It is a dramatic slap-down of liberal Anglicanism and a total repudiation of the ordination of women, homosexual marriage and the general neglect of doctrine in Anglicanism. Indeed, it is a final rejection of Anglicanism. It basically interprets Anglicanism as a spiritual patrimony based on ethnic tradition rather than substantial doctrine and makes clear that it is not a historic “church” but rather an “ecclesial community” that strayed and now is invited to return to communion with the Pope as Successor of Peter.
The Vatican was careful to schedule simultaneously with the Vatican announcement, a press conference of the Catholic Archbishop of Westminster and the deeply humiliated Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury to enable the Anglicans to save some face by saying that this recognizes the spiritual patrimony of Anglicanism and that ecumenical dialogue goes ahead. That is like George Washington at Yorktown saying that he recognizes the cultural contributions of Britain and hopes diplomatic relations flourish. The Apostolic Constitution is not a retraction of ecumenical desires, but rather is the fulfillment of ecumenical aspirations, albeit not the way most Anglican leaders had envisioned it.
The press, uninformed and always tabloid in matters of religion, will zoom in on the permission for married priests. They will miss the most important point: that this reiterates the Catholic Church’s insistence that Anglican Holy Orders are invalid, and perforce so is their Eucharist. These married Anglican priests have to be fully and validly ordained by a Catholic bishop. Following Orthodox custom, they are allowed to marry only before ordination and not after. And no married man may become a bishop. (Thus, any Anglican bishop joining one of these “ordinariates” would no longer be recognized as a bishop. Under special provision, Anglican bishops would have some right to pastoral authority, but would not be bishops.)
Fr. Rutler apparently believes Jesus sits in heaven determining whether or not those receiving communion in Protestant churches are receiving “valid” sacraments before dispensing his grace. Given Rutler’s history as an Anglican and subsequently as a Catholic, Fr. Rutler’s condescension and arrogance are a bit hard to take. On the other hand, his observation on what the Vatican’s action means has some truth.
Father Rutler’s commentary is succinct, to the point, and probably painful to hear by many. I don’t count myself as one of those as the whole trajectory of Roman Catholic relations with Anglicanism has been along this path.
What is this path? Essentially aiding first Tractarians and then Anglo-Catholics to come to realize how wrong they’ve been about things like the Book of Common Prayer, the Articles of Religion, and pretty much anything associated with that late unpleasantness – the Reformation. The Tractarians pressed it and were rewarded with [i] Apostolicae Curae [/i]. Those who perhaps have hoped for some acknowledgment of the validity of the Via Media have been given a series of eagerly embraced ARCIC documents that gave the Anglican contributors a gentle way to say “you guys were right all along.”
Does this make me in some way upset at the Vatican? No, the Pope and Curia have remained faithful to their positions, Anglicans have at the very least have kidded themselves about the compatibility of a large part of the Anglican tradition borne in the Reformation with true Anglo-Catholicism. I have gotten a great deal out of Pope Benedict’s three encyclicals and other writings as a man of God, but only as the product of fallible man not the infallible successor of Peter.
Father Rutler has it exactly right: to embrace Rome, is to reject much of what makes Anglicanism unique while retaining only that fragment that pertains to more stylish English and beautiful music.
Pax et Bonum!
Steve
Having met Fr. Rutler (he was formerly the Rector of Good Shepherd, Rosemont, PA and I was invited to a dinner with him when I was curate there many years later), and having read his writings, he comes across and rather arrogant in print and video, but is in fact a man with a big heart and personal charisma. Those who knew him in the parish said his two great attributes were his preaching and pastoral care. I think his conclusions about Anglicanism came to fruition in the mid-1970’s, which is why he converted. Anglicanism hasn’t done much to prove him wrong since then.
I, too, don’t find this tone helpful. Who is his intended audience anyway that he would speak in this manner? And why disparage the ministries of others in such fashion, even if the Catholic Church has set positions on their validity?
Fr Rutler’s comments on Anglican orders underscores a personal observation I made when I wrote about this turn of events on my own blog. I am widely open to seeing the papal office as a divine gift, and regularly pray in public for “Benedict, Patriarch of the West,” and would very much love to be in communion with a church founded by two apostles. However, those Anglican clergy who avail themselves of this new Constitution will be compelled, in effect, to say that they have never been priests and never presided at the Eucharist. That’s too big a horse pill for this Anglican (and Catholic) priest to swallow.
RE: “Father Rutler has it exactly right: to embrace Rome, is to reject much of what makes Anglicanism unique while retaining only that fragment that pertains to more stylish English and beautiful music.”
I completely agree. But honestly, that’s what some AngloCatholics have already done in their minds and hearts. I think it’s wonderful now that they will have a place in Rome. This is good news for them.
I’m not one that’s troubled by the Roman Catholic view of the Anglican sacraments [and orders, etc]. Good for them for saying what they believe. It’s not particularly threatening to me to hear people of integrity boldly say what they believe, even if I think it of course dead level wrong. If I believed the Roman Catholic church’s claims about itself, I’d have fled right over the Tiber long ago.
Etienne (2) and Sarah (6),
I must disagree w/ the statement, “to embrace Rome is to reject much of what makes Anglicanism unique while retaining only that fragment that pertains to more stylish English and beautiful music.†I think there is much more at issue here than mere window-dressing, if I may use that term. Otherwise Rome wouldn’t have taken such surprising steps as the Pastoral Provision of 1980 and now the personal ordinariate – both of which include references to a distinct Anglican liturgical heritage. Regardless of how fast and loose a number of RC parish priests have played with the liturgy in the past 4 decades, Rome herself is not inclined to set up new liturgies on a whim.
I do suspect, however, that yours is the majority view. Anglicanism in the late 19th century and much of the 20th century did such a splendid job of maintaining liturgical standards and (by the admission of not a few Anglican theologians) rather a less-than-stunning job at contributing to theological discourse that it has been difficult for many to get past the immediate impact of Anglicanism’s stunning style.
This is essentially the view put forth in an article by Dom John-Bede Pauley, O.S.B. (http://liturgysociety.org/JOURNAL/Volume10/10_3/Pauley.pdf) with which I agree. His article suggests that the Anglican liturgical tradition maintains significant elements of the monastic approach to liturgy that were largely abandoned by continental Catholicism from the time of the mendicant orders on. If this view is correct, it means that the ordinariate is not only a pastoral response to disaffected Anglicans at this point in history but is also a way of reclaiming Catholic liturgical heritage. It’s easier to focus on the former point in the moment. But the latter might well prove to be the more significant factor in the long run.
Also, Etienne, as a point of clarification – and here too, your comment suggests a perception that is widespread – your statement that the encyclicals were written by a fallible man is exactly in accord w/ Catholic teaching. Many people assume that “papal infallibility†means the pope himself is infallible. The RCC does not make that claim. The petrine office, in very limited circumstances, enjoys infallibility b/c of its role in guiding and safe-guarding the deposit of faith. But that is not the same thing as saying the pope or any papal document is infallible.
RE: “I must disagree w/ the statement, “to embrace Rome is to reject much of what makes Anglicanism unique while retaining only that fragment that pertains to more stylish English and beautiful music.â€
Understood — but I’m a Protestant. Obviously to convert to Rome would mean a rejection of what makes Anglicanism unique, in large part because Anglicanism — thankfully — travels neither to Rome or Geneva. ; > )
Sarah (8),
Yes, I think what the past several decades have shown us in living technicolor is that it is more and more difficult to pin down what Anglicanism is, exactly. For many Anglo-Catholics, going to Rome under the terms of the ordinariate won’t be surrendering much of their understanding of Anglicanism’s uniqueness at all, though it would obviously be so for Anglicans of Evangelical or Low Church persuasions. (This isn’t to say that Anglo-Catholics are going to find the prospect of converting to be easy.)
In any case, if Anglicanism is neither Geneva nor Rome, the 450-year-old question is what in fact is it. Perhaps a final significant exodus of Anglo-Catholics (assuming recent developments usher in such a moment) will leave the remnant to decide not what Anglicanism isn’t but what it is. If it becomes fully Protestant in identity, I say so much the better since it looks like a move towards a clarity of identity that has eluded Anglicanism since at least the Elizabethan Settlement. But that, IMHO, would be another new chapter in Church history. Interesting times. May God bless us all!
I can understand why folks would object to Fr Rutler’s remarks, nor do I understand why he chose at this time to highlight the invalidity of Anglican orders. What is important about this new Vatican initiative is the attempt to salvage at least part–and I would say, the most important and distinctive part–of the Anglican patrimony for the future life of the Church Catholic. It remains to be seen whether the initiative will prove fruitful, but I rejoice that the offer to Anglicans throughout the globe has been made. It’s now up to the Holy Spirit.
I understand why Anglican priests would obsess about the Catholic insistence that Anglican priests need to be unconditionally ordained (I thought upon this long and hard); but let’s also remember that the Orthodox also insist upon (re-)ordination. At a time when the Anglo-Catholic ship is sinking, is it really constructive and helpful to declare, “Unless you recognize my orders, I ain’t going to get off the ship?” Is it not possible that the discernment and judgment of both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches on this question of Anglican Orders is correct? And if there are grounds of uncertainty, does not the maintenance of the sacramental order of the Church require the removal of all uncertainty? After all, ordination exists for the good of the Church; it is not our personal possession.
Protestant Anglicans will not of course be tempted by the Anglican Ordinariate, nor should they be. But all Anglo-Catholics need to give this proposal serious consideration. Brothers, you have no future in Anglicanism. Anglo-Catholicism needs to be re-planted in the catholic soil of either Rome or Constantinople; it cannot survive much longer within the Protestantism that is Anglicanism. Think about the future, not only you future but the future of your children and the children of your parishioners. In 20 years time there will be no authentic Anglo-Catholic parishes for your children to worship in. Look to Rome. Look to Constantinople and Antioch (Western-rite). But look and prayerfully consider your future.
#7 the sixteenth century Reformers concern with things monastic might surely better be judged by the total eradication of all English monastic communities over a period of 4 years in the 1530s, and the execution of the ringleaders of monastic opposition to Reformation than from the fact that Cranmer retained truncated versions of the monastic hours in his 1552 Prayer Book.
FWIW a much better place to look for the beginnings of a Anglican rapprochement (liturgical and theological) to the Church of Rome is in Lancelot Andrewes and his circle.
Fr Kimel (#10), I know that you know that Anglo-Catholic clergy and laity [i]have[/i] thought long and hard about the issues you raise. Obviously, I have not reached the same conclusion you reached some time ago that there is no future for Catholic Anglicanism. But I take your warning as given in a spirit of fraternal charity, and acknowledge that you may in the end turn out to have been correct. Honestly, if the Vatican could see their way clear even to [i]conditional[/i] (re-)ordination (and done quietly and semi-privately in a chapel), that would go a long way toward easing the consciences of those inclined to make the leap. But there is also the matter that many
Anglo-Catholic clergy pastor congregations that are not of one mind on a number of questions, and usually include several former Roman Catholics. So it’s not often a pastorally “clean” route to Rome.
Driver8 (#11),
The difficulty Cranmer faced was how to maintain a basically monastic approach to liturgy, theology, and spirituality w/o upsetting the king’s program of looting the monasteries and the pro-Genevan factions (with which Cranmer himself partially sympathized). To my mind (and that of Dom John-Bede Pauley), Cranmer succeeded. If you find such questions at all interesting, I think you might enjoy reading Pauley’s article. Cranmer maintained a good deal more of the monastic ethos than merely a truncated form of the monastic office. That, I suspect, is what Rome has recognized by paying Anglicanism the huge compliment of saying that this liturgical heritage is worth keeping.
The reason the monasteries were so efficiently dissolved in such short order was not b/c of popular support (cf Eamon Duffy’s _The Stripping of the Altars_) or b/c theologians were effective in pushing the king to destroy monasticism (though some were certainly pushing for this policy). As the awards of confiscated monastic land and titles to Henry’s faithful supporters attests, the theological reasons for the dissolution were paper thin at best. Henry VIII was perhaps the first Western ruler to set up the machinery of a totalitarian regime, meaning incredible efficiency in organizing and controlling information and a well-oiled bureaucracy to carry out his policies. Greed and bureaucratic efficiency are a deadly combination to religion. (In fact, don’t some people make the same claim concerning some Episcopal church properties?)
Yes, there is no easy route to Rome, especially for entire congregations. For one thing, Anglican congregations are filled with divorced and remarried couples. This is a huge, perhaps insurmountable obstacle. Most divorced and remarried parishioners would be unwilling to attempt the annulment route. But if Rome is not an option, why not the Orthodox Western rite?
Now is the time, when Anglicanism is in a state of flux and everyone is re-aligning, for Anglo-Catholics to realistically assess their situation and the future. Everything has changed. We now know that catholic faith and order cannot endure and thrive within Protestantism, including Anglicanism. The most difficult part is confronting our attachment to “private judgment,” our insistence that we have the right to define what it means to be catholic, our insistence that we can set the terms for our ecclesial commitments. This insistence is not catholic–it is Protestant! How can Anglo-Catholics continue to prefer communion with the heretical heirs of Cranmer and Jewel (excuse my blunt language, but I know that Anglo-Catholics do privately believe, though they may not say so in public, that the sacramental and ecclesiological views of evangelical are heretical) over communion with either the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church? Does this make any sense?
As driver8 suggests, Bishop Andrewes is an excellent place to start in understanding Anglicanism true to the Reformation:
“One canon reduced to writing by God himself, two testaments, three creeds, four general councils, five centuries, and the series of Fathers in that period – the centuries that is, before Constantine, and two after, determine the boundary of our faith.” This also does much to address Monksgate (9) remark about Anglican identity crisis. This confusion primarily arose not during the Elizabethan Settlement, not with the Caroline Divines, nor with the Puritans, nor with the Evangelicals but with the Anglo-Catholics. For that confusion I think is understandable – one only has to work ones way through the tortured exercises of the Tractarians when they try to explain that there is no conflict between the BCP, the 39 Articles and Roman Catholic teachings.
As for Monksgate (7) remark that my comments were born out of a misunderstanding of Ex Cathedra , I was perhaps somewhat too casual in my reference to fallibility. What I was specifically referring to was the “DOCTRINAL COMMENTARY ON THE CONCLUDING FORMULA OF THE PROFESSIO FIDEI”, link ,given as an companion to Ad tuendam fidem . Encyclicals certainly fall into the category of things that “the assent of theological faith” is required. I apologize if I chose a sloppy way of saying I am edified by much of the work of the Roman Catholic Church but not with its presumptions and expectations. Anglican I am but an Anglican as Bishop Ryles puts it of the “Protestant and Evangelical” and in another spot “Reformed” type.
Pax et Bonum!
Steve
Thanks, Etienne, for the further comments in #15.
It would be interesting to learn exactly what Rome means by “distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony.” For that matter, it would be interesting to read what Anglicans think it means.
I sometimes get the feeling that many Anglicans who see themselves as “Protestant” have a genuinely charitable regard for their Anglo-Catholic co-religionists but will secretly breathe a sigh of relief if and when the sons and daughters of the Oxford Movement finally trickle their way to Rome. Assuming this perception is correct, and assuming everyone is able to admit it, the pope’s offer strikes me as being even more pastorally sensitive — even poignant — than I at first thought.
Anglicanism—thankfully—travels neither to Rome or Geneva.
My last Episcopalian rector would disagree with you, Sarah. He (and my Church History professor, too) would say that calvinism lies at the heart of Anglican theology. While that’s not all the way to Geneva, it’s certainly on the road. My priest was also fond of saying that Anglicanism is “Catholic on the outside, and protestant on the inside”. So there you are.
Regarding ordination – if I’m not mistaken, Fr. Graham Leonard, sometime Anglican bishop of London, was ordained conditionally.
#13 I must say I read his article and it seemed more or less an historical fantasy to me.
#15 One might read some of the responses to Andrewes and his circle from his own time and consider the care and caution with which he moved forward to discern quite how much his thought and liturgical practice were considered by others to be “true to the Reformation”.
Driver8 (#18),
Thanks for taking the time to read Pauley’s article. This probably isn’t the forum in which to flesh out the grounds for your dismissal of his thesis, but rejecting it does beg several questions as to why Anglican liturgical practice and understanding didn’t simply conform to that of Continental Protestantism. If the stock response is simply “We are neither Roman nor Genevan,” it leaves unanswered the question of exactly what the Anglican liturgical heritage really is. Or am I posing a question — and I’m being entirely sincere in doing so — that simply doesn’t matter to Anglicans whose churchmanship is Evangelical? If so, it would explain the polite yawn that seems to emanate from some Anglicans at the recent announcement from Rome.
It has been my impression that until about the 1960s, Anglicanism was defined in large part by the Book of Common Prayer, meaning its liturgy. If that is so, it places a great deal of weight on a tradition that you would seem to argue springs up quite apart from England’s monastic roots. It would also raise questions as to why Evangelicals who ignore liturgical tradition would be interested in claiming Anglican identity. I am truly confused.
Re: the invalidity of Anglican Orders. If I truly believed Anglican Orders were invalid, I would never have received them. I am not alone in believing in the validity of Anglican Orders. The Eastern Church has long accepted them and Orthodox in this country used to be encouraged to seek out an Episcopal Church if an Orthodox Church was unavailable. Of course, that all ended after WO.
I’m sure Fr. Rutler is familiar with the book, “Absolutely Null and Utterly Void” by John Jay Hughes. Fr. Hughes made such a strong case in his book for the legitimacy of Anglican Orders that, when he swam the Tiber he was conditionally ordained “without being required to deny the validity of the Orders he received as an Anglican.” Though Fr. Rutler, in his convert’s fervor believes that there is no way of accepting Anglican priests into communion with Rome without (re-)ordination, the fact is that it has been and can be done.
Nothing in this whole business is yet a “done deal.” The Holy Spirit may yet have a few surprises in store for all of us.
Robert+
Monksgate,
There may be Evangelicals who ignore the liturgical tradition but for me the Book of Common Prayer is something I have always treasured as a key part of my walk. Having also been exposed via friends with a local Benedictine abbey and participated in the Daily Office with the monks I find there the order and calm that we can find in Cranmer’s work. That maybe is why I’ve always viewed the overblown High Church Anglo-Catholic dramatics and excessive manual acts as taking away not enhancing of the liturgy. These, as Anglican Evangelicals of 19th century accurately observed only distract from the simple beauty of BCP liturgy and inject an implied theology which is purposely absence from the text and explicitly discouraged by the rubrics.
Whither Anglicanism? I’m not one to make sweeping prognostications but I think a direction that could bear much fruit is recovering the reformed, evangelical, simple liturgically impetus that gave rise to it in the first place and drives much of its growth today in Africa. This impetus arises from a proclamation of the Gospel through the Word, preaching and letting a scripture-laden liturgy speak for itself without distracting ceremonial embroiderment.
Pax et Bonum!
Steve
Thanks Steve (#21),
Your experience of the Benedictines’ liturgy makes me wonder what many Evangelicals would think of RC liturgy if they experienced not only Benedictine but Cistercian or even Trappist liturgy. Scripture-laden is what monastic liturgy is all about. It also happens to be an important aspect of what Vatican II was trying to reclaim. That, I continue to believe (and as Pauley argues), is why Anglican liturgy and the Catholic monastic tradition are much more closely allied than apparently some Evangelicals will find comfortable — which, at some level, Cranmer had to be aware of when he put the prayer book together. Aside from the fact that the prayer book is a marvelous work in its own right, and aside from the fact that once Henry VIII’s political machinery would back the prayer book there would be no effective opposition to it, I think Cranmer knew he had to pull off a very effective ‘marketing coup.’ in my opinion, he succeeded. But the irony is that many Anglicans seem uninterested in this heritage — even some of those who might convert to the RCC. Nonetheless, Rome has appreciated it even to the extent of approving the Book of Divine Worship and being open to further developments of the BDW. And even though certain liturgical traditions might go into abeyance for a while, Rome has not been known definitively to throw any of it out forever as far as I’m aware.
As I learned it, Cramner combined the monastic Matins and Lauds to make Morning Prayer, then Vespers and Compline to make Evening Prayer. Hence you get the Magnificat from Vespers and the Nunc Dimittis from Compline.
If you ever get a chance to make a retreat in a Trappist monastery, do so, and stay at least three days. Matins (Vigils) at 3am or 4am, followed by two or three hours to read, is an experience no one should not have. Actually, the Anglican monks of Three Rivers, Michigan have Vigils at 4am and a full horarium after that.
Thank you and bless you FrKimel (#10). Your last paragraph is the elephant in the room at my AC parish, and the reason I am in RCIA now.
Look the claim is obviously implausible – Cranmer supported the wholesale destruction of monastic life in England. More than a thousand years of English monasticism was eradicated in 4 years with Cranmer’s support. How plausible is it to say just a few years later he truncated monastic hours in order to preserve a benedictine monastic culture? It’s fantasy as history. Whatever he intended (and one would really need a far more detailed comparison with Continental models and the suggestions of Bucer etc) then preserving monastic culture was surely not part of it.
He clearly conflated the monastic hours into the daily office of the prayer book. I would assume he did it not to preserve monastic culture, but to make the Office more accessible to parish life.
Actually, some Catholic parishes today are recovering daily prayer, and a large number of Catholics are praying various hours daily. It’s a chore to learn the Liturgy of the Hours, even with the St. Joseph’s Guide, but
http://universalis.com/-500/today.htm
Pauley’s contention is not that Cranmer was ‘preserving’ monastic culture or that he was attempting to keep Catholicism in England on the sly. It is rather that Cranmer (and pretty much all the Anglican divines for that matter) relied heavily on patristic theology (which the continental reformers didn’t) which is also the basis of monastic theology/liturgy and that Cranmer maintained many aspects of monastic liturgy/theology/culture. Yes, he adapted it for parish life rather than monastic — hence conflating the full monastic horarium into a shorter parochial one. Yes, he had no difficulty (as far as we’re aware) w/ the dissolution of monasticism. After all, he and Henry wanted to locate the authority for his scheme in the prayer book (and the state), not w/ autonomous monastic and other religious communities. He realized he was making something new in many respects. But he wasn’t radically expunging the ancient either. I don’t see any evidence that colluding in the destruction of the fabric and structure of monasticism meant throwing out its theology/liturgy/spirituality wholesale. It was far too ingrained in the English psyche and institutions.
Thanks for the back-and-forth on this topic. It has helped me clarify in my own mind an issue that I think many people simply haven’t cottoned on to. Married priests, validity of Anglican holy orders, and allowing an easier entry into the RCC for Anglicans who want to convert are all real issues in the overall discussion. But no one seems to have focused on what is actually at issue liturgically. Why would Rome so readily accept an ostensibly Protestant liturgical patrimony? It seems to me that Pauly’s argument offers an answer. If I understand his argument correctly, the Christian West following the Protestant Reformation has bequeathed to us not two liturgical perspectives (Protestant and Catholic) but three (Protestant, Catholic and Anglican).
In broad strokes (that don’t do justice to the nuances of Pauly’s argument), these three perspectives can be summarized as follows:
ï® Post-Counter-Reformation Catholic – Influenced by a shift from the monastic liturgy/theology/spirituality of the patristic and medieval era to that of mendicants, scholastics, etc.
ï® Continental Protestant – No interest in the daily office (since that would be a ‘work’) and its principal act of worship reflects a shift from sacrament as sign to sacrament as symbol.
ï® Anglican – Not a wholesale transfer of monasticism into the Henrician state (by any means) but heavily influenced by centuries of monasticism in every aspect of English culture and religion.
The argument that Cranmer’s official status during the Henrician dissolution and looting of the monasteries means Cranmer wanted to obliterate all traces of everything monastic from English religion and culture is an argument for which I don’t see evidence. This isn’t to say the evidence isn’t there. If it is, now would be an opportune moment to publish it. But as far as I can tell, even if Cranmer was openly jubilant over the eradication of monasticism from England and thrilled at the filling of Henry’s coffers from it all, this doesn’t mean he was so much the religious revolutionary that he wanted to engineer a religious and cultural amnesia on the English people. His view seems to have been, rather, that the monks didn’t get it right (and the evidence shows that in some cases they didn’t, but in many instances they were not the corrupt, decadent houses Henry’s henchmen made them out to be), so he was going to take their way of doing things and do it better and make it available to (even mandatory on, since the King and Parliament regulated church attendance) the entire populace.
Curiously, the average Lutheran or Presbyterian or Methodist or Pentecostalist shares w/ the average lay Roman Catholic today a relative lack of interest in the daily office. Historical evidence shows that the average Englishman was, for centuries following the establishment of the CofE, not only aware that praying the hours was an option but seems to have thought it a good idea to do so. I’m not sure whether that perception continues in Anglicanism of the early 21st century, but it was around for an impressively long time. But this is only one among several significant characteristics that help explain why Rome seems to see in the Anglican liturgical patrimony – a patrimony that it has already accepted by approving the Book of Divine Worship for the Anglican Use – more than simply felicitous Tudor prose and an impressive choral tradition.
What I would like to have seen more of in Pauly’s article was an exploration of why the mendicant and scholastic influence wasn’t as significant in 16th-c England as it apparently was in continental Europe. After all, the Franciscans and Dominicans were already well established at Oxford and Cambridge by then. But somehow they don’t seem to have made the inroads in England that they did in Germany, for instance. (Luther had been an Augustinian friar, not a monk, as some historians inaccurately state, and Tetzel was a Dominican.)
An irony in all of this is that I suspect a fair amount of the U.K. Anglo-Catholics aren’t interested in Anglican liturgy at all (unlike, I suspect, most U.S. Anglo-Catholics). They’re already accustomed to the Roman liturgy, but – and again, this is conjecture on my part – they seem to have felt uneasy all along with the generally less-than-edifying liturgical standards in the average RC parish. So the incentive for them might not be Anglican liturgy but Roman liturgy done better. But in the long-run, who knows what this development will mean for the entire RCC? How many of the cradle Catholics already worshipping in Anglican Use parishes in the U.S. will be joined by other cradle Catholics who happen to prefer a monastic approach to liturgy over the post Counter-Reformation perspective still prevalent in most RC parishes?
Monksgate, thanks for these postings. You raise great, hopeful questions– and pique my historical interest. Most of all, my prayer is that the Holy Spirit build up his whole church with these developments.
Thanks, Mark_08,
I certainly join my prayer w/ yours and am hopeful that all Christians can look past the cliches we have not only about each other but even about our own traditions. In doing so, we might discover that what unites us is more abundant and strong than we realize.