The Bishop seems to be putting clear blue water between us Catholics and his own flock, perhaps more clearly than he intends. It is clearly wrong for Anglican clergy to use the Roman Missal, from both an Anglican point of view and from our point of view. But I would add this: the Roman Missal, especially in the new translation, reflects a very clear belief in the doctrine of transubstantiation which Anglicans do not hold. Therefore they should not use the Missal. Or if they do hold to the doctrine of transubstantiation, they should come into the Ordinariate.
“Three priests in the Diocese have taken this step. They have followed their consciences,” remarks the Bishop speaking of the Ordinariate. Is there a third way? It would seem not. Dr Chartres, while mentioning canon law and its obligations, nevertheless makes no threats: “There will be no persecution and no creation of ritual martyrs,” he says. But the appeal to conscience and indeed logic is clear in this powerfully argued letter. You cannot be an Anglican and use the Roman Missal. It is one or the other. On that all should agree.
It is a rather curious thing about English Anglo-Catholics that they use the Roman Missal. Such a thing is never done in the U.S.
Actually, I know a few parishes here in the US that use the Missal, but it is a much more rare occurrence.
And to be fair, there are many Evangelical churches in England that likewise never touch a prayerbook. I was in one in Cambridge that was using Willow Creek mega church stuff.
On that all should agree.
Well, I don’t.
First of all, whatever liturgy an Anglican priest uses is between him and his bishop. It’s none of my RC business, nor Fr. Lucie-Smith.
Moreover, while Father is correct that transubstantiation is a central RC doctrine (contra Bp. Chartres), he’s wrong that one who believes it must become Roman Catholic. The papal claims and Marian dogmas remained problems for me long after transubstantiation. I’ve known Anglicans who basically believed the whole Catechism of the Catholic Church except Papal Infallibility.
Re #4
Charles52
Good point. Though the term “transubstantiation” is not one used in the East, the Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist is substantively the same as Rome’s. Does he think we need to all become Roman Catholics because of that? On which note I know of more than a few Anglicans who have opted for Orthodoxy over Rome with some entering through the Western Rite.
I would refer the author to the ARCIC agreements on the nature of the Sacrament in question. Bless his heart, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
I wonder what this means for the folks in London who are using the earlier form of the Roman Rite? I did know of one parish (outside London) that would only use the ASB (the predecessor to Common Worship) for the Bishop’s annual visit. I remember a priest attached to the parish wryly remarking that when they used the ASB the laity didn’t know quite know all the prayers and responses. To be fair, the parish did good work in a hugely challenging environment. However liturgically, it did strike me as slightly doolally.
After all the TEC heresies an argument over transubstantiation is quite refreshing. And, quite frankly, in comparison, a tempest in a teapot.
In fact, I think that any error we may charge to Rome, pails in comparison to the heresies we Anglicans either support or have live with.
#4 is correct. You are supposed to come to Rome because you believe in the *totality* of their dogma and doctrine, not just belief in their dogma of how the Eucharist becomes the Body and Blood of Jesus.
I spent a bit of time during the early Anglican wars attending RCIA, and even got married in the Catholic Church. There is a WHOLE lot I love about the Roman Catholic Church. But I ultimately found that it wasn’t so much that I agreed with all the dogma and doctrine of the Church as much as I had created “excuses” to accept the things I either a) didn’t really believe, or b) thought that certain dogma while a perfectly nice pious belief should not be required of one for salvation. I eventually felt analogous to a TEC priest crossing his fingers while saying the Nicene Creed.
I returned to Anglicanism *much* more Catholic in my Christian beliefs than when I left, but I didn’t want to be another “cafeteria Catholic” since that doesn’t do justice to the RC Church which quite rightly has the ability to determine what it takes to be a member and quite clearly requires one hold to the *entire* teaching of the Magisterium and the Church.
#6
I am confused by your statement. Could you give me an example of “not knowing what he is talking about”?
#9
I understand there is a provision of conscience for converts to the RCC who “just can’t get their minds” around various dogmas. Is that your experience?
Adam12 –
I’m not billqs (who I salute as a man of obvious integrity), but I can’t imagine any provision that you given weasel room for a convert to evade the Affirmation of Faith:
“I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church teaches, believes and proclaims to be revealed by God.â€