Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The only other A-C parish in the area has, I am afraid, embraced the new Roman Rite - but most of their weekday Masses are now attended only by RCs who have left the C of E......
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:I am not under the impression that the Bishop of London asked his clergy not to use Roman forms of service that he had not authorised. I'm under the impression he told them not to - a line I would thoroughly agree with. What he can or should do if, as you allege, there are people who persist in disobeying their bishop's clear instructions, I don't know.
Originally posted by Ashworth:
Now that the new Roman Rite has been in use for over a year I wondered how widely it is now being used in anglo catholic parishes. The Bishop of London asked for Anglican rites to be used in his diocese but I do know of a number of London churches that are using the new Roman Rite.
quote:Because otherwise they would have to put up with the Ordinariate's version of Anglican liturgy?
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The only other A-C parish in the area has, I am afraid, embraced the new Roman Rite - but most of their weekday Masses are now attended only by RCs who have left the C of E......
quote:That's a rather cheering thing to hear, for me, in the middle of this deeply sad situation.
Originally posted by Ashworth:
On more amusing note to end. I did recently hear the following said by a priest:
"I've spent all of my life in the Church of England pretending to be Roman, I am not now going to join the Ordinariate to become a Roman pretending to Church of England."
quote:It's a great pity that the ecumenical consensus over liturgy has broken down. Clearly some of the 1970s translations have not worn well, and the new texts of Common Worship sound much more poetic and less pedestrian than the common texts which we still use (and which Rome did until recently). So CW too could benefit from a makeover, though not at the cost of importing the clunky latinisms of the new Roman Missal. If we'd had a joint team working on these texts (even before 2000) both churches might have had a better liturgy.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I find it quite amusing that in several places the new Roman translation is closer to 1662 than the old ecumenical formulae we all enthusiastically embraced in the latter part of the last century.
And with thy spirit!
quote:It can't be! In spite of the ECCL convergence of language, the theology of the Roman Rite differs greatly from that of CW. Bishops Finger mentions that his parish includes the Confiteor and the Orate Fratres within an otherwise CW Mass, and he would like to see them replaced. The Confiteor asks for the intercession of the BVM, all the angels and saints, and brothers and sisters present. The Orate Fratres uses sacrificial langauge. Though many Anglican churches have prayed this way over the years, they are Catholic concepts which have no place in Reformed Protestant tradition, the latter being explicitly condemned in Article XXXI of the Articles of Religion.
Originally posted by venbede:
What FiF ought to do is show the rest of the C of E how CW can be used in a catholic manner,
quote:It seems that Ashworth is trying to find a Resolution C parish that uses Common Worship. Although the diocesan bishop legally has jurisdiction, I thought that the purpose of Resolution C is to bypass the oversight of that bishop in favour of the suffragen who supports the theological integrity of the parish. In which case, + Londin would have little opportunity to interfere with their liturgy. Is he going to make Christ the King, Gordon Square use CW? I can't see it.
Originally posted by Enoch:
What he can or should do if, as you allege, there are people who persist in disobeying their bishop's clear instructions,
quote:Actually we realise it very well, and most of us rejoice that we have ended the uncertainty of the last few years and found a spiritual home.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
No - there's no Ordinariate around here. They just don't seem to realise that (1) they're not Anglicans any more and (2) that they now have new masters......
quote:The latest translation of the St John Chrysostom liturgy of the Orthodox is much better. I completely agree with you about the Latin - I'm reminded immediately of Orwell's essay 'Politics and the English Language'' Why can't Rome just use Cranmer's creed, which gets across the sane point in better English?
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:It's a great pity that the ecumenical consensus over liturgy has broken down. Clearly some of the 1970s translations have not worn well, and the new texts of Common Worship sound much more poetic and less pedestrian than the common texts which we still use (and which Rome did until recently). So CW too could benefit from a makeover, though not at the cost of importing the clunky latinisms of the new Roman Missal. If we'd had a joint team working on these texts (even before 2000) both churches might have had a better liturgy.
Originally posted by Indifferently:
I find it quite amusing that in several places the new Roman translation is closer to 1662 than the old ecumenical formulae we all enthusiastically embraced in the latter part of the last century.
And with thy spirit!
quote:This from a convert to Roman Catholicism! I mean no ad hominen jibe here, but please tend your own garden. At least show the post-convert grace to salt your language with an I would have thought or an It seems to this observer or, even, from my experience.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The Orate Fratres uses sacrificial langauge. Though many Anglican churches have prayed this way over the years, they are Catholic concepts which have no place in Reformed Protestant tradition...
quote:Agreed with all of this. FinF-ers using the RC canon is as weird to me as evangelical Anglicans (both conservative and Open) ignoring the lectionary totally.
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:This from a convert to Roman Catholicism! I mean no ad hominen jibe here, but please tend your own garden. At least show the post-convert grace to salt your language with an I would have thought or an It seems to this observer or, even, from my experience.
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The Orate Fratres uses sacrificial langauge. Though many Anglican churches have prayed this way over the years, they are Catholic concepts which have no place in Reformed Protestant tradition...
I don't intend to untangle your woeful Proper Anglican Theology must be both Reformed and Protestant Knot.
Suffice it to say that that requesting intercessory petition from all the saints and sacrificial language sit quite comfortably in my parish Anglican liturgy.
Let me also say that the idea of Anglicans using a Roman Catholic canon is just plain weird on this side of the Atlantic. Using their daily mass lectionary before we had our own was just plain prudent. But, the canon. Just plain bizarre. It seems to me.
quote:This isn't a Roman bit: it's straight Common Worship.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
In a perhaps typical Anglican fudge, we use the CW lectionary (rather than the Roman Ordo as previously) and the appropriate Redemptorist Sunday readings pew-sheet (i.e. the Anglican one!), together with a CW Eucharistic Prayer, but retain various Roman bits allowed (I believe) by Canon. That is to say ... the Peace immediately before Communion as opposed to just before the Offertory.
quote:The 39 Articles have always been more honoured in the breach than in the observance!
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:It can't be! In spite of the ECCL convergence of language, the theology of the Roman Rite differs greatly from that of CW. Bishops Finger mentions that his parish includes the Confiteor and the Orate Fratres within an otherwise CW Mass, and he would like to see them replaced. The Confiteor asks for the intercession of the BVM, all the angels and saints, and brothers and sisters present. The Orate Fratres uses sacrificial langauge. Though many Anglican churches have prayed this way over the years, they are Catholic concepts which have no place in Reformed Protestant tradition, the latter being explicitly condemned in Article XXXI of the Articles of Religion.
Originally posted by venbede:
What FiF ought to do is show the rest of the C of E how CW can be used in a catholic manner,
quote:I'm not quite sure +Londin did say that, but never mind.
Though CW contains options which can create a certain "catholic" ambience, such as a an epiclesis in some of the Consecration Prayers, it is only a request for the Holy Spirit to come upon the community, not on the Bread and Wine. CW has no provision for asking for the intercessions of the saints nor praying for the dead, without borrowing from outside ie Catholic sources. So if you want to ditch all these Romish accreations as the Bishop of London has told his clergy they must, you can't graft a Catholic understanding of the Mass onto CW texts.
quote:That is not an epiclesis on the people: there is a separate one later.
grant that by the power of your Holy Spirit,
and according to your holy will,
these gifts of bread and wine
may be to us the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ;
quote:I'd strongly disagree with this statement. It's sweeping and inaccurate, and not only does it ignore all the ecumenical statements of recent years, it also ignores developments within the worldwide Anglican Communion itself.
The Orate Fratres uses sacrificial langauge. Though many Anglican churches have prayed this way over the years, they are Catholic concepts which have no place in Reformed Protestant tradition, the latter being explicitly condemned in Article XXXI of the Articles of Religion.
quote:Oh I have no issue with the Roman Canon because it's generally used by FinF-ers, but for the same reason I have an issue with those low-church congregations that ignore the lectionary entirely. I strongly believe that Anglican churches of all kinds should be united in the use of Anglican liturgy, albeit with a choice of BCP/CW etc. If a church wants to use RC liturgy, why is it in communion with Canterbury and not Rome?
Originally posted by venbede:
Scrumps - well not straight CW so much as a permissible variation.
Jade C - I would be rather pleased to have a woman priest use the Roman Canon.
Orate Frates seemed extremely common when CW first came in.
quote:I agree that in recent years Anglicans have been much more accepting of these, but historically this was not the case. For several centuries the invocation of saints was absolutely not to be found within Anglicanism, and when it first began to be found, those who promoted it were persecuted and even prosecuted. Its absence from most official Anglican prayer books today still makes it clear that that it is by no means standard, normative or official, only tolerated as a devotional extra. Yet this is not merely a devotional preference; it is a theological and liturgical reality for those who believe in it.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Paul TH:
quote:I'd strongly disagree with this statement. It's sweeping and inaccurate, and not only does it ignore all the ecumenical statements of recent years, it also ignores developments within the worldwide Anglican Communion itself.
The Orate Fratres uses sacrificial langauge. Though many Anglican churches have prayed this way over the years, they are Catholic concepts which have no place in Reformed Protestant tradition, the latter being explicitly condemned in Article XXXI of the Articles of Religion.
quote:'Is', not 'were'.
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
While it is always nice to point out that assent to the 39 Articles was not required of any Anglican layman, it was required of clergy, and it was an official, authoritative statement of the Church of England, in which doctrine was stated. It is difficult to overlook this fact, especially when it was included in the BCP (even before it was downgraded to the historical documents section).
quote:Lest there be any doubt, Canon A5:-
PREFACE
The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making him known to those in your care?
Declaration of Assent
I, A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized (sic) or allowed by Canon.
quote:I acknowledge, because this has been said many times on the Ship, that there are parts of the Anglican Communion who are adamant that the 39 Articles don't apply to them, but I still can't really see how one can legitimately argue that either in good faith or with historical credibility.
The doctrine of the Church of England is grounded in the Holy Scriptures, and in such teachings of the ancient Fathers and Councils of the Church as are agreeable to the said Scriptures. In particular such doctrine is to be found in the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordinal.
quote:The history of the CofE is not the history of the the rest of the worldwide Anglican Communion, nor does history dictate that what was believed at one time should for ever remain true. Should we for instance disregard the famous debates between Barth and Brunner on Justification just because history would dictate that we each hold to our opinion of ignorance of the other?
I agree that in recent years Anglicans have been much more accepting of these, but historically this was not the case.
quote:Pretty easily. The Scottish Episcopal Church has a parallel and distinct lineage from the Church of England. For all that the 1637 BCP was supported by Archbishop Laud it was written by the Scottish Bishops and does not feature the 39 Articles of Religion, which are an English only phenomenon. Churches in the Scottish Episcopal tradition, such as PECUSA, have no historical reason to rely on the 39 Articles as set out in the 1662 BCP. One of the (many) Scottish objections to the Anglican convenant was the insinuation that the 39 Articles bear witness to the historic faith of the church.
I acknowledge, because this has been said many times on the Ship, that there are parts of the Anglican Communion who are adamant that the 39 Articles don't apply to them, but I still can't really see how one can legitimately argue that either in good faith or with historical credibility.
quote:Ecumenical accords among various churches have come on a long way in the last few decades. Also I know that many Anglicans agree with "catholic" practices such as praying for the dead and asking the intercessions of the saints. Anglo-catholicism has influenced the mainstream of Anglican practice hugely, when we consider that, in the 19th century, altar candles, vestments and elevation of the host were considered so popish that they aroused persecutions. When I was Anglican, I always prayed for the dead, and sought the help of the Church Triumphant in my own life.
Originally posted by fletcher christian
I'd strongly disagree with this statement. It's sweeping and inaccurate, and not only does it ignore all the ecumenical statements of recent years, it also ignores developments within the worldwide Anglican Communion itself .
quote:This is not true. Canon C15 requires a declaration of assent from deacons, priests and bishops on ordination or upon receiving a new licence. This is the form:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
My only point is that all these things are imports from Catholicism, and don't belong within the Anglican Reformed tradition. Enoch has shown how canon C15 requires an acceptance of the very Protestant, Calvinist 39 Articles of Religion, many of which pour scorn on things I believe.
quote:As an ordinand I am asked to affirm that the 39 Articles (along with the BCP and the old Ordinal) bear witness to the belief revealed in Scripture and set forth in the creeds. I can do that quite happily, because one can bear witness to the truth revealed in Scripture without being 100% correct 100% of the time.
The Church of England is part of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church worshipping the one true God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It professes the faith uniquely revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds, which faith the Church is called upon to proclaim afresh in each generation. Led by the Holy Spirit, it has borne witness to Christian truth in its historic formularies, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, The Book of Common Prayer and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. In the declaration you are about to make will you affirm your loyalty to this inheritance of faith as your inspiration and guidance under God in bringing the grace and truth of Christ to this generation and making him known to those in your care?
Declaration of Assent
I, A B, do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon.
quote:I always wondered who I should blame.
Originally posted by Bax:
Anglo-papalists started what is now the week of prayer for Christian Unity, held every January.
quote:Far be it from me to trespass outside England, but are you sure this is not special pleading? I have an electronic copy of a Scottish Episcopal Prayer Book issued under the authority of the Bishop of Brechin in 1912 which includes the Articles, headed as follows:-
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Pretty easily. The Scottish Episcopal Church has a parallel and distinct lineage from the Church of England. For all that the 1637 BCP was supported by Archbishop Laud it was written by the Scottish Bishops and does not feature the 39 Articles of Religion, which are an English only phenomenon. Churches in the Scottish Episcopal tradition, such as PECUSA, have no historical reason to rely on the 39 Articles as set out in the 1662 BCP. One of the (many) Scottish objections to the Anglican convenant was the insinuation that the 39 Articles bear witness to the historic faith of the church.
quote:I accept that 1562 was long before even the Union of the Crowns. I also accept that I haven't got a copy of Canon 12 of 1911. But unless it clearly says 'The 39 Articles don't apply in Scotland and you are entitled to ignore them' or words to similar effect, I remain unpersuaded that Scotland is completely outside their scope, or that it's possible for people in other provinces to claim with integrity to be an Anglican without their applying to you at least in generality.
Articles of Religion agreed upon in the Convocation holden at London in the year 1562 and referred to in Canon XII (1911) of the Episcopal Church in Scotland
quote:I would agree that PaulTH sees the 39 Articles somewhat in that context. I also believe that one is entitled to that understanding whereby statements of faith--especially the doctrinal matter contained in the Articles--are understood to be true for all time. Otherwise, one has only to fudge.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
PaulTH, you're basing your assumption that the 39 articles stand true for all time. Some parts of the Anglican Communion view the articles as a testament of faith 'of their time' and assent to hem on the basis that they are an historical document responding to corruption they felt needed changing...
quote:I'd not encountered the 1912 edition before, it appears that it does feature the articles. However, this appears to be an aberration in that neither the 1637 version, nor the 1929 version feature the articles. My memory is a little flakey on this score, but is it possible that the articles, like prayers for the Hannoverian monarchy, were an condition of the removal of the laws persecuting the SEC? Certainly the current version of Canon 12 makes no mention of the articles, and requires only obedience to the rules of, and not assent to every belief expressed in, the prayerbook.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Far be it from me to trespass outside England, but are you sure this is not special pleading? I have an electronic copy of a Scottish Episcopal Prayer Book issued under the authority of the Bishop of Brechin in 1912 which includes the Articles, headed as follows:-
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
Pretty easily. The Scottish Episcopal Church has a parallel and distinct lineage from the Church of England. For all that the 1637 BCP was supported by Archbishop Laud it was written by the Scottish Bishops and does not feature the 39 Articles of Religion, which are an English only phenomenon. Churches in the Scottish Episcopal tradition, such as PECUSA, have no historical reason to rely on the 39 Articles as set out in the 1662 BCP. One of the (many) Scottish objections to the Anglican convenant was the insinuation that the 39 Articles bear witness to the historic faith of the church.
quote:I accept that 1562 was long before even the Union of the Crowns. I also accept that I haven't got a copy of Canon 12 of 1911. But unless it clearly says 'The 39 Articles don't apply in Scotland and you are entitled to ignore them' or words to similar effect, I remain unpersuaded that Scotland is completely outside their scope, or that it's possible for people in other provinces to claim with integrity to be an Anglican without their applying to you at least in generality.
Articles of Religion agreed upon in the Convocation holden at London in the year 1562 and referred to in Canon XII (1911) of the Episcopal Church in Scotland
quote:Ahem. Ornaments Rubric?
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,
quote: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.
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.
quote:I think this risks seeing the 39 articles as a creed.
I would agree that PaulTH sees the 39 Articles somewhat in that context. I also believe that one is entitled to that understanding whereby statements of faith--especially the doctrinal matter contained in the Articles--are understood to be true for all time. Otherwise, one has only to fudge.
quote:I think that's fair enough from a Roan Catholic perspective (although I'm left wondering if Limbo is still there), but from a Reformed perspective I think they do feel things can change, and in both senses - in the removal and in the restoration of ideas.
In other words, one either believes in the invocation of saints or one does not, simply because it either it is a theological possibility within the Church or it is not. Both propositions cannot be true, in any century. Likewise, the Mass is either the Holy Sacrifice for the remission of sins or it is not--regardless of the century. Purgatory either exists or it does not, in every century. And so on. These doctrines have either been true in every century or they have not. They cannot change. Not every Article is doctrinal; I realize, but enough of them contain doctrine that cannot change with time.
quote:Surely the Reformers were reacting against a misunderstanding of Catholic teaching about the mass. Whether that was their misunderstanding or the result of Catholics not properly grasping their own doctrine, is irrelevant. To use a ludicrously extreme example, Gregory Dix tells of his ferociously protestant grandmother (?) who ranted against the Catholic Church because she believed that at the Mass the priest held a live crab captive on the altar. If you genuinely believed that was the case, you would be right to protest against the Mass.
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Ceremoniar:
quote:I think that's fair enough from a Roan Catholic perspective (although I'm left wondering if Limbo is still there), but from a Reformed perspective I think they do feel things can change, and in both senses - in the removal and in the restoration of ideas.
Likewise, the Mass is either the Holy Sacrifice for the remission of sins or it is not--regardless of the century.
quote:I do live in a relatively rural diocese. However, the handful of C parishes we have in the diocese are indeed in the more urban areas of the county town (city).
Originally posted by Cornish High:
However, If Ashworth lived in a more rural diocese he might well find less use of the Missal than seems to be the case in many if not most C parishes in urban areas.
quote: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?
Originally posted by Ceremoniar:
Likewise, the Mass is either the Holy Sacrifice for the remission of sins or it is not--regardless of the century.
quote:Yes, that was essentially the point I was making about the famous Barth and Brunner debate. Each was saying 'I believe your position is this', when in fact - by the end of the debate - they effectively conceded they both held the same beliefs (albeit they took different roads to get there) and the argument was a recourse to ignorance of the other.
The authors of the 39 articles did not, of course, believe that, but their teaching about the Eucharist can only be understood as a reaction against commonly held beliefs. As the mud has cleared over the centuries we are better able to discern the truth.
quote:I cannot think of one in North or Central London - I am less familiar with parishes south of the river.
Originally posted by Percy B:
That's interesting Thurible.
Are there any C of E parishes in London or beyond which use modern Roman Rite AND affirm women priests?
quote: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.
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
quote: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.
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.
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.
quote:If you really believe that, you should be a Roman Catholic. That, crudely speaking, is what "your" Pope teaches.
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).
quote:It certainly is. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (para 1366) quotes the Tridentine decree to that effect.
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?
quote:If a person is that determined not to use either the BCP or CW, that strikes me as a more defensible option.
Originally posted by Bax:
Should Anglo Catholics use the liturgy of the pre-reformation English church instead?
quote:We used to alter that to 'X, patriarch of the Western Church'.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:We used to alter that to 'X, patriarch of the Western Church'.
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.
quote:Yebbut; that's not how the occupants of Peter's Chair or those in communion with him see his role.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Yebbut; that's not how the occupants of Peter's Chair or those in communion with him see his role.
quote:It's a fairly cast iron indicator of the prospects of this ever changing without overpowering divine intervention of a miraculous nature.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Enoch:
Yebbut; that's not how the occupants of Peter's Chair or those in communion with him see his role.
quote:Which from a catholic (small 'c') perspective is even more barking - it's a liturgy now authorised by nobody.
I suspect there are a few places out there still using the old Roman Rite.
quote:Thanks for the link. As is often the case, Fr. Hunwicke is right.
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.
quote: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:
widely regarded as deeply flawed from the point of view of Catholic Eucharistic theology
quote: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.
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. [/
quote:Don't even joke!
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Hmm. 1549, anyone?
Ian J.
quote:One article by Fr Haselock, another,.
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.
quote:So Fr Hunwicke is now the full, perfect and sufficient authority on what is and is not the worship that God finds acceptable?
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: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. ...
widely regarded as deeply flawed from the point of view of Catholic Eucharistic theology
quote:but what would happen if he disagreed with his new hierarchy?
anything which is even implicitly critical of the English Hierarchy or of any member of it, will not be published
quote:No, but I'd describe him as such on what is or is not legally possible!
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?
quote: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.
Originally posted by Enoch:
I note that he says,
quote:but what would happen if he disagreed with his new hierarchy?
anything which is even implicitly critical of the English Hierarchy or of any member of it, will not be published
quote: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".
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..."
quote: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.
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
quote:Yes, indeed.
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.
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:No, but I'd describe him as such on what is or is not legally possible!
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?
quote:Because, for good or ill, he is exactly the sort of person for whom the term 'Jesuitical' might have been invented.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:Why?
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote:No, but I'd describe him as such on what is or is not legally possible!
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?
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote: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?
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:Ahem. Ornaments Rubric?
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,
quote: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.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:Ahem. Ornaments Rubric?
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,
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.
quote: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
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Is it not true that - technically - any liturgy can be used with the permission of the diocesan Bishop?
quote: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.
Originally posted by Thurible:
quote: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?
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.
Thurible
quote:There's your answer, thurible.
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.
quote:Indeed - the followers of Percy Dearmer were not anglo-papalists by any stretch of the imagination. They were persuaded that vestments were truly anglican.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
quote: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.
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:Ahem. Ornaments Rubric?
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,
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.
quote:Nope.
Originally posted by venbede:
quote:There's your answer, thurible.
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:Up to a point Lord Copper. Aren't Catholic clergy required to use their authorised forms of service and nothing else?
This bickering about words and formulas is very Protestant. Surely the eucharist is primarily an action?
quote: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.
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).
quote:He has already replied:
Originally posted by Thurible:
Thanks, Charles; that'd be fab.
Ask Mrs Read for some cottage pie to strengthen you in the vineyard!
Thurible
quote:I'll get me (thermal, hooded) coat.
Originally posted by Charles Read:
Alaska.
quote: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.
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*
quote:Yes, but none of those is authorised in the Canons of the CofE either.
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
Hasn't the pre-Reformation Roman Canon largely been translated into English in the Anglican/American/English Missal, though?
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
quote: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.
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
Hasn't the pre-Reformation Roman Canon largely been translated into English in the Anglican/American/English Missal, though?
quote:It is an interesting reflection to wonder whether we are imprisoned by our history.
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.
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.
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.
quote: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.
Originally posted by leo:
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.
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.
It is also the view of GSS, which also regards those who cross alone as traitors.
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
It is also the view of GSS, which also regards those who cross alone as traitors.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Yet another reason why I feel I've come home!
Originally posted by leo:
After all, catholic faith says we are saved as corporate, not as individuals.
quote: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:
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.
quote: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.
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.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
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.
quote: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.
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.
quote:What very peculiar notions you have of history. Furthermore, what an Erastian view of history!
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?
quote: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".
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.
quote:I regret to say, Percy B that I think there is truth in what you say.
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....
