Anglican Communion.
After much prayer and consideration, I hereby submit my resignation from the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion (SCAC). I have come to realize that my presence in the current SCAC has no value whatsoever and my voice is like a useless cry in the wilderness.
Many sing praises of “inclusiveness” while at the same time they exclude others. I am deeply disturbed in my conscience when I see a kind of double-standard in dealing with different issues. While emphasising the importance of caring for the marginalised in our communities, like the LGBT community, the orthodox Anglicans are being marginalized. I understand that in a family, the concern of every member is cared for; but this is not the reality in our meetings where the orthodox voices are disregarded or suppressed.
- SSPX group attacks FSSP chapel over rumor of an ecumenical Mass. The FSSP Chapel of St Peter Apostle in Guadalajara (The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter) was asked to schedule a Mass for the conversion of those outside the Church, in an effort to promote true unity among all Christians. The Mass was called a Mass for the conversion of sinners outside the Church, to be followed by a rosary in reparation for false ecumenism. The SSPX however heard through the grapevine that an ecumenical Mass was going to take place and they jumped to false conclusions. As a result, the SSPX went ballistic, calling for a protest against the upcoming scheduled Mass at the FSSP chapel. The SSPX laymen came to the FSSP church the morning before the Mass on Wednesday Jan 20th, 2010, and they spray painted the walls around the church! A first hand account wrote, “Ecumenismo no! Judas!” was spray painted in huge letters three times, almost all the way around, and one time on the side walk.
Rite of Mass Approved in the Anglican Catholic Church in Australia on August 15th, 2003
Jan 28th
I have found that the rite of Mass approved by Archbishop Hepworth for the TAC in Australia is of interest and certainly represents the kind of liturgical patrimony we would like to see approved by the Holy See. However, I do have a few reserves which I express in a spirit of respect and deference to my canonical superior.
My comments are in blue and the rubrics are in red.
* * *
As the priest and other ministers enter, a hymn or psalm appropriate to the Season may be sung. Then the priest goes to the foot of the altar and says:
Priest: +In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
People: Amen.
Priest: I will go unto the altar of God!
People: Even unto the God of my joy and gladness!
This is similar to the 1965 Roman rite. The Give sentence with me psalm has always been omitted at Requiem Masses. No big deal.
The following Collect for Purity in the Use of Sarum is said before the Judica me after after the Veni Creator said during the vesting of the priest. I approve its being placed here.
Almighty God, unto whom all hearts be open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid; Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy Name; through Christ our Lord. Amen.
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.
A Prayer of Supplication
Jan 27th
Margaret Pichon of the Anglican Use parish of Our Lady of Walsingham in Houston, TX sent me this beautiful prayer composed by Fr. James T. Moore, co-founder of the parish. It was composed way back in 1978, but it seems just as relevant now as then. Perhaps we all — Anglican Use, Forward in Faith UK, and TAC — might add this prayer to our daily devotions? Ut omnes unum sint.
* * *
O JESUS, through the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I offer to you my continual obedience, pleading that all Anglicans seeking union with the Apostolic See of Peter may have the fruition of their hope. By the power of your Divine Spirit so guide the Holy Father in Rome that this union will be accomplished and that what is good and true in our heritage may be preserved to the benefit of the Universal Church. Grant that Anglican bishops and priests longing for this union may be granted continued exercise of the priestly ministry under the authority of the Roman See and that Christians everywhere may once again know the Chair of Peter as that rock upon which your Church on earth is founded, against which hell cannot prevail. Amen.
Diplomatic Niceties
Jan 26th
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.
Pastorally and Progressively
Jan 25th
It is tempting to look at the situation in the Catholic Church, and wonder why plans for improving the abysmal post-conciliar liturgical situation seem to be going so slowly. In Rome, the Holy Father has given the example, and we learn that many of the urban churches have followed the lead. Some are using the old liturgy, others celebrate Mass on the old altars or still others have the “Benedictine” symmetrical arrangement of candlesticks on the altar with a central crucifix facing the celebrant.
People are naturally conservative about liturgical matters, and not only when it is a matter of the old Latin Roman liturgy or our Anglican Prayer Books. I have seen people who have the same reflex with the Novus Ordo, which has been used in nearly all Catholic parish churches for forty years. Some people even call the new rite the “traditional rite”. Incredible as it may seem, this is the reality. This means that every Catholic below the age of 50 years grew up with the Bugnini / Paul VI rite. They have not known anything else.
This conservatism sometimes extends even to the horribly banal ICEL “lame duck” translations that are about to be changed for better ones. Many people still want to respond to The Lord be with you with And also with you. We would be tempted to say that those people need to see a psychiatrist, but they are not mentally ill – simply conservative.
Now, I am sure Pope Benedict XVI would love to begin a radical programme of liturgical reform in the direction of a restoration. Get rid of the “chopping block” altars facing the people. Burn the polyester chasuble-albs and trash all the books with the goofy songs people have been singing since the 1970’s? Will that teach people to sing Gregorian chant, to love Latin, to go back to the 1950’s? No it won’t. It will leave nothing but a vacuum. This is why the pastoral way is slow and progressive.
For those who want to go quicker, Summorum Pontificum of 2007 removed all the legal or pseudo-legal restrictions from the “extraordinary” use of the Roman rite, and the 1962 Missal is used in an increasing number of churches of the Latin rite. This is wonderful and much to be encouraged. But, only a minority of Catholics is interested.
So, for the incoming Anglicans from the three main groups I have mentioned (TAC, Forward in Faith, Anglican Use Catholics), I don’t see Rome making sudden changes and radical demands, any more than for ordinary Catholics in the parishes. The “odd man out” group in question is the TAC, because FiF for the most part uses the modern Roman rite and the AU uses the Book of Divine Worship formally approved by Rome in 1980. Rome has two options: bringing the TAC into line with the Novus Ordo and the Anglican Use, which some fear could lead to a broken deal, and the other option is either approving a new book and officially promulgating it up front, or simply allowing the present status quo for a length of time.
Certainly, in time, Rome would like a uniform liturgy for the Anglican-Catholic Ordinariates. Some will be asking for the 1928 American Prayer Book, others the 1921 British Anglican Missal, the 1912 English Missal, the American Anglican Missal, the Use of Sarum in the Pearson or Warren translations, the Scottish Prayer Book and many others. Whichever it will be, of a combination thereof, no believer of any rite is going to react well to abrupt change. How is a BCP congregation going to react when they’re told they have to ditch the Prayer Book for some new-fangled missal? It will be just like Latin rite Catholics accustomed to a happy-clappy get-together around the table with the girl altar servers tripping over the microphone wires. Progress can only be made slowly, by example and not by constraint.
We should, in The Anglo-Catholic, continue this dialogue in the hope of influencing the process in favour of the old Anglican Missal (which can incorporate just about all the variations of Anglo-Catholic worship). It looks unlikely that a uniform rite will be imposed up front, or even published by mid 2010, about the time the first Ordinariates may be canonically erected. A definitive Missal would take several years of work, and I would expect the Congregation of Divine Worship to ask several of us Anglicans to consult with them and not do all the work themselves.
Frankly, I don’t see why we can’t have liturgical diversity. It is already the de facto situation of parishes in the Latin Rite, where priests do what they want (perhaps less so now than in the brutalist 1970’s). Some say diversity confuses the faithful, but are the faithful little babies or children, unable to vote with their feet? Is diversity un-Catholic? There are many rites in the Catholic Church, oriental and western, and a certain diversity in the Latin rite. Many local rites were unfortunately swept away in the nineteenth century under the influence of Dom Guéranger and Ultramontanism. Some survived, even in France.
I really do find it ironic that some Catholic traditionalists [I’m not pointing a finger at PKTP because it is not his attitude] (their comments on other blogs) seem to want the old iron-rigid uniformity. I would be tempted to say – OK. You can have uniformity – the Novus Ordo. You asked for it!
Will Rome tolerate liturgical diversity in the Ordinariates formed from TAC groups? Speculation is usually presumptuous, but going by the pastoral attitudes already shown by the Holy See in regard to other disciplinary issues, this could be likely for a time, the time it takes to codify an official Anglican-Catholic rite. After all, Catholics using the 1928 American Prayer Book can hardly cause more scandal – less so – than some ways of celebrating the modern Roman rite?
Personal Ordinariates: Who Can Belong?
Jan 24th
Although this isn’t a pressing issue for the parishes of TAC at the moment, it is for the Anglican Use parishes of the Pastoral Provision. Here’s what I wrote to our folks just after Anglicanorum coetibus was made public:
Of all the aspects of the Apostolic Constitution, the section which seems to be the cause of most concern and questions is found in the Complementary Norms, Article 5 §1. “The lay faithful originally of the Anglican tradition who wish to belong to the Ordinariate, after having made their Profession of Faith and received the Sacraments of Initiation, with due regard for Canon 845, are to be entered in the apposite register of the Ordinariate. Those baptized previously as Catholics outside the Ordinariate are not ordinarily eligible for membership, unless they are members of a family belonging to the Ordinariate.”
First of all, this is referring to future situations because at this point there is no Ordinariate. Therefore, every Catholic baptism, whether in an Anglican Use parish or in a territorial Latin Rite parish, is administered ‘outside the Ordinariate.’ Does this mean that the hundreds of people I’ve baptized at Our Lady of the Atonement over these past twenty-six years will be ineligible for membership in the Ordinariate? Obviously that would not be the intention expressed in the Constitution.
What about Catholics who have been baptized as regular Latin Rite Catholics whose children have received one or more of the Sacraments of Initiation at an Anglican Use parish? Obviously, the child is eligible for membership in the Ordinariate, and it’s apparent that the parents would have that same eligibility.
Because there have been Anglican Use parishes in existence for many years, there are many people who have made attachments to these parishes. They’ve been married in these parishes; their children have been baptized in these parishes; their loved ones have been buried from these parishes. Do we think for a moment that the Holy Father, who has been overwhelmingly generous in this Constitution, would intend that these Faithful should not maintain their ties – indeed, their membership – in these parishes? Of course not.
What about an older couple, with no other ties to a parish other than the fact that they’ve attended for years and have made the parish their own? Would the Church tell them, ‘Sorry, this isn’t your parish any more.’ I doubt it.
In fact, I asked these very questions when speaking with a couple of members of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. As I was told by one of them who has been closely involved in developing the Constitution, ‘What does membership mean, other than a person attends regularly, receives the sacraments regularly and contributes to the work of the parish? There will be nothing stopping people from doing that in parishes of an Ordinariate when they are established.’
The only time there will be actual canonical questions is in the case of marriage. The Sacrament of Matrimony must be witnessed by the proper pastor (or his delegate) of one or both of the parties. If two persons wish to be married in an Ordinariate parish, neither of whom would be automatically eligible for membership, delegation can be given by one of their proper pastors for the marriage to be witnessed by a priest or deacon of the Ordinariate. But those cases will probably not be frequent, and there are always ways of dealing with such things in a pastoral way.
I think the bottom line is this: the rule sounds as though it’s exclusive. But even the rule is tempered by the word ‘ordinarily.’ Those baptized previously as Catholics outside the Ordinariate are not ordinarily eligible for membership… There’s no such thing as a wasted word in an Apostolic Constitution. The word ‘ordinarily’ wouldn’t have been included in the text without the probability that there will be exceptions. Those wonderful words, ‘for pastoral reasons,’ will be much in evidence, I have no doubt.
These are just my private thoughts. I’m not writing with any authority or in any official way. But I know how things have been working for the past twenty-six years in our parish, and have no reason to think things will change with the Apostolic Constitution. And remember – the Ordinariate will have an Ordinary, a real live person who has the pastoral responsibility for those who are attached (or who desire to be attached) to this spiritual patrimony. Surely he, in his pastoral role, will assist any Catholic who has a sincere desire to be part of this, no matter where they’ve been baptized.
Honestly, I don’t think there’s anything to worry about. God’s in control, and this is really going to work.
This is something that will have to be settled as soon as an Ordinariate is established in this country. The Pastoral Provision parishes will be an important component in the implementation of Anglicanorum coetibus. A generation has passed since the first of these parishes was established, and their pattern of growth gives an indication of the future for many of the TAC parishes. It’s simply a fact – and very much our experience – that some life-long Catholics, with no Anglican connections, will find a spiritual home within the Ordinariates.
One further thought: when I said, “The only time there will be actual canonical questions is in the case of marriage,” it was within a day or two of the publication of the Apostolic Constitution, and I hadn’t really thought things through. I think the bigger question will surround ordination, and who will be eligible for consideration. I think the limitations placed on membership in the Ordinariates is primarily to maintain control over which married men might seek ordination within the Ordinariates.
As I mentioned at the beginning, this isn’t an important matter for TAC parishes now, but it certainly will be in the future.
The Liturgy Revisited
Jan 22nd
Going through comments on some of the traditional Catholic blogs, I observe that there are still speculations about the liturgy. Was there supposed to be a revised Anglican Use liturgy by last December 13th? I have no idea, but I already wrote an article last month about the liturgy – http://www.theanglocatholic.com/2009/12/what-liturgies-will-be-allowed-in-the-ordinariates/
I really have no more on the subject except that I have no doubt that the question will be dealt with no earlier than the canonical establishment of the first Personal Ordinariate. I see no reason why Rome should publish anything prior to that, because the present Anglican Use parishes are likely in the future to belong to a Personal Ordinariate.
It is true that there is an enormous amount of variation in the TAC as regards liturgical usage. Myself, I have only really seen what is done in England in a couple of parishes. St Agatha’s in Portsmouth is resolutely English Missal. Up in the north of England, usage seems to be between the English Missal and the English 1928 Prayer Book. Everything seems to be disciplined and reasonable in England. I have not visited any American parishes, so cannot judge on what is being done over there and whether it is right or wrong.
I think we should just relax and continue what we do right now in our various pastoral duties and situations. Let us not be looking for endorsement from Rome for our present liturgical usages until our communities are in communion with Rome through the future Ordinariates. This has not yet happened, so we have just to carry on with a lot of patience.
Questions about the Three-Year Lectionary
Jan 16th
I touch upon a sensitive subject here, because I know that some of our TAC bishops and priests favour (without obliging their clergy in the matter) following the three-year lectionary used in the modern Roman rite, the current Anglican Use and most Anglican liturgies in use since the 1970’s.
I find it pointless to go into reasons for my reserves about the three-year lectionary when things are expressed that much better in the New Liturgical Movement – Doubts About the Three-Year Cycle. The article and the comments are food for thought.
There are a couple more considerations. I don’t think the lectionary for Mass should compensate for the absence of faithful from the Offices. More importantly, the lectionary of the Roman rite (or that of the Prayer Book) could have been improved along the lines of the early eighteenth-century Parisian missal or the medieval Norman uses including Sarum. Ferial Wednesdays and Fridays have their proper Old Testament lessons, Epistles and Gospels.
My other main reserve is the change made to the temporal cycle made in 1969 by the late Archbishop Bugnini: particularly the Sundays after Epiphany and Sundays after Trinity (Pentecost) becoming “ordinary” Sundays per annum, the abolition of Septuagesima and the Ember Days, the suppression of all the Octaves other than Easter. One positive aspect of the Pauline reform is the wealth of propers for ferias when no saint’s feast is appointed, and another is the wealth of prefaces.
I hope, in a future reform of the reform, that the old temporal cycle will be restored. I am much less bothered about saint’s feasts being displaced. Those of us who follow the Sarum Use find feasts celebrated on different days to what is prescribed in the classical Roman rite. For example, we celebrate the Holy Name of Jesus on August 7th instead of January 2nd.
I would also hope for a return to a single-year liturgical cycle, not only for the Scripture Readings, but also for the Gradual psalms, Alleluia verses and so forth.
“Train up a child in the way he should go…”
Jan 16th
There’s a wonderful line in Anglicanorum coetibus which makes it clear that we’re supposed 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.” (Ang. coet. III)
It’s fairly obvious that to do this, we need parishes. Lots of them. We need parishes in every major city, and we need them in towns and villages. Until and unless people have the opportunity to become part of a community which is actually carrying out the mandate to “maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions,” then the sharing of the treasure will be sporadic at best. It’s in the parish setting that the liturgy lives on a daily basis, and it’s in the context of the parish that the priestly and diaconal ministries are most frequently exercised. Parishes will be the key component in the implementation of Anglicanorum coetibus.
I want to make another suggestion, however, which I believe will be fundamental to maintaining and nourishing the Anglican patrimony, and which will be a major means of its growth. Schools. I’m absolutely convinced that if the Ordinariates establish schools as part of their parishes, our patrimony will flourish.
When the bishops in the United States met at the First Plenary Council of Baltimore in 1852, it was for the purpose of organizing and standardizing the life and discipline of the Church. They issued twenty-five decrees, and one of them stated, “Bishops are exhorted to have a Catholic school in every parish and the teachers should be paid from the parochial funds.” In fact, the bishops felt so strongly about Catholic education, by the time the Third Plenary Council was held in 1884 they spoke of the “obligation” of the pastors to establish schools, and said that “parents must send their children to such schools,” unless the bishop judged there was sufficient reason for sending them elsewhere. So it’s pretty obvious that Catholic schools were deemed to be mighty important then, and I’m convinced they still are.
In 1993, I made the decision to establish a parish school. Although the parish of Our Lady of the Atonement had been established ten years before, it was still fairly small – fewer than 75 or 80 families. I won’t go through the litany of difficulties and obstacles we encountered (all from outside the parish), but suffice it to say that we opened for the school year in 1994. It was a modest beginning, with sixty-six students in Kindergarten through Third Grade. Today it’s a school which starts with Pre-Kindergarten and goes through High School. We have nearly five hundred students, with the probability of a larger number next year.
Every one of these students is immersed in our Anglican patrimony, every single day. The whole student body attends daily Mass, using the approved Anglican Use liturgy. Every student learns to sing Anglican Chant, hymns, and the great music of the Church, including plainchant. For them, the celebration of the Mass ad orientem, with traditional ceremonial, is completely normal. They take part in Solemn Evensong on several feast days throughout the year. They know and love our Anglican prayers, our way of doing things, our spirituality.
Because the education they receive is of the highest quality, recognized nationally, many parents seek to enroll their children – parents who perhaps aren’t practicing their faith, but who want something excellent for their children. Over the years, those students have been instrumental in bringing their families to the parish. I’ve lost count of how many baptisms I have administered, marriages I have convalidated, and confessions I have heard, because a student in the school has influenced the whole family.
And when these families begin attending – many of whom had not practiced any faith for years – they are immersed in our Anglican expression of the Catholic faith. It’s not long before they, too, come to count our patrimony as their own. In fact, it’s become almost meaningless to try and differentiate between those who used to be Anglicans and those who weren’t. Our Anglican patrimony has become the common way of expressing our Catholic faith, no matter what a person’s religious background is.
When the Ordinariates come into existence, I hope the importance of establishing schools will be high on the list of priorities. Parishes don’t have to be large, nor do they have to have great financial resources. Our own experience is evidence of that. But if we want to “…maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church,” schools can have an essential role in accomplishing it.
(For a glimpse of a school which reflects our Anglican patrimony in the Catholic Church, go here.)
Anglicanorum Coetibus at March for Life
Jan 15th
Deacon Mike Noble and John Nisbet both wrote to remind me of this notice posted on the Anglican Use Mailing List.
Please join us on Friday, January 22nd at 6:30 p.m. at Old St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Washington, D.C. Fr. Eric Bergman, chaplain of the Anglican Use Society, will be in town from Scranton, Pa. for the March for Life. He has graciously agreed to stay an extra evening to meet with those in the Washington, D.C. area who are interested in the Holy Father’s apostolic constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus.
All who are interested, including non-Roman Catholics, are invited to attend and participate.
Please forward this information wide and far, but I do ask that people RSVP to me at eric.james.wilson@gmail.com so we will have enough bulletins.
Let me know if you have other questions.
Pertinent Details:
Friday, January 22
6:30 p.m.
Evening Prayer according to the Book of Divine Worship
Reverend Father Eric Bergman, Officiant
Followed by a talk on Pope Benedict XVI’s apostolic constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, which provides for the creation of personal ordinariates for Anglicans.
Old St. Mary’s Catholic Church
727 5th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Fr. Bergman is a priest of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Scranton. He was ordained according to the Pastoral Provision of Pope John Paul II and is the Chaplain of the St. Thomas More Society in Scranton. He was recently on EWTN’s The Journey Home.
The church has a small parking lot, but public transportation is recommended. St. Mary’s is two blocks from both the Gallery Place – Chinatown & Judiciary Square Metro stations.
Please RSVP to eric.james.wilson@gmail.com or 202-642-5359
Map powered by MapPress
The NC Register’s Tim Drake Interviews Christian Campbell
Jan 14th
The Anglo-Catholic also gets a mention and a link. Here’s an excerpt:
As 2010 begins, many are wondering how last year’s Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus for disaffected Anglicans, will play out, particularly in the U.S. While observers do not expect many in the U.S. Episcopal Church to take advantage of the Vatican’s offer, it is expected that members of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) will accept the Holy Father’s invitation.
The Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) includes approximately 400,000 Anglicans worldwide. The American province of the TAC, known as the Anglican Church in America (ACA) includes approximately 5,200 communicants in four territorial dioceses. Over the next few months, all of the provinces will be holding synods to put forward the question of how they will be responding to the Apostolic Constitution.
-snip-
“The expectation is that our General Synod will accept the Holy Father’s offer,” said Christian Campbell, Senior Warden of the Cathedral of the Incarnation in Orlando and a member of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Church in America’s Diocese of the Eastern United States. “It is not so much a question of whether or not we desire to avail ourselves of the offer – inasmuch as it is a direct and generous response to our appeal to the Holy See. The question now is how the Apostolic Constitution is to be implemented. We have practical concerns and we are presently working with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to resolve any outstanding questions.”Campbell said that the first TAC provinces will be entering the Catholic Church within the next six months.
Growing Together in Charity
Jan 13th
My recent post on The Journey Home television program has provoked a good deal of discussion (not all of it constructive), and the commenter “Andrew” has made the following suggestion.
“There are ways of moving forward that respect both the teaching of the one, visible and visibly undivided Church and the consciences of Anglicans who feel called to move into the fullness of that Church without repudiating the gifts that they have hitherto enjoyed by virtue of their own patrimony.”
Owing to the sensitive nature of this topic, and the fact that this theme will undoubtedly be common in the forthcoming discussions, may I suggest a separate posting to gather the thoughts of the readers of this blog?
The theme: What are those ways of moving forward for those of us in the Anglo-Catholic tradition that honors our consciences as well as the Church’s teaching?
So let’s discuss it! Perhaps my comment below will prove helpful in jumpstarting the conversation.
Please do not misunderstand. The TAC is not pressing the issue of Holy Orders. If our clergy are received via conditional ordination, we will obviously be pleased, but if circumstances require absolute ordination, then we will accept the judgement of the Church in humility. This point is not being contended. Nor are we actively challenging the disciplinary decision in Apostolicae Curae.
The question is merely whether or not the recapitulation of ancient controversies is helpful to the cause of mutual respect and reunion. I believe that the constant reminder on the part of some Roman Catholics that Anglican orders are “utterly null and void” can hardly be conducive to the goal of communion between us.
The simple fact of the matter is that our folks believe — many with a moral certainty — that we fully share in the sacramental life of the Catholic Church. Rome has not given us any indication that this is not the case and our bishops have be assured privately on the key points. We certainly understand the past controversies and we are not pressing the issue. We understand that our circumstances are “apocryphal” and that there are serious doubts caused by our irregular ecclesial situation and the complexities of history. We understand that the Church and ordinary Roman Catholics need to be assured of our validity. And we will ultimately submit, in humility and filial obedience, to the judgement of the Holy See.
I too regret the tone of some of the comments and I admit that the tenor of my original post may have been brusque, but I am simply calling for sensitivity. Traditional Anglicans need to be reassured that the Church respects their identity and patrimony and I believe that Mr Grodi’s program failed to to so. There is always a next time. Let us strive for understanding in charity.
