When I became a Catholic 20 years ago, it all seemed to me suddenly a rather ridiculous thing to do. Evensong was profoundly Anglican and therefore Protestant: how could you Catholicise it by sticking on to the end of it a “Benediction” celebrated with a monstrance containing an invalidly consecrated host? The whole thing was an illusion, irredeemably defective (what an ecclesial snob one could suddenly become). But what has happened to Evensong now? Now, it is the ordinariate’s evening office: it has the Pope’s blessing and validation: now it is effectively a Catholic liturgy, duly recognised and authorised. What I looked down on, the Pope has now affirmed, making me feel suddenly very foolish.
What the Pope, God bless him, has actually done is to re-appropriate a liturgy whose origins were in the first place entirely Catholic. As the Anglo-Catholic liturgist and divine Percy Dearmer (a friend of G K Chesterton) pointed out, the first Anglican Prayer Book “was not created in a vacuum, but derives from several sources. First and foremost was the Sarum Rite, or the Latin liturgy developed in Salisbury in the 13th century, and widely used in England. Two other influences were a reformed Roman Breviary of the Spanish Cardinal Quiñones, and a book on doctrine and liturgy by Hermann von Wied, Archbishop of Cologne.”
Interesting article. I have read it claimed that Newman after conversion used to quietly and sadly sneak into the back at evensong.
There appears to be a lot of misty-eyed stuff being written, but meantime all is not well with the Ordinariate as we read of the jackboot coming down on Fr Hunwicke. There – that didn’t take long did it?
The Book of Common Prayer always was Catholic, about as Catholic as it is possible to be. It just wasn’t Roman!
[blockquote] “What the Pope, God bless him, has actually done is to re-appropriate a liturgy whose origins were in the first place entirely Catholic.” [/blockquote]
Indeed they were. Very Catholic, just not Roman.
[blockquote] “The Eucharistic liturgy which emerged was, of course, entirely defective from a Catholic point of view, simply invalid, and deliberately so: it was made brutally clear that this was not the sacrifice of the Mass.” [/blockquote]
Of course. The Anglican Reformers made it “brutally clear” that the Church of England was located firmly within the great stream of Catholic Christianity flowing from the Apostles. Real presence, yes; a link to Christ’s one sacrifice, sure; but sacrifice itself, definitely not.
[blockquote] “I reread some of them yesterday; by the time I had finished, I was overwhelmed by what I had so lightly cast off and by the wonders that now were restored to me, with a wonderful irony by the Holy Father himself.” [/blockquote]
Of course, it is natural that Rome like many other places desires the beauty of Anglican liturgy. They are most welcome to adopt it.
[blockquote] “Well, I was dead right about a good deal of it, certainly, maybe most particularly the secessionist, anti-Roman, anti-sacramental and anti-Marian bits: all the betrayals of the Mediaeval ecclesia anglicana.” [/blockquote]
Naturally. Cranmer and the other English reformers were determined to follow the Apostles, not Rome; and to be in conformity with the Church Fathers, not medieval scholasticism. Thankfully, being both learned and godly men, they succeeded in spades. We Anglicans honour their memory, and we gratefully use the gift they bequeathed to us.
Michael, if the BCP were simply a cobbled-up form of Sarum and Easter rites, you’d be right, but because English Catholicism was always (or had been, by the 16th century, definitely so for several hundred years, pace modern interpreters who want to find suppression around every corner) Roman Catholicism with local variation — as was the case in most parts of the West — those elements of the BCP that were anti-Roman were less the product of the “Great Tradition” than the product of the Reformation.
As an aspiring medievalist, I have to say that I find it absurd to suggest that “medieval scholasticism” stands as something other than the great tradition stretching back to the Fathers, or that the surest method of following the Apostles is to eschew it. Certainly all the reformers found themselves very deeply influenced by scholastic method. (An older figure like the 14th century John Wyclif, now celebrated in many circles as a proto-reformer, is about as scholastic as one can get.) All the reformation debates about eucharistic doctrine took place well within a scholastic idiom.
I think these days one ought to be a little more wary of a claim that Cranmer and the English Reformers “succeeded in spades.” I won’t contest the beauty and power of the BCP, but the forecast doesn’t look so great about the success of non-Roman Anglicanism as the kind of “Catholic” movement you describe.
I always wonder if it is reflexive or something else when Roman Catholics declare everything before the Reformation ‘catholic’? Augustine the (Roman) Catholic, etc. I’d like to think it is simply reflexive — that RC’s don’t understand the claim of others to be in continuity with what the Roman Church had lost. That prior to the reformation there was no ‘roman catholic church’? That a ‘development in doctrine’ they claimed valid and defended theologically others rejected, in the name of the catholic faith as the creed means that. Contest the claim, of course. But be unaware of the issue altogether? When Anglicans recite the Nicene Creed they are not borrowing it from ‘the Catholic Church.’
Fr. Seitz is no doubt right. One must be very careful about the terms.
Here we speak, though, about a particular ritual matter. English Catholicism was “Roman” in the sense that it followed the Roman rite. It was “Roman” in the sense that it felt obliged to accept papal authority (not) of course in the more centralized way that the papacy later developed…
So no, not everything that is “catholic” must be Roman. Far from it. But it is misleading to imply that the pre-Reformation English Church was non-Roman, or some sort of pure apostolic catholicism apart from Rome.
Too many parenthetical remarks on my part. “not of course … developed” should be together.
Hmmm – I have been thinking about the Curmudgeon’s article about the hold put on Fr John Hunwicke’s acceptance into the Ordinariate on the grounds that his liturgy blog on the Anglo-Catholic equivalent of BCP matters [Fr Hunwicke’s Liturgical Notes] needs to be reviewed, and in particular about this:
[blockquote]So he, ex maiore cautela (have I also told you that Fr. Hunwicke speaks, reads and writes Latin as well as he does English?), must needs close down his blog pending his acceptance into the Ordinariate, and scrub it of any and all comments which could be seen as deleterious to the Roman Catholic Church.[/blockquote]
The Anglo-Catholic bloggers have interestingly taken the medium to their hearts and produced a great many blogs of a high quality. It is one of the ways they have reached a wider audience including myself, and I have been glad of it. As the Curmudgeon says
[blockquote]Is this the same standard the Church applies to all of its clergy bloggers?[/blockquote]
I have noticed a number of these blogs have closed or have been made to disappear [such as Rugby Playing Priest’s blog]. Is this what has been happening? Has this been part of the process? Does Fr Hunwicke’s blog need saving from the flames of the Inquisition?
Is this what has been happening? As the Ordinariate bound blogs have arrived: “Luggage on the right, blogs are to go over the tracks and through the gate – the shower block is on the right…”
Let’s hope that’s not the case, Pageantmaster. The Holy Father has personally encouraged blogging, after all! (Not that all blogging is necessarily virtuous as a result!)
Where there is a Church organized with some authority to avoid chaos and anarchy there are bound to be decisions made along the way that some people don’t like, or are even mistakes that need to be rectified. To immediately and automatically assume there was not a prudent or necessary or charitable or rational reason behind a particular exercise of authority is to basically say one doesn’t want any authority at all.
#4 quite right! Folks need to be reminded that Anglicanism’s unique history is root’d not in Rome, but in the one true holy catholic and apostolic Faith (current appearances not withstanding!).
Sam Keyes writes at 5.:
[quote]So no, not everything that is “catholic†must be Roman. Far from it. But it is misleading to imply that the pre-Reformation English Church was non-Roman, or some sort of pure apostolic catholicism apart from Rome. [/blockquote]
I’m inclined to agree with that. But I’m also inclined to agree with A.G. Dickens and against the Duffyites that “Roman” Catholicism in medieval England was in a very sorry state. As one fellow commenting on an Anglican blog put it recently, “during the Middle Ages, ‘ecclesial creep’ in both the Western and Eastern portions of the Church had for all practical intents and purposes replaced Old-Law works righteousness with a new works righteousness based on the respective ‘New Law’ of the West (the Penance-Merits-Purgation-Indulgences doctrinal phalanx) and of the East (the imposition of the Monastic Typicon upon the laity).” Dickens treats his readers to some rather amusing (well, if they weren’t just so sad) accounts: pamphlets and sermons about those caught in Purgatory who cry out for more Masses to be said in order to help exterminate their torment; wild nonsense about the lives of the saints; piles of false relics. Yes, medieval Catholics had all the trappings of the Faith of Rome. All of them except the Gospel.
It was only to be expected that the English Reformers would look to the early church fathers but especially to the “strange new world” of the Bible as the sources on which to base needed reforms.
First, it is mistaken to think of the “Old Law” in terms of works righteousness (see the whole scholarly corpus of the New Perspective on Paul). Second, I would much rather have an overactive imagination about purgatory and the saints than to have some sort of gnostic “gospel” without them. On the one item, like John Wesley, I cannot imagine appearing before God without being thoroughly purified from my sins (not simply forgiven them); on the other, any “gospel” that shuns the saints (and their relics) for some pure “spiritual” message has neglected the consequences of the Incarnation. (And as St. John Damascene reminds us in his treatises on the Divine Images, one might as well abandon all human affection as “idolatry.”)
But then, I am something of a Duffeyite…
Sam Keyes at 12.
I am familiar with Tom Wright and the New Perspective, thanks. I am also familiar with the criticism of the NP, which of course renders your judgment about that “mistake” an exercise in question begging.
Second, to characterize this issue as some sort of choice between “overactive imagination about purgatory and the saints” and a “gnostic” gospel is of course a false dilemma of the highest order. The choice is rather between truth and falsehood, salvation and damnation, and there’s no reason in the world why truth and salvation can’t be attended by saints, relics, icons, etc., as long as those things from Tradition are seen in the light of Scripture and Reason.
Unless you think that Scripture and Reason are somehow “gnostic.”
Caedmon,
Fair enough on the New Perspective. (I have neither the desire nor the ability to argue for it.)
Obviously the choice isn’t so stark. (Scripture and Reason are certainly not gnostic!) All I’m saying is that I would far prefer an overactive imagination about things that are true than a total rejection of them for the sake of purity. A Christian gospel that has no place for the saints, or for material culture, is gnostic. So I am not as disturbed by those late medieval tracts and sermons as you seem to be. I see them as part of a vibrant religious culture. That culture certainly had its problems, as do all cultures, but, to take your example, I think it much better for people to be worried about their relatives in purgatory than to instantly canonize them upon death (as now seems common practice).
A few ironies: That the Church which forcibly tried to prevent the people from worshiping and reading the Scriptures in English would treasure our prayer book. And that the biggest problems these ardently, painstakingly Anglo-Catholic clergy who have gone to Rome may encounter will likely come from the less-ardent and not-so-painstaking Roman clergy in England who will view them as too conservative and devout. The Vatican probably won’t be in their faces but the Catholic priests (and, perhaps, bishops) will.
Teatime2: Yep.
#7: Fr Ed Tomlinson (‘Rugby-Playing Priest’) has not had his blog closed down. He was using the St Barnabas parish name for his blog, but obviously couldn’t carry on doing that when he became a Catholic: he’s now blogging at http://www.tunbridgewells-ordinariate.com/blog/.
It’s certainly true that those who remain Anglican are very unlikely to be forbidden to do whatever they fancy by their superiors. That, of course, is a major reason for becoming Catholic.
#17 ‘Mary Therese’
Thank you for that information. It does not explain however, the entire disappearance of Fr Ed’s former blog from the interweb, any more than the sanction upon Fr Hunwicke’s excellent blog.
I have however, found the Catholic reaction to the Curmudgeon’s article and to my questions very interesting, and perhaps rather telling and perhaps alarming for some. I had expected some response such as that all is in order, but Fr Hunwicke’s blog is just held while he is transitting. Instead there has been:
1. a series of lectures on ‘obedience’ and ‘exercise of authority’; and
2. attempts to contrast this with ‘laxity’ or ‘doing whatever they fancy’ by Anglicans.
What a strange response to the wonderful blogging by the Anglo-Catholics including Fr Hunwicke in the past few years. Fortunately this is not a universal Catholic response – the Catholic Herald is not sanguine about it. Perhaps some clue as to what is going on may be gleaned from the Pope’s latest thoughts on digital communication and blogging and some of the Vatican’s pronouncements. They like the idea of digital communication, but are worried by something they cannot control absolutely. Not much changes. Nevertheless it is strange to put this ordination on hold – not in the plan at all as far as the Ordinariate seekers were expecting at all.
Fascinating – I shall watch how this all plays out with interest, but it may go some way to explaining why some of the plans for groups to voyage to the Ordinariate, like those of TAC and some parts or the Continuum, appear to be running up on the rocks.
Perhaps some of the dreamy idealism of the starry-eyed is hitting up to the cold hard realism of what the Catholic Church is really like, and how it is run. One gets the impression Newman had the same experience. We will have to see.
Sam Keyes wrote at #3:
[blockquote] “English Catholicism was always (or had been, by the 16th century, definitely so for several hundred years, pace modern interpreters who want to find suppression around every corner) Roman Catholicism with local variation” [/blockquote]
No it wasn’t, in any sense. “Roman Catholicism†in its Tridentine form (which is the only form where such a term is accurate) didn’t exist. Virtually everyone in western Europe saw themselves as “catholic†but this did not mean “Roman Catholicismâ€.
[blockquote] “As an aspiring medievalist, I have to say that I find it absurd to suggest that “medieval scholasticism†stands as something other than the great tradition stretching back to the Fathers, or that the surest method of following the Apostles is to eschew it.”
[/blockquote]
I disagree. So did the reformers. They certainly saw some value in scholasticism, but they were prepared to reject scholasticism at any point where it taught contrary to the teaching of Christ and his apostles, or the true tradition of the early church.
[blockquote] “(An older figure like the 14th century John Wyclif, now celebrated in many circles as a proto-reformer, is about as scholastic as one can get.)†[/blockquote]
You are using a definition of “scholasticism” so broad that every single person in the middle ages would be defined as a “scholastic”. Of course definitions can be broad, but this is so broad as to be meaningless.
Yes, John Wyclif was a reformer – there were many in the Middle Ages, but Wyclif does tend to tower over most of them. Unlike the 16th century reformers, he and other medieval reformers still hoped that the European church could be reformed from within, and that Rome would participate in the process. But in the early 15th century the church establishment (including Rome) responded with the utmost savagery towards reform. This drove reform underground but did not root it out, which is why the Protestant Reformation a century later spread like wildfire throughout Europe. The Protestant Reformation was essentially Wyclif’s doctrine put into practice.
[blockquote] “I won’t contest the beauty and power of the BCP, but the forecast doesn’t look so great about the success of non-Roman Anglicanism as the kind of “Catholic†movement you describe.” [/blockquote]
The forecast looks excellent, thank you very much. “Non -Roman Anglicanism†consists of tens of millions of committed orthodox believers spread throughout the world. Yes, we have problems with some in our ranks (particularly in the western provinces) that reject Anglican teachings, but they will be rooted out. It is only a matter of time – God’s church stands
You also wrote at #5,
[blockquote] “English Catholicism was “Roman†in the sense that it followed the Roman rite.” [/blockquote]
No, it didn’t. There were many “rites”. That was the whole point that Cranmer made in his forward to the BCP – even the church fathers didn’t have one rite, and by Cranmer’s time there was a vast array of rites, none of which (at least in England) were particularly “Roman”. Cranmer was an innovator in the sense of providing a unified rite throughout one realm, a move which Rome later copied when it created the Tridentine rite.
Sam Keyes wrote at #12,
[blockquote] “I would much rather have an overactive imagination about purgatory and the saints than to have some sort of gnostic “gospel†without them.” [/blockquote]
The fact that you would prefer one error over another is cause for concern. Rather, you should be striving to conform to the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles in all respects, not just some. This is what the English reformers did, and that is why we follow their example.
[blockquote] “any “gospel†that shuns the saints (and their relics) for some pure “spiritual†message has neglected the consequences of the Incarnation.” [/blockquote]
Like your other posts, this is worded in a vague manner. It is not clear to me what you mean by “shunning the saints (and their relics)â€. But assuming that you mean the peculiar Roman doctrine of veneration of saints and relics, to say that rejecting this amounts to “neglecting the consequences of the Incarnation†displays a lack of understanding of the Incarnation. Similarly, to suggest that rejecting Roman dogma is “gnostic†displays a lack of understanding of gnosticism.
[blockquote] “I think it much better for people to be worried about their relatives in purgatory than to instantly canonize them upon death (as now seems common practice).†[/blockquote]
I have no idea what you mean by “now common practiceâ€, but the real issue for any Christian should be conformity to the teaching and practice of Christ and his apostles. Since they gave no support to the teaching of purgatory, Anglicans don’t follow it .
The tribulations of poor old Fr Hunwicke continue I see in his efforts to become a priest in ‘the one true church’.
Sounds like he continues to be roasted in the dungeons of the Inquisition for his past blogging life and is being made to recant and deny his calling to the heresy of blogging [well incorrect or unapproved blogging]. The rest of us all thought that he was doing a good job for his future church.
Never mind Fr Hunwicke – it will all be worthwhile when the CDF’s Inquisitors have finished. The auto da fe will bring blessed release, and then the purging flames will save you, if not your Liturgical Notes.
Still, if you put yourself in the hands of the Inquisition…..
A salutory lesson for bloggers who would consider becoming Roman Catholic, and the exquisite tortures which await them from Cardinal Levada for the iniquities of their commenters such as myself as their blogs are ripped out and burnt before their eyes.
Ouch, ooh, ouch, arrrgh, stop doing that, no, please, no, argggh, anything you say, please make it stop, argghhhh!
Thank you, PM. Fr Hunwicke’s entry on 9 June 2011 was quite clear on at least one point:
[blockquote] “In the meantime, I am closing down this blog with immediate effect, and I shall promptly delete any comments on it (or emails sent to me) which are in any way whatsoever critical of the Catholic Church, or any of its officers, or of the Ordinariate; or which recommend me to adhere to any other ecclesial body.” [/blockquote]
And then yesterday:
[blockquote] “I am touched by all those – rather a lot – who have been in touch with me, by various means, to urge the continuation of this blog in a private forum with a controlled and confidential group. It would be imprudent of me to spell out why I cannot do this; but I can’t. It is not because I do not trust my friends to be discrete.” [/blockquote]
#24 MichealA
Well pointed out. Among those who, if you read the comments asking for him to continue his blog ministry privately, are those who have been to my knowledge faithful Catholics and have enjoyed and benefitted from Fr Hunwicke’s hard work.
But there we are.