The Pope has recently issued an invitation to Anglicans to move into full communion with the See of Rome in the Ordinariate where it is possible to enjoy the “Anglican patrimony” as full members of the Roman Catholic Church. Three priests in the Diocese have taken this step. They have followed their consciences.
For those who remain there can be no logic in the claim to be offering the Eucharist in communion with the Roman Church which the adoption of the new rites would imply. In these rites there is not only a prayer for the Pope but the expression of a communion with him; a communion Pope Benedict XVI would certainly repudiate.
At the same time rather than building on the hard won convergence of liturgical texts, the new Roman rite varies considerably from its predecessor and thus from Common Worship as well. The rationale for the changes is that the revised texts represent a more faithful translation of the Latin originals and are a return to more traditional language.
The liturgical texts have indeed been converging during the last forty years. Unfortunately, after close examination, the assymtote towards which they were converging proved to be a falsification of the tradition and not existing in any language but English.
(After finally succeeding in reading the somewhat turgid letter) Well, indeed! There will clearly be [i]”…no opportunity to claim that the Bishop’s directions have been unclear.”[/i]
He sees the asymptotic relation as now in its ‘parallel stage’.
And furthermore: [i]”All the bishops of the Diocese when visiting parishes will celebrate according to the rites of the Church of England allowing for permitted local variations under Canon B5.”[/i] Chartres seems intent on keeping a really tight rein in a place and a church where discipline has seemed almost non-existent. All faithful must choose between the Bishop of London, and the Bishop of Rome.
Maybe Chartres really is going to be the next Archbishop of Canterbury. He seems to be auditioning for the job.
I rather agree with this though anyone who knows Bishop Richard’s long standing love for the BCP (1662) will wryly smile at his affection for liturgical convergence:
[blockquote]At the same time rather than building on the hard won convergence of liturgical texts, the new Roman rite varies considerably from its predecessor and thus from Common Worship as well. The rationale for the changes is that the revised texts represent a more faithful translation of the Latin originals and are a return to more traditional language[/blockquote]
[i] So it is with some dismay that I have learned of the intentions of some clergy in the Diocese to follow instructions which have been addressed to the Roman Catholic Church and to adopt the new Roman eucharistic rites at Advent. … For those who remain [in the C of E rather than joining the Ordinariate] there can be no logic in the claim to be offering the Eucharist in communion with the Roman Church which the adoption of the new rites would imply. [/i]
I have to agree with the Bishop of London on this point. Those priests who are still Anglican ought to be using the rites of the Church of England.
For myself, as a Catholic now I’m delighted with the new translation of the Novus Ordo Mass, and still love the traditional BCP. Too much of the sense of God’s majesty and transcendence was lost in the ICEL texts, IMHO.
I wish I knew more about this bishop. Maybe someone from the UK can fill in on what is known about him.
I think I may like the cut of his jib, from this piece.
Perhaps the lesson to be learned is that Common Worship, and American 1979 Rite II users, ought to consider moving towards the 1928/’79 Rite I language. It’s our heritage, after all, and closer to the common tradition.
“For those who remain there can be no logic in the claim to be offering the Eucharist in communion with the Roman Church which the adoption of the new rites would imply. In these rites there is not only a prayer for the Pope but the expression of a communion with him; [i]a communion Pope Benedict XVI would certainly repudiate[/i].”
Bishop Chartres [i]supra[/i] (emphasis added)
Repudiation by Rome is an awkward standard to set if one is to continue reasoning as Bishop Chartres does in this posting.
[i]Cf[/i]:
“This is especially true of the Pope, who is undeniably the Patriarch of the West and as head of the Roman Catholic Church is charged with awesome pastoral and missionary responsibilities.”
Bishop Chartres [i]supra[/i]
[blockquote]Popes have in the past occasionally used the title Patriarch of the West, without attaching to it a clear meaning. Beginning in 1863, this title appeared in the annual reference publication, Annuario Pontificio, which in 1885 became a semi-official publication of the Holy See. This publication suppressed the title in its 2006 edition. The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity explained the decision in a press release issued later that year. It stated that the title “Patriarch of the West” had become “obsolete and practically unusable” and that it was “pointless to insist on maintaining it”. Since the Second Vatican Council, the Latin Church, with which the title could be consider linked, is now organized as a number of episcopal conferences and their international groupings. [/blockquote]
Wikipedia at [i]Patriarch[/i]
The old translation of the Roman Missal had a petition for the pope, so the new translation is, of course, not the issue.
I will say this: while we have differing opinions about women priests, can we agree that it’s a matter somewhat more ecumenically significant than whether we say the same Gloria Sunday by Sunday? What has been the real trajectory of ecumenical relationships between the Anglican and Roman Catholic Communion (or Orthodoxy, for that matter) these past 40 years ?
Charles52, #8, I don’t disagree with you on that issue, and yes, the deterioration in relations between the Anglican and Roman communions is tragic.
FWIW, I note that the Diocese of London is one of only two dioceses (out of 44) in the CoE that rejected the proposed legislation authorizing the ordination of women as bishops. Chichester was the other.
Driver8 would be the best person (among those who’ve commented on this thread) about +Chartres in answer to Sarah’s question above. However, perhaps it might be helpful for some readers to know that there has long been a deep divide between two sorts of Anglo-Catholics, those commonly called “[i]Prayer Book Catholics[/i]” (I’d be comfortable with that label myself, although I prefer to stress my “3-D” style) versus “[i]Missal Catholics[/i]” (such as, e.g., the late Dom Gregory Dix). Clearly, +Chartres falls in the former camp (he is also personally opposed to WO).
Prayer Book Catholics are committed to using the approved Anglican rites, while celebrating or spinning them in as catholic a manner as possible. “Missal Catholics” recognize that even when their catholic potential is maximized, BCP services are stubbornly and intentionally Protestant in many ways, and hence Missal Catholics choose to supplement the BCP with Roman liturgical materials (sometimes praying those extra prayers silently). Missal (Anglo-)Catholics are also sometimes called Anglo-Papalists.
Personally, I doubt that +Chartres has much of a chance of replacing ++RW at Canterbury, despite his close ties to the Royal Family. But he would certainly be a vast improvement over the current incumbent. However, so would be +N. T. Wright, or a number of other more conservative bishops.
David Handy+