« Good neighbors | Main | Why Benedict »
April 27, 2005
An Anglican Rite?
Christopher Johnson takes note of some things people are noticing and remembering and refers us to this post at TitusOneNine where the comments, particularly those of William Tighe, are quite interesting
Short version (I think): Cardinal Ratzinger supposedly was sympathetic to traditional Anglicans (I know -that covers a lot. Go read the posts.) , and was one of the few in the Curia, most of whom didn't want to damage relations with Canterbury.
Posted by Amy Welborn | Permalink
Comments
Just wanted to say thanks for the links to a hugely interesting story and Mr. Tighe's comment is eye opening (reading it brought to mind B16's dislike of bureaucracy and why).
As an aside, the 14 anglo rite parishes in the US were fostered by Bernard Cardinal Law over the objections of a lot of his brother bishops. He ended up going straight to JPII to make the case.
Posted by: Colleen at Apr 27, 2005 8:21:12 AM
I wonder about the ecumenical implications of this vis-a-vis efforts to end the schism with Orthodoxy.
Some background: The Catholic and Orthodox churches, in their most recent statement together (1993, I think) said that "uniatism" as a method of seeking church unity is not to be pursued in the future. In other words, the Catholic Church would no longer try to create Eastern Catholic churches from groups of Orthodox who wanted union with Rome apart from the rest of their particular church. Instead, the goal is to seek communion between the entire churches and Rome throgh interfaith dialogue and reconciliation.
The question is whether the Orthodox will see an effort to reunite a splinter group of Anglicans to Rome as "Uniatism in the west." They may be tempted to say, "Rome hasn't changed" and may try to conflate this issue with their accusations of Catholic "proselytism" in the east.
For that matter, will Rome value dialogue with Canterbury enough to refuse accomodation with splinter groups.
I think this might be one of those sad instances in which a small group of believers may have to take a back seat to the interests of the Church universal.
On the other hand, at some point Rome may have to say to the Anglicans: enough is enough: we can't attempt reunion with a group that persists in moving further and further away from the things we have in common.
Posted by: WRY at Apr 27, 2005 8:34:14 AM
Would the Orthodox think of the Anglicans as a Church on a par with the Orthodox Churches and therefore capable of reunion as a body? Bear in mind that the Orthodox are technically a Church (from the Catholic point of view) because they have valid sacraments and valid orders, while the Anglicans are an "ecclesial body" because they do not (apart from Baptism and Matrimony). Moreover, the Anglicans are errant members of the Western Patriachate, while the Orthodox are historically separate Patriarchates that have broken communion with Rome (or been broken with, if you ask them). So I think that the issue of "uniatism" for Anglicans is different from the same question applied to the Orthodox. [NB: My Eastern Catholic friends tell me that "Uniate" is considered an offensive term, so we shouldn't use it.]
Posted by: Henry Dieterich at Apr 27, 2005 8:48:28 AM
Very interesting stuff on titusonenine's (Kendall Harmon's) comment thread. One commenter listed the various factions that traditionalist Anglicans have formed, like the Network, AMiA, TAC, APKC, etc. And how these factions themselves disagree on things like women's ordination. And how some would be willing to consider reunion with Rome, and others would not.
For sure this lack of a united voice hurts the efforts of those who want to bring the ECUSA and Anglicanism in general back toward traditional belief and practice.
Posted by: Larry at Apr 27, 2005 8:55:50 AM
the Orthodox are technically a Church (from the Catholic point of view) because they have valid sacraments and valid orders, while the Anglicans are an "ecclesial body" because they do not
Is this certain?
I thought the question of the validity of Anglican orders is somewhat confused, since many Anglican priests and bishops have been conditionally ordained by schismatic-though-authentic bishops.
Posted by: Rick at Apr 27, 2005 9:08:00 AM
Anglican orders dating from Reformation times were determined (by Rome) to be invalid. However, as said above, various schismatic bishops with valid orders have taken part in Anglican ordinations, and I have been told it is pretty certain that an Anglican priest today does have valid orders. Unless of course the priest is female. ( The ruling about this said that the church does not have the right to ordain women, Jesus didn't do it, not symbolically right, etc. Did it say that ordination of a woman wouldn't "take" ? I know people have said this-in fact say this frequently and at length.... using the phrase "invalid matter" but does the decree about this specifically say that? )
By the way, ECUSA bishops are now taking part in Lutheran ordinations, so that eventually the Lutherans (which Lutherans?) will have valid orders. I can't quite understand how if the Lutherans acknowledge that this is of any importance, they are content to go on with their current clergy not being so ordained...but the Anglican church already made this compromise years ago when it entered communion with the church of South India.
I think there is very little chance of reunion directly with Canterbury and I think an Anglican rite of any size would be of great benefit, not only to the Episcopalians who would find it much easier to be Catholics in that setting, but eventually to the church as a whole, especially the English speaking part of it. I don't think having such a rite would offend the sensitivities of Canterbury the way the uniate rites offend the sensitivities of the Orthodox.
Susan Peterson
Posted by: Susan Peterson at Apr 27, 2005 9:39:43 AM
It's been a while since I read anything about this, but my understanding is that shortly after Henry VIII's break with Rome, Cranmer rewrote the ordination rite so drastically (removing all reference to the sacrificial nature of the priesthood) that the rite was invalidated. Inside of two generations after the switch to Cranmer's new rite, there were no validly ordained priests in the Anglican church. That's why Anglican priests who return to Roman Catholicism and lead Anglican Rite parishes need to be ordained properly using the correct rite of Holy Orders.
The "Old Catholic Church" that broke from Rome after the first Vatican Council retained the correct ordination rites, so they are a group of validly ordained (though illicit) priests and bishops, and they would be able to validly ordain an Anglican/Episcopalian priest providing they used the correct ordination rite.
Just as the priests in the Old Catholic Church are validly ordained but illicit, so too the priests in our current traditionalist breakaway groups like the Society of Pope Pius X--they are validly ordained but illicit in the eyes of the Vatican.
And the Orthodox retained the correct rites, so their priests and bishops are all validly ordained.
I poked around a bit in the Orthodox Church of America website, and frankly I see bigger problems than papal supremacy. The OCA allows divorce and remarriage twice (two divorces, three marriages) without requiring annulment or any other kind of ecclesial divorce. In other words, a first marriage may be sacramentally valid, but a divorce and remarriage in the Orthodox Church is allowed. They refer to a passage in Matthew saying divorce is only allowed in cases of adultery, but then define adultery as pretty much anything (another person, alcoholism, etc.). Remarriage is not allowed to priests. There were also some fuzzy statements about birth control and abortion in the case of rape or incest. I don't know if this is representative of all Orthodox Churches or just the OCA. It could be a situation like the different Lutheran synods.
Posted by: ml at Apr 27, 2005 9:48:45 AM
Is this certain?
I believe that Apostolicae Curae says that there is a defect in the form of the Anglican Ordinal, not only because it originally did not contain the words "for the office and work of a priest or bishop", but more importantly because the Church of England does not believe in the sacrificial nature of the priesthood.
I know that there are high-church Anglicans that believe in the sacrificial order of the priesthood, but that is irrelevant to the form. The Anglican Ordinal was originally put together by Cranmer, who absolutely denied the sacrificial nature of the priesthood. Since then, the Church of England has never officially declared that it believes in the sacrificial nature of the priesthood. Thus the defect in form still exists, even with the addition of the words "for the office and work of a priest or bishop" to the ordinal.
This existence of a defect of form in the Anglican Ordinal makes it impossible for even a validly ordained bishop to ordain priests and bishops by its use. That is, at least, my understanding of the situation.
Posted by: brendon at Apr 27, 2005 9:51:43 AM
Yep, it's the neverending Episcopalian sideshow. How an "ecclesial body" of 2 million Christians manages to twist itself into so many knots is beyond me.
As a "Roman" who often attends Anglo-Catholic masses in Episcopal churches, I have a a great deal of sympathy for their confusion. My theory is that they are Christ's beta testers. Every innovation, orthodox or not, gets tried in some part of Anglican Communion, and usually in its hapless U.S. province. Some of them, like the Mass in English, serious hymns, and the clerical outfits worns by priests, stick. Others are dubious, like the "rap mass."
That said, we should consider that these are the Western Christians who are closest to us in lineage--i.e, as an "ecclesial body" they were least effected by the series of reformations in the 16th century. And for U.S. Catholics, we may want to reflect that Anglicans were the first to celebrate the Mass in English, and did so for 400 years before we joined them. They are our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Despite their divisiveness, Anglicans are extremely well-informed about Church affairs. If Christianity is envisioned as a bar in a Star Wars movie, the Anglicans would be the aliens with really big brains/heads. (Of course, the Catholics own and run the bar.)
In Anglican circles, Rome is often labeled "triumphalist." Anglicans view themselves as humble, since they are knowledgeable and relate well to Catholicism, Orthodoxy and Protestantism. My view is that a Church with 60 million members in the U.S. and more than 1 billion in the world can afford to be charitable in its dealings with a struggling "ecclesial body" of 2 million Christians. We can begin by acknowledging them as part of the Church.
Posted by: George at Apr 27, 2005 10:02:29 AM
Someone in one of the recent comment boxes here said that regarding the Sacrament of Holy Orders, the form is the Rite of Ordination and the matter is the laying on of hands. The matter is not the candidate for priesthood.
Posted by: ml at Apr 27, 2005 10:18:03 AM
ML: Intention to do what the Church does is also necessary for the validity of a sacrament.
Here's what I've written elsewhere about a so-called "Anglo-Catholic Church" within Catholicism:
I don't know about an establishment of a sui iuris "Anglo-Catholic Church" within Catholicism. English Catholicism has historically been under the Latin Patriarchate, and it makes no sense for me to make them a sui iuris Church because of a schism that they started some 500 years ago.
Returned Anglo-Catholics, while rightfully being allowed to continue with their traditional rite (although the exact "traditionality" of this has been hotly debated; many feel that it has no precedent before the Reformation), should otherwise be subject to the same disciplines and canons of the Latin Church as a whole, including the norm on priestly celibacy, in my opinion.
Otherwise, you create a dangerous precedent. What's to stop ever other of the hundreds of Protestant denominations to ask for their own sui iuris Church when/if they finally unite with Rome?
Posted by: Eric Giunta at Apr 27, 2005 11:05:33 AM
George,
"Rap mass"??? Do tell!
Posted by: Lauren at Apr 27, 2005 11:09:46 AM
If a marriage is invalid, the Church can convalidate it and make it sacramental, ne? So why can't the Church do the same with the ordination of priests and bishops under another denomination's rite? Among other things, I thought that was what those keys were for.
Posted by: Maureen at Apr 27, 2005 11:18:02 AM
Anglo-Catholics who might wish to return under Petrine authority would want to do so under conditions that guaranteed their right to retain their beautiful and majestic liturgy and ritual in perpetuity, and who can blame them?
Posted by: Larry at Apr 27, 2005 11:18:23 AM
I think that some form of reunion of Anglo-Catholic traditionalists (particularly those grouped within the Traditional Anglican Communion and the Forward in Faith movement within the Church of England) is possible. I do not think it will take the form of a "uniate" or "sui iuris" church, but likely some other status like an apostolic administration, apostolic prefecture, or personal prelature within the Latin rite Church, but with special permission to use a modified form of the Anglican liturgy (which already exists in the form of the episcopally approved Book of Divine Worship) and retain other Anglican customs such as a married priesthood (but likely a celibate episcopate, as exists in the Eastern churches). Te Anglican Church was historically a part of the Patriarchate of the West, but that Patriarchate was not always a monolith, but has had other rites and uses within its midst than the main Roman rite.
Posted by: Mark C. at Apr 27, 2005 11:23:16 AM
Has there ever been a definitive general statement regarding the validity of Holy Orders in the case of a "mix-in", i.e. the main branch of putative episcopal lineage is invalidly ordained but a validly ordained bishop from outside that ecclesial community acts as a co-consecrator? Carried to an absurd extreme, eventually every baptized man could become a bishop.
Posted by: Patrick Sweeney at Apr 27, 2005 11:41:13 AM
Not a rap mass (sorry), but a Hip Hop mass with a rapping Lady Bishop in the streets of NYC.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_42063_ENG_HTM.htm
An abomination!
Posted by: George at Apr 27, 2005 11:48:34 AM
As someone blessed to worship weekly with an Anglican-Use congregation, which in some ways is a model (but an incomplete one) for what I believe Archbishop Hepworth and the TAC are looking for in reunion with Rome, I have a few thoughts.
It's entirely possible that some Orthodox would object, as it is reminiscent of the Uniate method of reunion to which they object. No doubt, these same Orthodox would immediately repent of having set up "Western Orthodox" parishes using a revised form of the 1928 prayerbook, such as those associated with the Antiochene Orthodox Church. After all, they wouldn't want to look hypocritical.
As for WRY's comment that perhaps this is a situation where a small group of believers may have to take a back seat for the needs of the Church Universal, that strikes me as a most unpastoral attitude. If the shepherd is supposed to go after the one lost sheep leaving the 99, then how can the Church let the half million TAC members dangle, because of a commitment to RealPolitik?
As for dialogue with Canterbury, the fact is that there can be no real dialogue with the Anglican Communion, because there is no shared doctrine. At best, there could be dialogues with each province. The Archbishop of Canterbury has no authority to discipline any part of the Anglican communion outside of his own province, and even there he is limited because the Church of England is run by Parliament.
And that inability to have a real, substantive dialogue with the Anglican Communion is to me a real sadness, because the Anglicans have preserved many features from Patristic and Medieval Catholic life that are rarely seen in contemporary Catholic circles. Daily morning and evening prayer, celebrated by clergy and people (at least in the Cathedrals and larger churches), a continuing involvement of the laity in caring for the church's temporal goods via the vestries, many of the ancient devotions such as Candlemas, processions, etc. And of course, the reverent worship that Anglo-Catholic worship is known for.
A reunion would be beneficial to both sides I believe.
As for the establishment of a sui iuris "Anglo-Catholic Church" within Catholicism, it is worth keeping in mind that the original Anglican formularies for worship were translations of the Sarum rite of Salisbury Cathedral. The Catholic Church in England could have as easily been a rite as the Ambrosian or Mozarabic. If there can be several Eastern Churches, and varied rites, there can also be several Latin Churches, or at least, several Latin rites under the one Patriarch of the West. Historically there has always been a centralizing tendency in the West, but that needn't be the case. And with the advent of vernacular liturgies after Vatican II, there is much less ritual unity in the Latin Church than at any period since Charlemagne.
Posted by: Steve Cavanaugh at Apr 27, 2005 11:49:01 AM
Has there ever been a definitive general statement regarding the validity of Holy Orders in the case of a "mix-in"
I'm not sure, but the practice of the Church with regard to ordaining Anglicans who convert to Catholicism is instructive.
If I am not mistaken, on at least some occasions the Church, with Vatican approval, has conditionally ordained Anglican priests who can trace their priestly lineage back to Old Catholic or Orthodox bishops — meaning the Church accepted the possibility that such converts were already validly ordained priests. I believe Graham Leonard, former Anglican bishop of London, was conditionally ordained a Catholic priest.
Also, some of ecumenical gestures of recent Holy Fathers to the Archbishops of Canterbury at least seem to imply that the Church sees Anglicans as comprising a "church" rather than an "ecclesial body" — though granted a definitive teaching should not be read into these generous gestures.
Posted by: Rick at Apr 27, 2005 12:19:34 PM
I'm wouldn't call the Hip Hop Mass an abomination. It's just more of the goofiness one sadly has come to expect from the hyper-progressive elements in the Episcopal Church. Check out this pimpin' reinterpretation of the 23rd Psalm:
The Lord is all that, I need
For nothing
He allows me to chill.
He keeps me from being heated
And allows me to breathe easy.
He guides my life so that
I can represent and give
Shouts out in his Name.
And even though I walk through
The Hood of death,
I don't back down
For you have my back.
The fact that you have me covered
Allows me to chill.
He provides me with back-up
In front of my player-haters
And I know that I am a baler
And life will be phat
I fall back in the Lord's crib
For the rest of my life
To paraphrase President Ford, if Thomas Cranmer were alive today, he'd be rolling in his grave.
Posted by: Daniel Baker at Apr 27, 2005 1:06:07 PM
I don't know about the wisdom of an Anglican Rite. The following 3 comments from the first-linked Anglican site really give me pause. Should we accomodate people's class, ethnic and social views to the extent of an entirely separate Rite? Aren't we over Irish, Polish, German parishes? Why an entire Rite for a people who already have RCC churches in their homeland and in their diaspora? I bellieve the Eastern Rite churches had no RCC churches in their localities, right?
Here's the comments:
1) "It is an unfortunate historical fact that many Episcopalians and Catholics in the US were born on opposite sides of the RR track, and despite their current aspirations for theological orthodoxy which brings them into closer relations, both communities see themselves as being “apart” in more ways than just praying for the Pope, or not."
2) "I don’t understand. If certain Anglicans wish to to be completely in communion with Rome and under the authority of the Pope, why do they not become Roman Catholics?"
Comment by Brian — 4/24/2005 @ 7:45 pm
3) "Brian, joining a local Roman Catholic church can be quite daunting as there are few social opportunities following Mass, such large attendance that one is more than anonymous, and ethnic considerations. In some ways Anglicanism is an ethnic expression and having an Anglican rite in the Roman Church preserves the possibility of familiarity, intimacy, use of a liturgy (Rite I) that is exceedingly rich and meaningful, and certain Anglican customs such as coffee hour, etc. As long as Popes are as reasonable as they have been (to me) of late, I see no problem with the infallibility issue, and as for W.O. I think there are fulfilling outlets for women who feel that to be their calling."
Posted by: Julia at Apr 27, 2005 1:22:01 PM
Rappin' Roskam brings Richard "Boogie Oogie Oogie" Nixon to mind...
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Apr 27, 2005 2:28:02 PM
Would the Orthodox think of the Anglicans as a Church on a par with the Orthodox Churches and therefore capable of reunion as a body? Bear in mind that the Orthodox are technically a Church (from the Catholic point of view) because they have valid sacraments and valid orders, while the Anglicans are an "ecclesial body" because they do not (apart from Baptism and Matrimony). Moreover, the Anglicans are errant members of the Western Patriachate, while the Orthodox are historically separate Patriarchates that have broken communion with Rome (or been broken with, if you ask them).
Exactly.
1) I see no problem with an Anglican Rite created especially for large bodies of traditional Anglicans/Episcopalians who want to swim the Tiber en masse.
There are conditions, obviously: 1) They must acknowledge the theology, sacramentology and ecclesiology of the Church. Their rite must be altered on any points where it is incompatible with Church teaching. The question of married bishops is a thorny one I have not thought out. If they are allowed, it would have to be on a special, one-time (for incumbents only) and very, very carefully considered basis.
The Church, as Ratzinger has pointed out, has always had a plurality of rites. And frankly our Anglican rite churches have - very sadly - better, more worshipful liturgies than many Novus Ordos out there.
2) For the reasons pointed out above, any such arrangement is not a precedent for reunion with the Churches of the East.
Nonetheless, this point must be rammed home with our Eastern brethren throughout the process. This is aspecial arrangement; we're trying to salvage pieces from a western ecclesial community. Our basis for discussing full reunion has been sussed out and agreed to and we do not wish to deviate from that.
Posted by: Richard at Apr 27, 2005 3:00:49 PM
I've thought a lot about the topics discussed here, as an Anglo-Catholic who has started the process of conversion. So I'm afraid that there will be a certain of amount of disjointedness in my comments as I finally start to unload my brain. . .
I believed in the branch theory of the Church, which basically holds that the Church equally subsists in Anglicanism, Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I would not have converted to Anglicanism (within the Episcopal Church, USA)had I not been convinced that it was a manifestation of the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church.(OHCAC, hereafter) Most Anglican Catholics would believe the same.
Where my experience differs from many Anglo-Catholics is that over the years, I did come to acknowledge in various ways, the supremacy of Catholicism. That is to say, I realized that Anglicanism was a historic accident and that by itself it could not represent the fullness of the Church.
In practical terms, that made me a duck out of water. I believed in every Church teaching aside from papal primacy, the ordination of women, and the teachings on birth control. (which did have some consequence in the way I approached the Anglican debate on homosexuality) Some Anglican Catholics would differ from me in this, as they would not support the ordination of women or the logical consequences of accepting the morality of birth control on the debate over homosexuality.
In practical terms: I started praying the Luminious Mysteries, used the Fatima Prayer after each decade, became devoted to the Divine Mercy, and off and on wondered if Opus Dei would accept Anglican members, et cetera, et cetera. I'm not sure at all how many Anglican Catholics follow quite that path.
Several things happened to me that changed this idiosyncratic status quo. It became increasingly clear to me that my parish and diocese were not going to be a place where I could live my Catholic life in fellowship. There wasn't going to be devotion to Mary, adoration of the Sacrament, etc. There wasn't even going to necessarily be a sense of the Eucharist of source and summit. As I witnessed the developments within the Anglican Communion, I began to doubt whether the Anglican Communion did in fact possess the marks of the Church. I increasingly came to the conclusion that we did not, and that we never had possessed the marks of the Church in their fullness. We had intent, for the most part, and many of the forms, but we needed the Pope. Close is only good in horseshoes. . . So, instead of glossing over the passages in the Catechism which pertained to the Pope and the Magisterium, I slowly came to assent.
Then of course, Pope John Paul the Great began the final stages of his via crucis. I realized that I wasn't feeling the kinds of feelings you have when the leader of another denomination dies. I was feeling the kinds of things that you feel when your own Holy Father dies. Whether he knew it or not, he was my pope.
And then the election of the new Pope. I was so happy it was him, and I was so happy that I had a new Holy Father. So, what was I doing in the Episcopal Church? Heck if I know. . .So I've started "crossing the Tiber," as we Anglicans put it. I want to be where I thought I was the whole time.
Now for some general comments:
Anglicans must resist the temptation to believe that they deserve an engraved invitation to return to communion with the Church. Regardless of what we thought we were, and what we desired to be, we are schismatics, and we need to repent.
On the other hand, we were faithful to so much in the Tradition that it would be wasteful not to acknowledge that. In our faithfulness to whatever we still had of the Church, we developed things of great beauty and usefulness to the Church. Think liturgy. . .
It is unrealistic to expect that large numbers of parishes or dioceses will come over, but I do think that the Pastoral Provision that is already in place, should be supported and nourished by the Church. Whether that would lead to an Anglican Rite is a question that should remain open.
I don't personally have the luxury of coming over with my parish, and most Anglican converts won't either. More's the pity. . .
And very few Anglican converts will have such an easy time of it as I do, on a purely doctrinal level. Many of them, for all their self-perception of themselves as Catholic, will struggle with doctrines like Purgatory or the Immaculate Conception.
All of us will probably struggle with the liturgical problems in this country, as that is the one thing we did do right.
And all of us will share the common struggle of all Christians, that of becoming more and more like our Lord and Savior. . .
Posted by: fgilbert2 at Apr 27, 2005 3:40:01 PM
In all this discussion here, at T19 and Midwest Conservative Journal, I don't know if anyone -- except for the first poster here -- has actually got around to pointing out that there is, in fact, an established Anglican Rite in the Roman Catholic Church.
It so happens that the first Anglican Rite parish ever established, Our Lady of Atonement, is a few miles from where I live. Here's their URL:
http://www.atonementonline.com/index.php
As a disgruntled Episcoplian, I've been considering a visit, but the stories about Jesuits kidnapping Protestants and forcibly converting them in the basement have kept me away so far. (Har har.)
Posted by: wtb at Apr 27, 2005 4:09:42 PM
This has probably been covered a hundred times on this board but I'll ask it again: what is the difference between a Rite and a Use?
My understanding (which could be wrong): a Rite has more permanence and autonomy than a Use. Right now (Rite now, you could say) there is an Anglican Use, but not an Anglican Rite. A Use can be taken away at almost any time. Anglican Use parishes can be dissolved at the order of a local bishop. A Rite is more protected, and enjoys a greater degree of autonomy. They have their own bishops.
Am I correct? If so, wtb, that is what the discussion is about here.
Posted by: Larry at Apr 27, 2005 4:34:18 PM
Actually, in terms of a Rite with its own liturgy, parochial structure, bishops and clergy and means of clerical formation, there isn't an Anglican Rite. Our Lady of Atonement is an Anglican Use parish, allowed to use a modified Anglican rite (the Book of Divine Worship) according to the Pastoral Provision of +Paul VI.
To get an idea of the hopes and concerns of one conservative Anglican in The Episcopal Church regarding an Anglican Rite, specifically its liturgy, you might take a look here:
http://reader.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=108
Posted by: Todd Granger at Apr 27, 2005 4:35:49 PM
Todd, it looks like we made essentially the same point, independently of each other, at almost the same time.
Posted by: Larry at Apr 27, 2005 4:48:26 PM
Thanks for clearing that up. As I pointed out, there's a lot of discussion about this. Too much for me to wade through. However, since I knew there was some kind of Anglican/Catholic church just up the road from me, I wondered why nobody was talking about it and the other parishes linked to on its website.
Todd G., I'll follow up on the link you provided.
Yours,
Todd B.
Posted by: wtb at Apr 27, 2005 5:14:12 PM
Todd, great stuff on the link you suggested. The issues are all right there, laid out with knowledge and eloquence and honesty.
Posted by: Larry at Apr 27, 2005 5:15:13 PM
Dr. William Tighe mentioned in another thread - or somewhere else - that the Anglican Use canon translated by Miles Coverdale, is found in Foxe's Book of the Martyrs, which surely must be one of the great ironies of church history. This is an incredibly fascinating fact which I did not know, and after a search I have been able to find an e-text of the Coverdale translation with Foxe's vituperation against the Mass. It's great reading.
"The whole Canon of the Masse with the Rubrick therof, as it standeth in the Massebooke after Salisbury vse, translated woorde by worde oute of Laten into Englyshe."
http://hri.shef.ac.uk/foxe/single/book10/10_1563_0891.html
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Apr 27, 2005 5:17:24 PM
Here's a link to the Anglican Use website. The links include the by-laws and member parishes. Another great link is the St. Thomas More Society.
An Anglican Use Conference - Friday, April 29, 2005
St Clare Catholic Church
2301 N. Washington Avenue
Scranton, PA 18509
8:30 AM - 5:00PM
Father Aidan Nichols, - OP Prior St. Michael’s Dominican Priory, Cambridge, England
Dr. Alexander J. Burke, Jr. - Professor, Hofstra University
Reservations required:
Please send check for $35.00 per person payable to St Thomas More Society.
Mail to: Anglican Use Conference, Care of St Clare Church at address listed above.
Questions: (484) 437-8703
The Anglican Use is a 1980 pastoral provision of Pope John Paul II that preserves liturgical
elements of The Book of Common Prayer for the Roman Catholic Rite in the US.
Posted by: Colleen at Apr 27, 2005 7:00:11 PM
Anglican practices are themselves a version of the Sarum Use that prevailed in pre-Reformation England. This is why the BCP marriage rite differs from the Roman one. The former is the old Sarum Use ceremony Englished.
Posted by: Sandra Miesel at Apr 27, 2005 7:12:56 PM
As Colleen was kind enough to mention the Anglican Use conference, I'll just say that I'm headed there tomorrow afternoon, and am looking forward to it immensely. I'll come back to this thread on Sunday and post some observations.
The Boston Anglican Use parish web site is: http://www.locutor.net
Posted by: Steve Cavanaugh at Apr 27, 2005 8:01:21 PM
As others have pointed out, Archbishop Cranmer's liturgical reforms were of the Sarum Use that had come to predominate the liturgical landscape in pre-Reformation England (save in a couple of cathedrals, like Hereford). But he didn't simply translate the Sarum Use liturgies into English. He modified and greatly simplified the liturgies, and edited most of the prayers both to read better in English and to reflect reformed theology. Cranmer also took note of the liturgies of the Reformed Church in Strassburg, the liturgical writings of Martin Bucer, the reformer of Strassburg; and the liturgical reforms of Hermann von Wied, Archbishop of Cologne, as well as Hermann's opponents' writings known as the Antididagma. If memory serves, he was also influenced to some degree by Cardinal Quiñones' reform of the breviary in Spain.
Posted by: Todd Granger at Apr 27, 2005 8:18:57 PM
"He modified and greatly simplified the liturgies, and edited most of the prayers both to read better in English and to reflect reformed theology."
This aspect of the Prayer Book is of far greater signficance than the Sarum Use form that predominated in England prior to the Prayer Book's introduction, in my view. The Communion Service of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer - which remains the offical BCP in England, is simply quite atrocious from a Catholic point of view, in both form and in doctrine, and the 1928 Book of Common Prayer used in the United States is somewhat better, but still serious deficient in both respects. Those who were most committed to the Catholic cause in Anglicanism in the late 19th century onwards found it necessary to both re-arrange the communion service and interpolate elements of the Roman Rite to make the BCP service suitable for Catholic worship. The Daily Offices, however, are less tainted by the Continental reform that the rest of the BCP and are worth repatriating into Catholicism at almost all cost. My two cents.
Posted by: Patrick Rothwell at Apr 27, 2005 11:11:59 PM
fgilbert2: Thanks for your excellent post about your transition from Anglo-Catholicism to Catholicism. I can identify almost totally with your story, as I traveled a similar path.
As a cradle Episcopalian who spent his first 54 years of life as an Anglo-Catholic, I crossed the Tiber in 2004. I credit the Catholic TV network, EWTN, with spurring my movement into the Church. After watching it for several years, and after reading much material, my already-Catholic mind became my Catholic heart, also.
Although I regularly attend a normal (and thankfully orthodox) Novus Ordo parish, I have attended Mass in two Texas Anglican-Use parishes: St. Mary’s in Arlington, Texas, (http://www.stmarythevirgin.org/) and Our Lady of Atonement in San Antonio (http://www.atonementonline.com/index.php). The Anglican Use liturgy reminds me a great deal of what many of us think the reformed Mass could and should have been after Vatican II. While said in the vernacular and therefore much more accessible than the old Mass, it retains the transcendent beauty and mystery of the old Tridentine Mass (including the celebrant facing ad orientum). The prayers are almost poetic in their cadence and language. And the hymns are glorious.
As fgilbert2 said, the sacredness and beauty of the liturgy “is the one thing we did do right” in the Anglican Church, and it’s a pity that my beloved Roman Catholic Church did not borrow from it when revising the post-Vatican II liturgy.
Nonetheless, I could never be Episcopalian again. As much as I loved their exalted hymnody and liturgy, I have the Fullness of the Faith in the Catholic Church now, and that makes all the difference.
Posted by: William in Texas at Apr 28, 2005 6:24:17 AM
As an Anglican in a quandary over what to do, and perhaps when to jump ship and to which ship (Rome or Constantinople), I appreciate and value all that is said above.
And interesting little tidbit, though, was related to me by a bishop in the Traditional Anglican Communion who had been involved in reunion discussions with then Cardinal Ratzinger. When asked about Apostolicae Curae and all the rest regarding the invalidity of Anglican orders, the good Cardinal suggested that Rome might simply issue an edict declaring them valid, so long as the reuniting Anglican bodies accepted the entire body of RC teaching. He indicated that the question of orders was but a minor sticking point in the bigger scheme of things.
Posted by: Ian+ at Apr 28, 2005 7:32:34 AM
This aspect of the Prayer Book is of far greater signficance than the Sarum Use form that predominated in England prior to the Prayer Book's introduction, in my view.
Patrick, while I am more inclined toward most of Cranmer's reforms (and those of Hermann von Wied) as well as the later Anglican liturgical reforms of William Laud and others, I quite agree with you that the liturgical changes introduced by Archbishop Cranmer are of greater significance than the Prayer Book's continuity with the pre-Reformation Sarum Use, whether we look at the 1549 book or (especially) the 1552 book. Hence (at least!) my advocating an Anglican Rite (whether it be in communion with Rome yet or not) eucharistic prayer that includes the realist language of the Scottish (and Non-Juror) Holy Communion service.
Posted by: Todd Granger at Apr 28, 2005 7:55:51 AM
As a now retired Episcopal (Anglican) priest I have never once dounted the validity of my ordination as deacon or priest. As I have always seen it, the Roman decision to declare our orders as invalid was nothing but a political move. The then current AB of C and the AB of York gave a splendid rebutal. If I ever contemplated becoming Roman, reordination, baptism or anything else, in my opinion, would be a betrayal of all who had gone before me in the ordained minstry in the Anglican Communion and I simply could not do it - even if called "conditional."
Posted by: David+ at Apr 28, 2005 7:58:58 AM
I read this thread with the eye of a drifting Anglo-Catholic. I'm wondering if there needs to be a bit of clarity given to the apparently superficial devotion we have to "our" liturgy. When many people talk about the beauty of the Anglican liturgy, it's not purely an aesthetic judgement. Obviously many Anglican churches "do liturgy" beautifully, with inspiring music, opulent vestments, etc. That's part of it, but there's a bigger part that I think many Anglicans are loathe to dismiss -- the very real sense of holiness and awe in the liturgy.
At nearly every Anglican parish I've attended in nearly 15 years (high church Anglo-Catholic, or low church evanglical, or somewhere in the middle) the liturgy is a spiritual highlight of the week. EVERYONE kneels to receive Communion (no matter what they believe about the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist,) almost no one comes in late or leaves early, and people actually attempt to sing the hymns to the best of their ability. Now at coffee hour, they may rant about gay marriage or Iraq or other quarrelsome issues, but at least for that hour and a half, worshippers really are united in their presence with God.
Contrast this to most Catholic parishes I've attended, where even if the liturgy itself isn't awful, it seems like a drive-thru for Communion. In and out as quickly as possible.
Now I know there are "traditional" or "conservative" or what have you Catholic parishes. I've been visiting a HUGE parish run by the Dominicans where the lines for confession are long, everyone kneels for Communion, and children are learning how to behave in church. But these seem to be the exception, rather than the rule. Just as Amy and others on the blogosphere seem to the exception to mainstream American catholicism.
If I could have remained quietly isolated in an aesthetically and spiritually rewarding parish that was part of a larger Church that was falling apart at the seams, I would have stayed an Episcopalian. I don't want to be live in an incense-filled ghetto, but in Christ's church.
But why should faithful Anglo-Catholics grapple with fundamental doctrinal issues like the Immaculate Conception only to have the spiritual solace of "their" liturgy replaced by an approach that seems tailored to appease Catholics who can't be bothered to live the basic tenets of their faith? Although accomodations must be made, can't the American Catholic establishment see ANYTHING of value faithful Anglicans might bring "to the table?"
Sorry to rant, but none of my Catholic convert friends can really answer this for me. I apologize, and I'll now go back to lurker mode.
Posted by: Beth at Apr 28, 2005 10:04:21 AM
As the Catholic renewal unfolded in the Anglican Communion during the 19th and 20th centuries there actually emerged two camps in terms of liturgy. One group championed "Sarum Use" and they did a lot of scholarly work to uncover the original Sarum Use that became widespread in England prior to the Reformation. They published translations of the Sarum missal, etc. An eventually larger group of Anglo-Catholics ultimately saw this effort to "recapture" the ancient Sarum Use as a bit of a scholastic fantasy. They pointed out that the Sarum Use was one of several Western liturgies in use prior to the Reformation (and Trent), that it wasn't terribly distinctive or "Anglican" in any special way, and that it was, like all the other uses, in Latin anyway. This larger group of Anglo-Catholics saw the efforts of the "Sarum Empire" as they mockingly called it, to create a fantasy that there was some quintessentially Anglican pre-reformation rite that needed to be preserved as a scholastic delusion. The ultimately dominant voice in Anglo-Catholicism took another route and viewed the Tridentine Rite as the definitive rite of the Western Church. Therefore, they took the Book of Common Prayer and the Tridentine Liturgy and merged the two into a beautiful, in my mind at least, liturgy in English. There are two primary versions of this work: The Anglican Missal (in an English and an American edition) and the English (also American) Missal. The American version of the Anglican Missal is available on-line at:
http://societies.anglican.org/anglocatholic/anglicanmissal/missal.htm
for those who want to see it. We use it weekly in our Anglican Continuum parish and it's GREATLY appreciately by both our former Episcopalian and still-RC parishioners who prefer the Tridentine liturgy to post-Vatican II creations.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at Apr 28, 2005 10:53:13 AM
Beth:
here's the reason: Sunday obligation.
Catholics are *required* to be there, Episcopalians are not. So the halfhearted Episcopalians stay home, but even Catholics who shack up, wouldn't know a dogma from a dog and who can't be bothered to put on more than a tank top will shlepp on over to Mass.
That's our fault and our virtue. Catholics stay Catholic, but a protestant has to choose to be protestant, so to speak.
Posted by: WRY at Apr 28, 2005 1:55:19 PM
The debate fascinates me. As an Anglican priest (Anglo-Catholic) ordained five years ago, I do not doubt the 'validity' of my orders. Why? Simply because, during the ordination rite, when other clergy present 'laid hands' on me, one of those participating was our local Roman Catholic parish priest (a Jesuit). Had their been any doubt, my RC brother in Christ would have politely declined to share - and actively take part - in the rite.
I am confident that one day (sooner rather than later) their will be an Anglican-Rite Church in communion with Rome. Pray God that it shall not be too long in coming.
Posted by: David at May 7, 2005 5:05:01 PM
Im an Anglo-Catholic but I have certain reservations about some of the traditions such as worshipping of saints. I strongly believe that we claim authority through Apostolic succesion and also believe that the Holy Sacraments we administer are valid because those two(Holy Communion and Baptism)are the only sacraments that Christ himself ordered to perform where as the others were ordered by the Church. I also believe in united ministry since all the denominations cannot come under one church for the very reason that our views are different and the ways that God has revealed to us are different.
Posted by: Raveen Mendis - Sri Lanka at Feb 7, 2006 1:39:24 AM
