It is significant that the Windsor Report of 2004, in seeking to provide the Anglican Communion with ecclesiological foundations for addressing the current crisis, also adopted an ecclesiology of koinonia. I found this to be helpful and encouraging, and in response to a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury inviting an ecumenical reaction to the Windsor Report, I noted that “(n)otwithstanding the substantial ecclesiological issues still dividing us which will continue to need our attention, this approach is fundamentally in line with the communion ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council. The consequences which the Report draws from this ecclesiological base are also constructive, especially the interpretation of provincial autonomy in terms of interdependence, thus ”˜subject to limits generated by the commitments of communion’ (Windsor n.79). Related to this is the Report’s thrust towards strengthening the supra-provincial authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury (nn.109-110) and the proposal of an Anglican Covenant which would ”˜make explicit and forceful the loyalty and bonds of affection which govern the relationships between the churches of the Communion’ (n.118).”
The one weakness pertaining to ecclesiology that I noted was that “(w)hile the Report stresses that Anglican provinces have a responsibility towards each other and towards the maintenance of communion, a communion rooted in the Scriptures, considerably little attention is given to the importance of being in communion with the faith of the Church through the ages.” In our dialogue, we have jointly affirmed that the decisions of a local or regional church must not only foster communion in the present context, but must also be in agreement with the Church of the past, and in a particular way, with the apostolic Church as witnessed in the Scriptures, the early councils and the patristic tradition. This diachronic dimension of apostolicity “has important ecumenical ramifications, since we share a common tradition of one and a half millennia. This common patrimony ”“ what Pope Paul VI and Archbishop Michael Ramsey called our ”˜ancient common traditions’ ”“ is worth being appealed to and preserved.”
In light of this analysis of episcopal ministry as set forward in ARCIC and the koinonia ecclesiology found in The Windsor Report, it has been particularly disheartening to have witnessed the increasing tensions within the Anglican Communion. In several contexts, bishops are not in communion with other bishops; in some instances, Anglican provinces are no longer in full communion with each other. While the Windsor process continues, and the ecclesiology set forth in the Windsor Report has been welcomed in principle by the majority of Anglican provinces, it is difficult from our perspective to see how that has translated into the desired internal strengthening of the Anglican Communion and its instruments of unity. It also seems to us that the Anglican commitment to being ”˜episcopally led and synodically governed’ has not always functioned in such a way as to maintain the apostolicity of the faith, and that synodical government misunderstood as a kind of parliamentary process has at times blocked the sort of episcopal leadership envisaged by Cyprian and articulated in ARCIC.
I know that many of you are troubled, some deeply so, by the threat of fragmentation within the Anglican Communion. We feel profound solidarity with you, for we too are troubled and saddened when we ask: In such a scenario, what shape might the Anglican Communion of tomorrow take, and who will our dialogue partner be? Should we, and how can we, appropriately and honestly engage in conversations also with those who share Catholic perspectives on the points currently in dispute, and who disagree with some developments within the Anglican Communion or particular Anglican provinces? What do you expect in this situation from the Church of Rome, which in the words of Ignatius of Antioch is to preside over the Church in love? How might ARCIC’s work on the episcopate, the unity of the Church, and the need for an exercise of primacy at the universal level be able to serve the Anglican Communion at the present time?
I gotta think that all that high-minded big-word theology thinkin’ went straight over the head of many TEC bishops.
Lucid, scholarly, honest, and spiritual. If anything, it errs in granting the Anglican Communion a great deal more coherence than it in fact possesses. One can only hope it presages moves towards receiving Anglican Catholics into the Church as was once hoped all Anglicans could be: “united but but not absorbed.”
Awesome, generous, clear and encouraging. Would that more reappraisers dare to “live prophetically” in this context. Perhaps some will. Most won’t. My vision is for an inclusive Church that is deeply rooted in a bright-shining, sin piercing, merciful, holy and robust orthodoxy.
After Lambeth, my thought is that Rome will make a way to welcome home those Anglicans of Catholic orientation with an expansion of the Anglican Use which will be global in scope.
They will also maintain converstaions with Anglicans, always hoping against hope, to halt the slide into absolute gnostic unitarianism.
If the Anglican Use is expanded to welcome Anglo-Catholics everywhere (not just in the USA) this will be an example of godly inclusion that is bold, daring and authentically prophetic. If that happens, this Affirming Catholic reappraiser will be seriously considering leaving TEC, including my pet doctrines and beliefs. I never thought I would be saying this but I am.
In reference to 3. archangelica:
There are many who would prefer something on a larger scale than a mere expansion of the Anglican Use so that ‘Anglican’ bishops may continue to have jurisdiction in their own dioceses. The preferred method would be an Anglican uniate church with its own hierarchy and liturgy.
What the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith comes up with remains to be seen. But the conclusion of the TAC’s move to Rome lies near and it will reveal much as many commentators here at T19 have noted.
I found the Cardinal’s remarks impressive. This man has really gone the extra mile in the last few years in speaking frankly to Anglicans about the consequences of recent actions.
Where I’m less convinced is this idea of some sort of global “Anglican use”. To me, as a member of the C of E at the Catholic end of the spectrum, this American response to an American situation doesn’t seem universally applicable. Those of us in England likely to “swim the Tiber” over the ecclesiological problem raised by the ordination of wome bishops have no great enthusiasm for a Tudorbethean rite on the lines of the American PCB of 1928 (with Coverdale’s translation of the Roman Canon, I think????). The use of the modern Roman Missal is widespread, with the late Dom Gregory Murray’s “New People’s Mass” the near-universal congregational setting.
I find the enthusiam of so many English Anglo-Catholics for the Bugnini mass quite mystifying. They have embraced uglified churches, westward facing altars, nasty music, brutal language and all the other ills of the last decades with a marked lack of discrimination. One hopes they will adopt Rome’s revised English translations, liberation of the Extraordinary Form, and revival of ceremony with equal alacrity.
Quite why (beyond distaste for Protestants) they are determined to disown the most powerful literary period in the history of English is beyond me. As Shakespeare continues to be the world’s most popular dramatist, so the hieratic language of Cranmer’s period remains the most effective expression of English devotion. Many Roman Catholics were deeply envious of it and recommended it as the model for an Englished liturgy, of course without success.
And why not enrich the patrimony of the church with Coverdale’s psalter (which T.S. Eliot said could not be improved on), PB Evensong, the Authorized Version, and the English Missal? I can’t imagine anyone would be forced to use them. But why insist on denying them to those who love them? The whole point of these accommodations is not to be “universally applicable” but to give inclusive options to those who have legitimate attachments to certain forms.
It seems Rome is more inclined to be inclusive than some modernized Anglo-Catholics.
The translation of the canon in BDW is not, I believe, Coverdale’s.
One should also note that the BDW contains modern language versions of the liturgies based on the US 1979 Rite II texts. And the psalter, with inclusive language, oddly enough. So there is already a non-tudorbethan option. It seems rather pointless since it so closely resembles the current Roman rite and, I gather, is hardly ever used.
To my mind, the most vital contribution Anglicans have to make would be a decent hymnal–the English Hymnal would do fine. Even the better RC options are slight and even more slightly used by silent congregations.
#5 Alan1803
“Those of us in England likely to “swim the Tiber†over the ecclesiological problem raised by the ordination of wome bishops have no great enthusiasm for a Tudorbethean rite on the lines of the American PCB of 1928 (with Coverdale’s translation of the Roman Canon, I think????). The use of the modern Roman Missal is widespread, with the late Dom Gregory Murray’s “New People’s Mass†the near-universal congregational setting.”
Ugh. This is like exchanging beauty for ashes. The liturgy you describe sounds as banal and dis-enchanting as the novus ordo used here in the states. It is with good reason that Benedict is restoring the Tridentine Mass.
“(B)eing in communion with the faith of the Church” ?
We don’t need to be in communion with no stinking faith of the Church through the ages! We are the postEnlightened postModern only capable interpreters of Scripture. If you’d like to get your errant views corrected, please apply to ECUSA/TEC/GCC/EO-PAC or ACCanada. Please allow time for slipping and mishandling of any agreements appearing to have been reached either verbally or in writing. Do remember that we are a democratic organization and that any General Convention can change the price, the ground rules, or any prior GC actions at any time. We do NOT allow refunds or exchanges.
Thank you for worshipping us. We think we are the cat’s pajamas, the grooviest, the in thing, the only true zeitgestkirken, and if you have an issue you think could be manufactured into one of justice, we are the premier purveyors of such as New Thang Gozpel(c), doctrine, liturgy, and most recent touchy-feely miscellaneous items.
(Conservatives or traditionalists need not apply unless we have an opening on one our committees dedicated to inclusivism so as not to allow any real voice or vote to said cretins. Leave name and number. We’ll call you!)
Be assured of your place in the Church of What’s Happening at this Moment, join us.
Just ignore that faith of the Church through the ages refuse.
Interesting enough, the Rite II Creed in the BDW reads “who for us and for our salvation”, not “who for us [i]men[/i] and for our salvation.
The Parish Mass (10am) at St. Mary the Virgin AU parish in Arlington, Texas is Rite II, and used to be barely distinguishable from the Roman Rite, except that the celebrant faces east (liturgical and literal east, in fact), the Fraction Anthem (“Christ Our Passover”) and they sing from the Episcopal Hymnal 1980. I understand Fr. Hawkins is having the Creed read in Latin, however, and may be using it elsewhere in the Mass. I’ve not been out there in awhile.
#5: Those of us in England likely to “swim the Tiber†over the ecclesiological problem raised by the ordination of wome bishops have no great enthusiasm for a Tudorbethean rite on the lines of the American PCB of 1928 (with Coverdale’s translation of the Roman Canon, I think????). The use of the modern Roman Missal is widespread, with the late Dom Gregory Murray’s “New People’s Mass†the near-universal congregational setting.
I have to admit that I too am disappointed that so many English Anglo-Catholic congregations have simply adopted the Novus Ordo. I’m sure they celebrate it with far greater grace and beauty than the typical Catholic congregation, yet I am loath to see the Anglo-Catholic liturgical tradition forgotten and abandoned. The Catholic Church needs this tradition. She needs the hymnody and music. She needs the hieratic language of the English/Anglican/American Missal. She needs that sacramental devotion that Anglo-Catholics learned from the Catholic Church, which has now been forgotten by so many Catholics. It would be a great loss if this Anglo-Catholic patrimony were to be lost.
Fr. Kimel, I am glad to hear you say that. I thought you didn’t have much use for the Anglican Use, thinking it was only a temporary accommodation. (The BDW has its problems of course and could be improved upon. But it is an attempt to bring that tradition into Catholicism.)
I am sure you have heard (to the point of being tired of it) the old joke in which the Catholic priest, while leading a procession trips and falls flat on his face. When he gets up, he motions over the acolyte, and says, “you’d better run up to St. Steven’s Anglican and let them know so they can do it too.” Could the reason these Anglo Catholic congregations started using the Novus Ordo be as simple as that?
Susan Peterson
Austin- I was told it was Coverdale’s. I found a few differences in wording from the version of Coverdale’s translation I found, but not very many. If not Coverdale’s, whose?
Whosever it was, although it is Elizabethan, it doesn’t sound like Cranmer and doesn’t really proclaim like Cranmer. I am not sure one could ever write a literal translation of the Latin into English, Elizabethan or modern, which would proclaim like Cranmer. And dynamic equivalence is frowned on these days. The Latin was meant to be prayed in Latin. I am not sure any translation, by the very nature of translation, can resound the way a liturgy originally written in the language can resound. That is why I really like what Western Rite Orthodoxy has done with Cranmer better than the BDW. They didn’t try to take the canon from the Divine Liturgy of St. John C, wonderful as it is, and translate it into Elizabethan English to replace Cranmer’s canon, which they just touched up a bit from an Orthodox point of view. It could equally well, and similarly, be touched up from a Catholic point of view. (Cranmer would not have been happy with this of course. But then, hearing what he wrote combined with the Roman canon would really really have upset him. I often think of this when I go to the Anglican use.)
Susan Peterson
Responding quickly to the responses….
I think English “spikes” tend to be more “papalist” than those across the pond. In the early seventies, there was certainly a brief period of enthusiasm for an “updated English Missal” approach, with Tudorbethean versions of the new Roman rite. The Society of Mary did it particularly well, issuing the newrite of Vespers of the BVM with Coverdale psalms and plainsong. This period was shortlived, as Anglican Catholics saw little point in using the Roman rite but insisting upon an archaic (if beautiful) translation. Yes, we can fairly claim to “do it better” than the Romans. The bog standard Mass setting (Murray) used in most A-C parishes, at FiF festivals, and so on, is perhaps interesting because it began its life as a congregational Latin setting, composed by Dom Gregory Murray in about 1950. Murray subsequently re-issued it with BCP words, although it never really caught on with Anglicans and didn’t rival the ubiquitous Merbecke or Shaw. Its third incarnation, with ICEL texts, seems to have taken the spike world by storm, maybe because it’s the setting used at Walsingham. Strangely enough, I’ve never heard it at a Roman Catholic service in English.
As for hymns, the church I go to uses English Hymnal (original, not NEH), Ancient and Moribund, and occasionally the Celebration Hymnal (when we want to show that we’re very ‘igh by using a few good old papistical pot boilers like Faith of Our Fathers or I’ll Sing a Hymn to Mary!).
A liturgical process similar to what Alan1803 describes in England happened in South Africa, though not through wholesale adoption of the Roman Missal or papalism. “Liturgy ’75” was followed by a new SA Prayer Book that was fairly Catholic and included a Roman eucharistic prayer. But the net result was to water down the Catholic nature of the Province and push it in a “progressive” direction–in the SA context was easy to argue that, if social change was needed, so was liturgical change. And if we were going to change the texts, then we should abandon this or that “old-fashioned practice” such as Benediction, processions, Marian devotions. This was the thin end of the wedge for many Catholic parishes that then went “middle of the road” or liberal. Generally, the updating was as damaging for Anglicans, I think, as it has been for R. Catholics.
There are certainly still many Catholic parishes in the UK that use older forms, but they are not at the core of the Catholic movement (if one takes that to be Forward in Faith) and are often sparsely attended shrine churches.
I like the Western Rite too, and the old Scottish rite has been suggested as an acceptable model. But I am told that most Western Rite parishes will end up using a modified Tridentine liturgy and the new liturgical books are in preparation. Perhaps someone better informed can confirm this.
#13 I must admit to simply parroting the learned Fr Hunwicke about the Coverdale (see http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2008/02/even-more-extraordinary-form.html) The Book of Martyrs text is at:
http://hri.shef.ac.uk/foxe/single/book10/10_1563_0891.html.