|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Anglican use of Roman Rite
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
I know of one that did, in Birmingham, but I'm not sure whether they've moved to the new translation. To be honest, I doubt it. That way, they'd have to admit that their CW with Variations was actually just the Missal.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
Ah, it's gone over the page: one parish in Birmingham that affirms the admission of women to the priesthood and uses the Roman Rite, that is.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bax
Shipmate
# 16572
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
The logic of the ANglo-Papalist position (most of whom I suspect use the modren Roman Rite) is that the Church of England is the Catholic church in England, unwilling cut off from the rest of the "Western church" (as an anglo papaist may refer to the "Roman Catholic Church") at the English reformation.
This lead to liturgies being produced that, essentially was an English translation of the old Roman Rite (The English Missal). When Vatican II produced the modern Roman Rite, most Anglo-Papalists stopped using this and adopted the Modern Roman Rite (often along with other liturgical modernization).
Anglo-papalists started what is now the week of prayer for Christian Unity, held every January.
But that's no logic at all. The Tractarians proclaimed that the Church of England was the Catholic Church in England, not a Catholic Church (which is oxymoronic anyway). Its luturgy, properly understood and celebrated, is Catholic liturgy. We don't need an imported liturgy.
The Roman Missal is the liturgy of those who are subject to the authority of the Pope. Hence its eucharistic prayers pray for "N. our Pope". But for Anglicans, "N." is not our Pope: he's "theirs". We don't have one.
Yes, Tractarians and those who followed them did and do believe that the Church of England is the catholic church in England, but also that it had needed to be reminded if this fact, and to start acting in accordance with this fact.
The Roman Missal is not "imported", rather having been the liturgy of the English church it moved on without any English input for a few hundred years. Should Anglo Catholics use the liturgy of the pre-reformation English church instead?
To an Anglo-papalist, Benedict is our pope (whether he likes it or not, and whether the Church of England authorities like it or not).
Posts: 108 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
To an Anglo-papalist, Benedict is our pope (whether he likes it or not, and whether the Church of England authorities like it or not).
If you really believe that, you should be a Roman Catholic. That, crudely speaking, is what "your" Pope teaches.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trisagion
Shipmate
# 5235
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Serious question.
...Is that still Catholic teaching, or has it moved more in the direction that it is the death of Christ that remits sins, and the Mass is an offering that re-actualises and makes present that event?
It certainly is. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (para 1366) quotes the Tridentine decree to that effect.
--------------------
ceterum autem censeo tabula delenda esse
Posts: 3923 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bax:
Should Anglo Catholics use the liturgy of the pre-reformation English church instead?
If a person is that determined not to use either the BCP or CW, that strikes me as a more defensible option.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bishops Finger
Shipmate
# 5430
|
Posted
Hmm. 1549, anyone?
Ian J.
--------------------
Our words are giants when they do us an injury, and dwarfs when they do us a service. (Wilkie Collins)
Posts: 10151 | From: Behind The Wheel Again! | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ecclesiastical Flip-flop
Shipmate
# 10745
|
Posted
In my experience, it's, "N the pope" or "Pope N" - Anglican.
--------------------
Joyeuses Pâques! Frohe Ostern! Buona Pasqua! ¡Felices Pascuas! Happy Easter!
Posts: 1946 | From: Surrey UK | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
its eucharistic prayers pray for "N. our Pope". But for Anglicans, "N." is not our Pope: he's "theirs". We don't have one.
We used to alter that to 'X, patriarch of the Western Church'.
That is how many, who think about these things without being Anglo-Papalists, still approach it I think, happy to accept the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church as primus inter pares, first in honour and therefore Patriarch.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
That is how many, who think about these things without being Anglo-Papalists, still approach it I think, happy to accept the Bishop of Rome in the Western Church as primus inter pares, first in honour and therefore Patriarch.
Yebbut; that's not how the occupants of Peter's Chair or those in communion with him see his role.
If you would like to devote 22nd February each year to a 24 hour vigil for the current occupant and those in communion with him to see the error of their ways, doubtless there will be many to the east and north who would agree with you. But at root are profound disagreements on the nature and location of authority which have been around since long before 1517.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Yebbut; that's not how the occupants of Peter's Chair or those in communion with him see his role.
The latter is largely a result of said occupants' habit of excommunicating those who didn't see the issue his way, so it's not exactly an indicator of anything.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Yebbut; that's not how the occupants of Peter's Chair or those in communion with him see his role.
The latter is largely a result of said occupants' habit of excommunicating those who didn't see the issue his way, so it's not exactly an indicator of anything.
It's a fairly cast iron indicator of the prospects of this ever changing without overpowering divine intervention of a miraculous nature.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
I suspect there are a few places out there still using the old Roman Rite.
Which from a catholic (small 'c') perspective is even more barking - it's a liturgy now authorised by nobody.
My view accords with Thurible (or, rather, Fr Hunwicke) on the legalities. The introduction to the Ordo that Thurible quotes is not dissimilar from an old article in New Directions (over a decade old), which is still available online here
It is interesting that the laws ecclesiastical do not give power to the local diocesan bishop to permit or suppress any particular eucharistic liturgy in his diocese. Thus, +Londin's letter is of no legal effect, as such (though I quite take the point that the clear instruction of one's bishop should be accorded great weight in deliberations).
If I were given a sabbatical and a stipend, I'd dearly love to compile and arrange publication of an attractively set out, properly authorised "CW with additions" that stretched CW sufficiently for the most cath of ang-caths to embrace, whilst meeting official approval from the hierarchy. I think that would be a positive thing for (say) FiF to commission, accompanied by a clear instruction from the flying bishops (and other relevant bishops) that they expected this to be used in the anglo-catholic C parishes.
I do find it hard to explain to "overseas" anglicans that the emphasis on liturgical uniformity has never been the hallmark of the CofE as it has in the rest of the communion, in modern times at least. When you don't have the established status to cling onto and don't have the certainty of property ownership that this provides, there's fewer reasons why you'd bother remaining in the same church as the next-door parish who use completely different liturgies.
When you take the myriad of options in CW, add in 1662 (whether full-fat 3rd exhortation et al or in its "modern" form) and shake with a liberal sprinkling of Canon B5, I think I actually dispute the starting point that the Church of England has (or even should have) conformity of worship.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
My view accords with Thurible (or, rather, Fr Hunwicke) on the legalities. The introduction to the Ordo that Thurible quotes is not dissimilar from an old article in New Directions (over a decade old), which is still available online here
It is interesting that the laws ecclesiastical do not give power to the local diocesan bishop to permit or suppress any particular eucharistic liturgy in his diocese.
Thanks for the link. As is often the case, Fr. Hunwicke is right.
I have always been haunted about the vow I made to 'only use those forms of service as authorised by canon'
As my then incumbent said to me, 'Canon Who?'
--------------------
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
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
I don't think it is really about legalism. It's one of culture: what worries me about people who use the Roman rite is that they are not really Anglicans. ISTM that if you are happy to live and worship alongside all sorts of fellow-Anglicans (whatever your particular theological emphasis) you should be happy to worship in an Anglican idiom. And if you're not happy with the former, what are you doing here? [I hope it's obvious that by 'you' I am not addressing anyone in particular, just using it impersonally]
I think of the liturgy as 'language', and a particular expression of it as accent or dialect. We have in common with RCs and all 'liturgical' Christians, the language of the Eucharist; there is no more reason for us to use someone else's expression of it than there is for a Geordie to adopt a Scouse accent, for example.
--------------------
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
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
In The Man with a Stick's link, the ever fascinating Fr Hunwicke starts from the premise that Common Worship is:
quote:
widely regarded as deeply flawed from the point of view of Catholic Eucharistic theology
This makes it necessary for catholic minded priests and worshippers in the Church of England to enhance, supplement or replace their own liturgy with material borrowed from Rome. Whether this is done within the bounds of canon B5, or if the boundries are sometimes pushed too far, the situation can't be right. Fr Hunwicke later describes the CW Consecration Prayers as "lousy theology" which they certainly are from a Catholic POV, though not necessarily for a MOTR or evengelical worshipper, who isn't trying to find sacrifice or transubstantiation in there. But as Angloid so rightly says:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
what worries me about people who use the Roman rite is that they are not really Anglicans. ISTM that if you are happy to live and worship alongside all sorts of fellow-Anglicans (whatever your particular theological emphasis) you should be happy to worship in an Anglican idiom. [/
It was this lack of Catholic expression within C of E Eucharistic liturgy that persuaded me to seek admission to the Catholic Church, much more than the Dead Horse issue. It seems that, for Ashworth, the opposite is true: the DH is a problem, the liturgy isn't. In the 8 years in which I was a member of FiF before being received into the Catholic Church via the Ordinariate in 2011, I visited many Resolution C parishes, in the (C of E) dioceses of London, Rochester, Southwark, Canterbury and Chelmsford. I never encountered a church which used CW, by itself, without "enhancements." I can't comment on country wide, but I think that the differences between CW and the Roman Rite are too great to allow seriously catholic Anglicans to rely on CW alone.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I think that the differences between CW and the Roman Rite are too great to allow seriously catholic Anglicans to rely on CW alone.
One article by Fr Haselock, another,.
What do you mean by relying "on CW alone"? As a matter of course, our solidly Catholic parish relies, in the main, on CW alone. The only EP we ever use at the Sunday Mass is CW C, for example. We do use the "Pray, brethren" but that is the only regular addition to the CW provision and that is a very recent thing.
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
In The Man with a Stick's link, the ever fascinating Fr Hunwicke starts from the premise that Common Worship is:
quote:
widely regarded as deeply flawed from the point of view of Catholic Eucharistic theology
This makes it necessary for catholic minded priests and worshippers in the Church of England to enhance, supplement or replace their own liturgy with material borrowed from Rome. Whether this is done within the bounds of canon B5, or if the boundaries are sometimes pushed too far, the situation can't be right. Fr Hunwicke later describes the CW Consecration Prayers as "lousy theology" which they certainly are from a Catholic POV, though not necessarily for a MOTR or evengelical worshipper, who isn't trying to find sacrifice or transubstantiation in there. ...
So Fr Hunwicke is now the full, perfect and sufficient authority on what is and is not the worship that God finds acceptable?
I note that he says,
quote:
anything which is even implicitly critical of the English Hierarchy or of any member of it, will not be published
but what would happen if he disagreed with his new hierarchy?
--------------------
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:
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!
Thurible
--------------------
"I've been baptised not lobotomised."
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laurence
Shipmate
# 9135
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I note that he says,
quote:
anything which is even implicitly critical of the English Hierarchy or of any member of it, will not be published
but what would happen if he disagreed with his new hierarchy?
I think Fr Hunwicke, along with his fellow ex-Anglican priestly swimmers, is at last discovering the joys of real, whole-hearted obedience to his Ordinary- which involves keeping silent as a matter of conscience on certain matters when you disagree with authority.
I don't want to sound uncharitable at all! For so long, they had to nod and wink to an authority they were deeply uncertain about.
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..."
Why they didn't go years before is still beyond me, but it's none of my business.
Posts: 648 | From: Lincolnshire | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
