By Peregrinus, who tackles a rather thorny issue.
Give it a read here.
Part 1 is here. Part 2, here. Part 3, here.
Filed under Church
Tagged as Anglican, Anglicanorum Coetibus, Christianity, Church, Faith, Liturgy, Ordinariate, Unity
Indeed I still have an old leather English Bible, KJV with the Apocrypha, that would be nice if they brought that back into print? (British / Cambridge) Of course classic Anglicans can read the Apocrypha for “example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine” (Anglican Article VI.) Just quite that simple, this is classic Anglicanism anyway!
Traditiuon for traditions sake is always a dangerous precedent. The Book of Common Prayer is essentiallya Protestant creation ( despite its stately language) and Gregory Dix, showed how the communion service is the only attempt to place the heresy of justification by faith ALONE in a liturgy. That it has to be cleansed by Rome, is rather like a young man, telling his wife to be that she is beautiful , but could she have a face lift and lose some weight, before marriage.
Such is the ANGLICAN PATRIMIONY.
I see it more as a husband willing to change for the sake of his wife, no matter what has to be changed about himself. The fine lady in question, is the Holy Mother Church; we do not change her, but we are changed by God’s Grace through her, because the Church has the fullness of Truth.
If you turn it into the man asking a woman to be his wife, he has to ask certain questions, like if she’s a lesbian. She might get offended, but the question has to be answered: Is she or is she not fit to be a wife? She’s pretty, but if she’s a sexual deviant, that’s a no-go. But if she has some superficial defect, like she’s a wall-eyed, female clone of Mr. Bean, but is still a really decent person, it wouldn’t matter if she can house an entire civilization of gnomes inside her cavernous nostrils!
Who says something man-made like the Book of Common Prayer cannot be changed? Who is the arbiter of tradition? Who has the authority to say what is tradition and what is not, what is orthodox, and what is not?
Now to me, Mr. Williams, you seem like the perpetually captious mother-in-law who will never find worth in the wife, even if she tries so hard to please. And so, the husband will live like Norman Bates forever.
Seriously, I didn’t think the Holy Father got so particular about the “Anglican Patrimony” to the point where he said anything about the Book of Common Prayer. What’s the Book of Divine Worship for then? That’s not good enough, they have to be “Real Catholics”? Then why not the same for the Eastern Catholics? Let’s just go to Ukraine or Lebanon and start insisting that everyone says the mass in Latin, not Arabic or Slavonic.
Any fair-minded person who attended or viewed the Royal Wedding last year or the Choral Evensong attended by Pope Benedict at Westminister Abbey on his visit to the UK and heard the exquisite music will know that that there is a great deal more to Anglican patrimony as expressed in liturgy than some mean-spirited commentators admit.
After all, the Holy Father recently invited the choir of Westminster Abbey to sing at the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul at St. Peter’s in Rome. He is the one who has called for Anglican Patrimony to be welcomed. It brings to mind the fact that there will always be those who think themselves more Catholic than the Pope.
BTW, Dom Gregory Dix, like many, remained an Anglican in those days and to the end of his life despite his views on the Cranmer and the Prayer Book Eucharist. There must have been something compelling in the patrimony for him as there has been for many Anglo-Papists who have persisted and have finally elicited the call to unity which is Anglicanorum Coetibus. It would be interesting to know what Dix’s response would be. I doubt he would be in the ranks of the skeptics re. Anglican Patrimony.
Dix was very clear why he remained an Anglican: he believed that Apostolicae Curae was mistaken, that Anglican Orders were valid, and that to become a Catholic and have to accept that he had been a layman all along was a betrayal of the truth.
“I doubt he would be in the ranks of the skeptics re. Anglican Patrimony.”
It depends on what you mean by “Anglican Patrimony.” Dix’s preferred eucharistic rite was the Tridentine Mass, in Latin — and we have heard recently, have we not, from “authoritative sources,” that the EF Mass forms no part of this “Anglican Patrimony.”
By the way tye post below about packer shows a man, who for nearly seventy years has taught consistently the following errors:
Baptismal regeneration is a myth, and that personal conversion is the excluisve way one becomes a Christian.
The Lord is not present in the consecrated communion elements.
The Apostolic succession is a myth.
The ideas that the Mass is a propitiatary sacrifice is an abomination.
That invocation of Saints and prayers to the death are heretical.
I leave it to the reader to evaluate whether his version of the Gospel is the true rheir of Crannmer, than Anglo-catholicism
Btw, once again “Robert”, you are overstating the Anglican rejections, and simply stating “your” ad hoc, and even border on ad hom toward Sir Packer! And this “reader” knows quite better! Note even Augustine’s classic statement on the Sacraments, is not classic Roman Catholic…’We say with Augustine that the sacramental symbols are visible words.” (Peter Martyr Vermigli)
Speaking for myself, I greatly appreciate Fr. Smuts sharing his love and experience of the man and ministry of the Rev’d James Packer, of course the great classic English/Brit Anglican Evangelical! And we all know Fr. S. is certainly friendly towards the AC. But, he also knows that the reality of “Sin” in the life of the Church, and the individual! Certainly the doctrine of Baptism, Catholic, Anglican and even Lutheran, does not destroy “sin” itself, at least in the reality of sins after baptism. And even Augustine’s second change over Roman’s 7- 8, etc. shows that the believer-saint battle’s ‘the world, the flesh, and the devil’, until death and the eschatological end! Thanks Fr. Stephen!
“Dix’s preferred eucharistic rite was the Tridentine Mass, in Latin — and we have heard recently, have we not, from “authoritative sources,” that the EF Mass forms no part of this “Anglican Patrimony.” — Thank your Dr. Tighe.
Dom Gregory usually celebrated the Tridentine Rite for his daily Mass but he conformed for Sundays and Feast Days to the rites used within the community or parish where he served — and these varied.
Allow me to quote from “A Tactful God” by Simon Bailey (a biography of Dix):
“His life would be in the Church of England, his life and work and prayer would be for unity, for greater and deeper catholicity, for ways and paths and new routes through the mountains of Anglican indifference, ignorance and hostility and of Roman superiority, isolation and lack of interest.” p. 50 – - Now that is a worthy patrimony in itself.
You make my point, Dr. Tighe, Dix could live as an Anglican, as have so many, without the Book of Common Prayer and in a community which used the Tridentine liturgy along with other liturgical forms which belong to the Western (Latin) Church of which they understood themselves, as many still do, to be members of by virtue of Baptism (and Confirmation — pace Dix).
The issue of Orders was clearly a concern for Dix and it would be interesting to see how he would view the obvious recognition of past Anglican ministry implicit in the designation of former Anglican bishops as monsignori in the ordinariates (an honour recognizing long service in the ordained ministry usually of 20 years or more).
The notion that those many priests and parishes in the East End of London and similar places around the world did not use explicitly Catholic liturgies for Mass with episcopal permission, as some have claimed in recent postings, is simply not the case. Bishops would often preside at non-BCP liturgies e.g. from the English/Anglican Missal (though, of course some would not). Those bishops who did (and continue to do so) gave and give implicit permission. Given the welter of Anglican views on jurisdiction, the permission of a local bishop is all that is necessary in the eyes of Anglo-Papalists to validate their recourse to the uses of the Western Church. In fact, most have believed that local permission is advisable but not necessary since their recognition of the Holy See and its mandates for liturgy come under the immediate jurisdiction of the Holy Father.
Make of this what you will, this is how many priests and parishes have proceeded for decades and in some cases with highly effective and fruitful ministries which are now recognized personally by the Holy Father in the making of individual former bishops prelates of honour thus representing the hundreds of faithful Anglo-Papists who laboured to lay the groundwork for Anglicanorum Coetibus.
You may see where this is leading in light of the recent discernment with regard to Anglican Use in the Ordinariates. In my view, Msgr Steenson has rightly determined that the EF in its current form is not part of the Anglican Patrimony since the English Missal tradition has translated and adapted the precursor of the current EF for Anglican use in English.
As others have pointed out, however, there is nothing to stop an individual priest or an interested group in an Ordinariate from celebrating the EF on occasion and for particular purposes outside of weekly Sunday Mass which in an AU/Ordinariate parish or sodality should properly be the Anglican Use of the Roman Rite as approved by the CDF.
EF rites are available to AU/Ordinariate priests and people in certain circumstances just as they are to other priests of the Roman Rite. Msgr Steenson, to my understanding, has forbidden nothing in this regard.
“Peregrinus”: Thanks for your level-headed voice and historical insight here, much needed with this largely, now lay Catholic and Anglo-Papist posters. Many of the former need to get into the 20th century (Vatican II, modernism), and then finally into this 21st century, postmodernism! But the latter indeed need to see the full culture of postmodernity now, and we can even see this with how the Vatican is working the Anglicanorum Coetibus!
Btw, though I am certainly an evangelical, reformed Anglican (low cap’s just for today, ) I am really not anti-Catholic at all, though like Barth and Berkouwer, I certainly reject any doctrine of papal authority and infallibility. (As I have said, both of those men were observers at Vatican II) But like Melanchton, I see the pope as the Bishop of Rome, though of course the pope’s authority is exclusive for Catholicism, alone in that regard.
The beauty and lasting use of the BCP I think will continue to shine for many Anglicans, especially those who can appreciate Cranmers work and genius for years to come. Once again happy 350 years to the BCP! Indeed The Anglican Armoury lives, ‘Word & Sacrament’! (Btw, the Anglican liturgy is a tool for us evangelical Anglicans)
As if teh Ordinariate can recreate the English cathedral..that is such a hoot.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.
Join 735 other followers