|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Anglican use of Roman Rite
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurence:
And we can see from this thread that there were lots of people who felt their Catholicity would only be ensured by bending rubrics and adding bits to the liturgy. It must be a blessing just to go up to the altar and say Mass out of the book- no reservations, no "well, if I add the Orate Fratres before the Prayer of Humble Access, and commemorate the Roman Martyrs under my breath during the Comfortable Words..."
As someone who would instinctively borrow bits, and would have previously quite happily used the Roman books to the exclusion of all others (save, of course, for marriage and possibly funerals), I know what you mean but, certainly talking for myself, I don't feel that my Catholicism is hindered by using CW exclusively (nor, indeed, the BCP exclusively). It's not that the Anglican liturgical forms are inadequate, it's more that they're lacking. Hmm, that sounds as if I'm saying "they're not A, they're A".
An analogy, I suppose, would be that cottage pie is a perfectly decent dinner (in fact, one of my favourites) and does the job, and is even suitable for informal entertaining. However, to make it clear that you're making an effort, one might want to go to a bit of extra trouble. No-one needs a tablecloth, or freshly starched linen; no-one needs candles or flowers; no-one needs the posh glasses rather than tumblers. Nonetheless, though, it makes it explicit what you're trying to do.
Does that make sense?
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurence
Shipmate
# 9135
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
An analogy, I suppose, would be that cottage pie is a perfectly decent dinner (in fact, one of my favourites) and does the job, and is even suitable for informal entertaining. However, to make it clear that you're making an effort, one might want to go to a bit of extra trouble. No-one needs a tablecloth, or freshly starched linen; no-one needs candles or flowers; no-one needs the posh glasses rather than tumblers. Nonetheless, though, it makes it explicit what you're trying to do.
Does that make sense?
Thurible
Yes, and it's a position that makes sense to me- I love the feeling of continuity with a wider church that one gets from "the posh glasses"- whether it's a Greek Kyrie, a Latin Gloria or an Old Church Slavonic Cherubic Hymn.
But the difference for me is, pace Fr Hunwicke and PaulTH, that I don't feel that down-the-line C of E liturgy is so theologically lacking that it needs interpolations. Yes, I grew up in a church which merrily included the Orate Fratres in its so-called ASB Rite A service, and shoved in "Deliver us, O Lord, from every evil and grant us peace in our day" in the Lord's Prayer too. But that was never portrayed as making our mass any more valid, or less invalid.
That way- "validating" the mass through endless liturgical tinkering- just won't work if underneath you don't think your Church has the power and authority to do the Real Thing. Hence I'm pleased that Fr Hunwicke is in a place which is better for him, even though it's probably a loss for the richness of the C of E.
Posts: 648 | From: Lincolnshire | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laurence:
But the difference for me is, pace Fr Hunwicke and PaulTH, that I don't feel that down-the-line C of E liturgy is so theologically lacking that it needs interpolations.
Yes, indeed.
I concur. And I definitely don't understand those who think it needs interpolations or substitutions. Which, of course, doesn't preclude them.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
So Fr Hunwicke is now the full, perfect and sufficient authority on what is and is not the worship that God finds acceptable?
No, but I'd describe him as such on what is or is not legally possible!
Why?
I find the whole assumption that we, the enlightened few and those like us, should not accept the authority of our own church and our own bishops, but assume that either another ecclesial community or our own opinion, knows better, deeply and profoundly unsavory.
It is also - a point that has been made before - a way of thinking that is deeply and profoundly Protestant. I'm Protestant and accept that this is as fundamental a part of the tradition as any other. Fundamental to these people spiritual identity, is their claim that they are not, and that the word is a term of abuse.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
So Fr Hunwicke is now the full, perfect and sufficient authority on what is and is not the worship that God finds acceptable?
No, but I'd describe him as such on what is or is not legally possible!
Why?
Because, for good or ill, he is exactly the sort of person for whom the term 'Jesuitical' might have been invented.
And, lest that be misinterpreted, Fr Hunwicke is someone for whom I have a huge amount of respect. He is one of the finest confessors I've encountered and is a splendidly pastoral man. That, of course, doesn't detract from the fact that he's a nutter but he's a very loveable nutter.
Thurible
[ 22. January 2013, 11:20: Message edited by: Thurible ]
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I find the whole assumption that we, the enlightened few and those like us, should not accept the authority of our own church and our own bishops, but assume that either another ecclesial community or our own opinion, knows better, deeply and profoundly unsavory.
But "our own" church (or, rather, the Supreme Head of that Church in Parliament) has given the Minister precisely such authority. He/She/It passed the relevant legislation permitting the promulgation of the relevant Canons that give the Minister authority to tinker. I personally think this part of our ecclesiastical law is a complete mess, but it is a mess wholly made by the Bishops and the Synod, tracing back to Lent Holy Week and Easter and beyond.
If you drill a large hole in the prison wall, don't be surprised if a few people seek to walk through it!
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I find the whole assumption that we, the enlightened few and those like us, should not accept the authority of our own church and our own bishops, but assume that either another ecclesial community or our own opinion, knows better, deeply and profoundly unsavory.
As I'm not clergy, I never had the problems that Fr Hunwicke and others must have had, but I think "unsavory" is a bit strong. Lawrence wondered why these people didn't go to Rome years ago, and since I have, I've asked myself the same question, as I feel spiritually at home for the first time in my 58 years of life. In truth, once I joined Forward in Faith and the Catholic League, I felt out of place with mainstream Anglicanism, and I should have gone then. Several Ordinariate clergy and laity whi I know feel the same.
quote:
It is also - a point that has been made before - a way of thinking that is deeply and profoundly Protestant. I'm Protestant and accept that this is as fundamental a part of the tradition as any other. Fundamental to these people spiritual identity, is their claim that they are not, and that the word is a term of abuse.
In British history, it's Catholic that has always been a term of abuse. It still can be, although not as it once was. When I joined the C of E at 40, I was quite MOTR, and Prayer Book orientated. I just grew into a more Catholic way of thinking. I have appalling memories of fundamentalist Protestantism from my childhood, but I apologise if you feel I'm using the word as a term of abuse. I just so much prefer Catholic theology and practice.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
First the most important bit in response to Thurible et al:
Cottage Pie - yum! (No tablecloth required - my wife says I spill food onto my shirt most meals...)
Fr. Hunwicke may well be Jesuitical in his ingenuity but he is wrong - Church of England clergy are required to use an authorised Eucharistic Prayer and the Roman canon is not one of them. This is a reading into ARCIC of what is not there. CW allows you to write / import your own preface in some prayers - but the liturgical tinkering we now allow is closely circumscribed in the case of eucharistic prayers.
In the Cof E those parishes (clergy...)who use the Roman Rite or who use no (recognisable) rite often do so as a kind of badge or flag. It signals who they think they belong with or their theological position more than it does their liturgical convictions.
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
CW allows you to write / import your own preface in some prayers - but the liturgical tinkering we now allow is closely circumscribed in the case of eucharistic prayers.
Charles, would you please expand on this (i.e., argue your case/cite your sources, etc)? As I've said above, I've moved a long way in terms of the desirability of using Roman materials but I'm yet to be convinced that they're forbidden?
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
...in the 19th century, altar candles, vestments and elevation of the host were considered so popish that they aroused persecutions.
My only point is that all these things are imports from Catholicism,
Ahem. Ornaments Rubric?
Well, sure. But the interpretation of that rubric was always controversial. The question is whether it refers to the vestments, etc. in use under the Sarum Use or to those prescribed in the 1549 BCP. And some even interpreted the rubric to mean that the ornaments & vestments were not to be used in worship, but retained in the inventory of the churches "for the queen," whatever that might mean.
The elevation of the host, however, was not a practice in use at the time the first BCP was promulgated. It came into Anglicanism via late 19th-century Ritualism.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Is it not true that - technically - any liturgy can be used with the permission of the diocesan Bishop?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
...in the 19th century, altar candles, vestments and elevation of the host were considered so popish that they aroused persecutions.
My only point is that all these things are imports from Catholicism,
Ahem. Ornaments Rubric?
Well, sure. But the interpretation of that rubric was always controversial. The question is whether it refers to the vestments, etc. in use under the Sarum Use or to those prescribed in the 1549 BCP. And some even interpreted the rubric to mean that the ornaments & vestments were not to be used in worship, but retained in the inventory of the churches "for the queen," whatever that might mean.
The elevation of the host, however, was not a practice in use at the time the first BCP was promulgated. It came into Anglicanism via late 19th-century Ritualism.
Certainly it was controversial: but it was there and a susbstantial number of the CofE clergy who adapted vestments (again) in the C19 did so believing that they were reviving the proper practice of the CofE. There were very likely Anglo-Papalists who would have adopted vestments etc as 'imports from Catholicism (sic)' as Paul TH suggests even if the rubric hadn't been there, but my point was that that wasn't the whole story by any means.
[ 22. January 2013, 20:41: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Is it not true that - technically - any liturgy can be used with the permission of the diocesan Bishop?
No. According to the various Acts, Measures and Canons the Bishop has no such authority in respect of services for which there is provision in the 'authorised' texts. See Canons B1-B5A
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
CW allows you to write / import your own preface in some prayers - but the liturgical tinkering we now allow is closely circumscribed in the case of eucharistic prayers.
Charles, would you please expand on this (i.e., argue your case/cite your sources, etc)? As I've said above, I've moved a long way in terms of the desirability of using Roman materials but I'm yet to be convinced that they're forbidden?
Thurible
Charles hasn't replied to this because, despite his no doubt saintly patience, he has done so already. His sources are the authorized service books of the Church of England.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Has he? Sorry, where?
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Fr. Hunwicke may well be Jesuitical in his ingenuity but he is wrong - Church of England clergy are required to use an authorised Eucharistic Prayer and the Roman canon is not one of them. This is a reading into ARCIC of what is not there. CW allows you to write / import your own preface in some prayers - but the liturgical tinkering we now allow is closely circumscribed in the case of eucharistic prayers.
There's your answer, thurible.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
Incidentally, I'm perfectly happy and interested if an Anglican priest uses the Roman Canon. After all it was the authorized Eucharistic Prayer of the Church of England until the unhappy events of the the 1530s. But I see no need and strategically it is counter productive.
This bickering about words and formulas is very Protestant. Surely the eucharist is primarily an action?
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adam.
Like as the
# 4991
|
Posted
If you believe Augustine, it's a "visible word." I think formulae are rather important, so long as we remember that we have faith in a reality, not in the formulae that describe that reality.
--------------------
Ave Crux, Spes Unica!
Preaching blog
Posts: 8164 | From: Notre Dame, IN | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
...in the 19th century, altar candles, vestments and elevation of the host were considered so popish that they aroused persecutions.
My only point is that all these things are imports from Catholicism,
Ahem. Ornaments Rubric?
Well, sure. But the interpretation of that rubric was always controversial. The question is whether it refers to the vestments, etc. in use under the Sarum Use or to those prescribed in the 1549 BCP. And some even interpreted the rubric to mean that the ornaments & vestments were not to be used in worship, but retained in the inventory of the churches "for the queen," whatever that might mean.
The elevation of the host, however, was not a practice in use at the time the first BCP was promulgated. It came into Anglicanism via late 19th-century Ritualism.
Certainly it was controversial: but it was there and a susbstantial number of the CofE clergy who adapted vestments (again) in the C19 did so believing that they were reviving the proper practice of the CofE. There were very likely Anglo-Papalists who would have adopted vestments etc as 'imports from Catholicism (sic)' as Paul TH suggests even if the rubric hadn't been there, but my point was that that wasn't the whole story by any means.
Indeed - the followers of Percy Dearmer were not anglo-papalists by any stretch of the imagination. They were persuaded that vestments were truly anglican.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Fr. Hunwicke may well be Jesuitical in his ingenuity but he is wrong - Church of England clergy are required to use an authorised Eucharistic Prayer and the Roman canon is not one of them. This is a reading into ARCIC of what is not there. CW allows you to write / import your own preface in some prayers - but the liturgical tinkering we now allow is closely circumscribed in the case of eucharistic prayers.
There's your answer, thurible.
Nope.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
Incidentally, I'm perfectly happy and interested if an Anglican priest uses the Roman Canon. After all it was the authorized Eucharistic Prayer of the Church of England until the unhappy events of the the 1530s. But I see no need and strategically it is counter productive.
That is the reason why I said I could see more of an excuse for using the pre-Reformation Canon, than the current Roman one.
However, it would have to be translated into English to comply with Article 24. No such authorised translation was ever made. Even if such had ever existed, it is not in the list of authorised services in the current Canons.
As I understand it, they are:-
1. The 1662 BCP,
2. Common Worship with such discretions as Common Worship allows for, but no others, and
3. A limited permission to concoct services for special occasions that neither the BCP nor CW provide for, provided the concoction complies with the doctrines of the CofE based on scripture, historic formularies and authorised forms of worship.
As both the BCP and CW provide forms of service for Holy Communion, 3 does not authorise concocting ones own or importing someone else's form of Communion Service.
quote:
This bickering about words and formulas is very Protestant. Surely the eucharist is primarily an action?
Up to a point Lord Copper. Aren't Catholic clergy required to use their authorised forms of service and nothing else?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
Just a Hostly nudge to keep it civil, good folk!
Thurible is perfectly entitled to ask for additional clarification if he wishes it, venbede (although neither Charles Read nor anybody else is obliged to answer him if they chose not to, of course).
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Incensed
Shipmate
# 2670
|
Posted
St Mary's Bourne Street has managed to retain its High Mass reasonably intact but their Low Masses now have many bits from the new Roman Rite. A case of vicar's choice rather than what the congregation want perhaps? Is this a common approach?
Posts: 241 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
Thurible is perfectly entitled to ask for additional clarification if he wishes it, venbede (although neither Charles Read nor anybody else is obliged to answer him if they chose not to, of course).
Indeed. I've no wish to demand Charles Read, or, indeed, anyone else that they should argue their case rather than state it. I would, genuinely, be grateful, though, were they to do so.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Read
Shipmate
# 3963
|
Posted
I was hoping to reply at length / ad nauseam (the latter was I believe the title of a papal decree addressed to clergy who just make you sick...)but I've been too busy tending the Lord's vineyard etc. in this frozen part of England. Just because East Anglia sticks out on the side of the country does not mean we are Alaska.
I'll find the chapter & verse in the CW instructions but I recall it says 'an authorised eucharistic prayer' - and the CofE has authorised liturgical texts and commended ones. As for eucharistic prayers, we have authorised a limited number.
--------------------
"I am a sinful human being - why do you expect me to be consistent?" George Bebawi
"This is just unfocussed wittering." Ian McIntosh
Posts: 701 | From: Norwich | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Thanks, Charles; that'd be fab.
Ask Mrs Read for some cottage pie to strengthen you in the vineyard!
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
Looking back on this thread since I last posted on it, I think that PaulTH* did the right thing: he had come to the position where he accepted the claims of the Roman Catholic Church, and he became a Roman Catholic. That's because I think (& am open to correction) that the Roman Catholic Church teaches that if you believe its claims, and yet delay becoming a member, then for as long as you delay, your soul is in peril.
Now, it seems to me that if you use the Roman rite, you have at least gone a long way towards accepting the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. This is not only because the doctrine is expressed in the rite, but also because in choosing that rite over the rite of your own Church, you have recognised it as having a superior authority.
This may not always have been the case. For instance, there were a few years when modern English missals were available, but the CofE was still stuck on traditional language: at that time, you could make an argument that the modern English Roman rite was more pastorally appropriate than the traditional English CofE rite. I think there was also an argument (though not a very good one in my opinion) in the days of the ASB that the Missal was aesthetically and structurally superior. But what I don't see is any argument - other than accepting the authority and therefore the claims of the Roman Catholic Church - to choose the revised Missal over the available CofE rites. Even the "we've always done this" argument is out of the window, because you can't possibly claim to have used the new Missal for more than a few months.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Thanks, Charles; that'd be fab.
Ask Mrs Read for some cottage pie to strengthen you in the vineyard!
Thurible
He has already replied:
quote:
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Alaska.
I'll get me (thermal, hooded) coat.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Swick
Shipmate
# 8773
|
Posted
I must admit that I find the whole idea of Anglo-papalism to be bizzare. If an Anglican sincerely believes that one needs to be in full commmunion with the Bishop of Rome and all that his church teaches, then one should either join the Ordinariate or become a mainstream Roman Catholic.
That said, I find nothing wrong with praying for either the pope or some other Christian leader. I've been at services where, in addition to praying for our (Episcopalian) Presiding Bishop, we also pray for the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, the Ecumemical Patriarch, and the Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
Posts: 197 | From: Massachusetts, USA | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
BulldogSacristan
Shipmate
# 11239
|
Posted
Hasn't the pre-Reformation Roman Canon largely been translated into English in the Anglican/American/English Missal, though?
Posts: 197 | From: Boston, Massachusetts | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Swick:
I must admit that I find the whole idea of Anglo-papalism to be bizzare. If an Anglican sincerely believes that one needs to be in full commmunion with the Bishop of Rome and all that his church teaches, then one should either join the Ordinariate or become a mainstream Roman Catholic.
*snip*
While I tend to agree with Swick on the oddness of Anglo-papalism, it is perhaps a bit more that they wish to receive the liturgical direction of the Patriarchate of the West, while unable to agree on a series of theological and spiritual practices and disciplines. Obviously, if they are on board with them, then Tiber-crossing is really the only logical move. Some say that they are a package, but it seems the anglo-papalists disagree.
Another factor supporting illogicality is that, for many lay-people, there is a strong attachment to their parish community and, in a way difficult for many to understand, to a particular altar and building. The exact colour of the flag or whatever name comes up in the diptychs is not necessarily that important to them.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
Hasn't the pre-Reformation Roman Canon largely been translated into English in the Anglican/American/English Missal, though?
Yes, but none of those is authorised in the Canons of the CofE either.
(ETA: my mistake - I think it was the Tridentine Canon in the English Missal. I'm not aware of anywhere in the CofE that uses a pre-Reformation rite.)
[ 24. January 2013, 16:16: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
AberVicar
Mornington Star
# 16451
|
Posted
Cigarette paper: Meet pre- and post-Tridentine Roman Canons...
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
Before you diagnose yourself with depression or low self-esteem, make sure you are not, in fact, just surrounded by assholes.
Posts: 742 | From: Abertillery | Registered: May 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
Hasn't the pre-Reformation Roman Canon largely been translated into English in the Anglican/American/English Missal, though?
Some editions of the American Missal (notably the recent revision by Lancelot Andrewes Press) include it, but the edition I have (1950s, by the SSJE) does not.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
Both the English Missal and the Anglican Missal in the American edition include the so-called Miles Coverdale translation of the Roman Canon (curiously called the Gregorian Canon--odd, not because one doubts the involvement of Pope St. Gregory the Great in its origin, but because the piece is so well-known by its name, Roman Canon).
As for Anglo-Papalism, here is an excellent study of the phenomenon.
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bax
Shipmate
# 16572
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Swick:
I must admit that I find the whole idea of Anglo-papalism to be bizzare. If an Anglican sincerely believes that one needs to be in full commmunion with the Bishop of Rome and all that his church teaches, then one should either join the Ordinariate or become a mainstream Roman Catholic.
That said, I find nothing wrong with praying for either the pope or some other Christian leader. I've been at services where, in addition to praying for our (Episcopalian) Presiding Bishop, we also pray for the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, the Ecumenical Patriarch, and the Presiding Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.
It is an interesting reflection to wonder whether we are imprisoned by our history.
The fact that some Christians find themselves in a church that was cut off from the catholic church for reasons that initially were nothing to do with religion at all is a "brute fact". Is changing to another denomination that has less history in England (Catholic emancipation was in the early nineteen century) and for much of its time was concerned with ministering to non-English populations in England (hence the jibe "The Italian Mission to the Irish") the right thing to do? Or should each Christian try to be as faithful as they can where they find themselves?
To be honest, I don't see which translation of the missal you used being very high on the agenda when the last trump is sounded. The faith of the Anglo-papalists should be judged by its fruits (e.g Matt 25:31ff)
Posts: 108 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Swick:
I must admit that I find the whole idea of Anglo-papalism to be bizzare. If an Anglican sincerely believes that one needs to be in full commmunion with the Bishop of Rome and all that his church teaches, then one should either join the Ordinariate or become a mainstream Roman Catholic.
Or stay within the C of E and work for that day when the whole will cross the Tiber - that has always been the view of the Catholic League.
It is also the view of GSS, which also regards those who cross alone as traitors.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Swick:
I must admit that I find the whole idea of Anglo-papalism to be bizzare. If an Anglican sincerely believes that one needs to be in full commmunion with the Bishop of Rome and all that his church teaches, then one should either join the Ordinariate or become a mainstream Roman Catholic.
Or stay within the C of E and work for that day when the whole will cross the Tiber - that has always been the view of the Catholic League.
It is also the view of GSS, which also regards those who cross alone as traitors.
I belong to both CL and GSS. I never regarded dual membership in this way to be a contradiction of conviction. What I do know is, that crossing the Tiber would mean forfeiting GSS membership.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is also the view of GSS, which also regards those who cross alone as traitors.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
After all, catholic faith says we are saved as corporate, not as individuals.
Yet another reason why I feel I've come home!
quote:
Or stay within the C of E and work for that day when the whole will cross the Tiber - that has always been the view of the Catholic League.
I've been a member of the CL for the last 10 years, and when that objective seemed realistic, I was most enthusiastic about it. But from the League's website:
quote:
It was founded by Anglicans who believed passionately that the future of their Church lay in the reunion of all Christians in a common Catholic and Apostolic faith in restored full communion with the Successor of Peter in the see of Rome.
Two things have changed beyond recognition. There is now no realistic hope of corporate reunion and, knowing that, the Holy Father has taken the intiative in erecting personal Ordinariates, so that corporate reunion is possible for groups who seek it. I couldn't have carried on in the C of E hoping for the impossible. Especially if certain bishops wanted to force me to use, what I consider to be apalling, theologically flawed liturgies.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ceremoniar
Shipmate
# 13596
|
Posted
Growing up in ECUSA as an advanced Anglo-Catholic, I earnestly prayed for reunion with Rome. When I was in high school, I was exposed to the Anglo-Papalist movement and fairly quickly moved into that, even though my fellow parishioners were not generally not interested in it. (Needless to say, the AP movement does not have the same presence in the US that it does in the UK.)
By the end of my freshman year in college, I had pondered the questions that had come to my mind regarding the authority of the Church, especially the councils and the popes. I read Newman and took his words to heart, crossing the Tiber within months. (Old time APs would say that I "made my submission.") I was influenced by Chesterton, Manning, Caswall, Benson and Hopkins. It was several more yeaars before I truly reflected on the APs from the RC perspective.
At that point, and now--decades later---I could say that I have great difficulty understanding why APs remain within the Anglican Communion. I grew up Anglo-Catholic, and was barely more than briefly an Anglo-Papalist myself. I understand the sensibilities of APs, I believe, even among Englishmen--at least as much as a Yank can undestand that. But intellectually, I have never been able to grasp the reasons for staying, if one truly believes in the papacy as Roman Catholics do. This is not a criticism, only a warm and friendly expression of my humble perpspective. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posts: 1240 | From: U.S. | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Praises
Apprentice
# 11955
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Growing up in ECUSA as an advanced Anglo-Catholic, I earnestly prayed for reunion with Rome. When I was in high school, I was exposed to the Anglo-Papalist movement and fairly quickly moved into that, even though my fellow parishioners were not generally not interested in it. (Needless to say, the AP movement does not have the same presence in the US that it does in the UK.)
By the end of my freshman year in college, I had pondered the questions that had come to my mind regarding the authority of the Church, especially the councils and the popes. I read Newman and took his words to heart, crossing the Tiber within months. (Old time APs would say that I "made my submission.") I was influenced by Chesterton, Manning, Caswall, Benson and Hopkins. It was several more yeaars before I truly reflected on the APs from the RC perspective.
At that point, and now--decades later---I could say that I have great difficulty understanding why APs remain within the Anglican Communion. I grew up Anglo-Catholic, and was barely more than briefly an Anglo-Papalist myself. I understand the sensibilities of APs, I believe, even among Englishmen--at least as much as a Yank can undestand that. But intellectually, I have never been able to grasp the reasons for staying, if one truly believes in the papacy as Roman Catholics do. This is not a criticism, only a warm and friendly expression of my humble perpspective.
[ 24. January 2013, 21:34: Message edited by: Divine Praises ]
Posts: 18 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Praises
Apprentice
# 11955
|
Posted
Oh Lord, I just wrote a long reply to Ceremoniar's post and I haven't a clue what happened to it. Too late to rewrite it now but I'll have a go tomorrow.
Posts: 18 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
At that point, and now--decades later---I could say that I have great difficulty understanding why APs remain within the Anglican Communion. I grew up Anglo-Catholic, and was barely more than briefly an Anglo-Papalist myself. I understand the sensibilities of APs, I believe, even among Englishmen--at least as much as a Yank can undestand that. But intellectually, I have never been able to grasp the reasons for staying, if one truly believes in the papacy as Roman Catholics do. This is not a criticism, only a warm and friendly expression of my humble perpspective.
Anglo-papalism only makes the limited sense it does in an English context, where they have been able to claim that the C of E is the historic Catholic church of the land, unfortunately separated from Rome through no fault of present-day Anglicans. It surely makes no sense at all in the USA, where the Episcopal Church makes no such claim.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
Is changing to another denomination that has less history in England (Catholic emancipation was in the early nineteen century) and for much of its time was concerned with ministering to non-English populations in England (hence the jibe "The Italian Mission to the Irish") the right thing to do? Or should each Christian try to be as faithful as they can where they find themselves?
What very peculiar notions you have of history. Furthermore, what an Erastian view of history!
The Church doesn't exist simply from the moment the state tolerates it.
I wonder what you make of the Recusants and those who kept faithfully to the Catholic Church, despite the persecution by the state. Do you simply airbrush them from the picture? How very Soviet of you. Ministering to "non-English populations" (the Irish) was a very late development, following Irish migration. John Southworth, Ambrose Barlow, Margaret Clitherow, Cuthbert Mayne et al had nothing to do with ministering to the Irish, but with keeping the Church alive, albeit underground, in England, amongst the English.
It all sounds so terribly Sellar and Yeatman of you. On the American War of Independence: "This was a Good Thing in the end, as it was a cause of the British Empire, but it prevented America from having any more History". Your religious version reads something like: The Tudor Reformation - "This was a Good Thing in the end, as it was a cause of the Anglican Communion, but it prevented Catholics from having any more History".
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
As we all know, the Protestants were Right but Repulsive and the Catholics Wrong but Wromantic.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Not a contradiction - i think you misunderstood my point.
Both organisations want a corporate crossing, not individual ones.
After all, catholic faith says we are saved as corporate, not as individuals.
If the truth can be told, there are arguably too many so-called (anglo)-catholic societis and to my mind, a form of unity in diversity. Obviously, there are considerably more such societies than CL and GSS. All such societies are in favour of some sort of reunion with "the other side of the Tiber".
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Percy B
Shipmate
# 17238
|
Posted
I think one point not brought out is that many Anglo Catholics like to be different, idiosyncratic or eccentric - in relation to their fellow Anglicans.
In this they differ often from RCs.
Using Roman rite or even English Missal marks people as different... Up the candle etc.
Whether or not its actually legal is a secondary or even tertiary matter.
--------------------
Mary, a priest??
Posts: 582 | From: Nudrug | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Percy B:
I think one point not brought out is that many Anglo Catholics like to be different, idiosyncratic or eccentric - in relation to their fellow Anglicans.
In this they differ often from RCs.
Using Roman rite or even English Missal marks people as different... Up the candle etc....
I regret to say, Percy B that I think there is truth in what you say.
[ 26. January 2013, 09:02: Message edited by: Enoch ]
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
