It seems that, try as I will to avoid unnecessary controversy, controversy finds me. A friend, a friend I like very much, involved me in a conversation wherein Anglicans were taking the usual beating for not belonging to either of the Two One True Churches. So, this question was put to me:
"Are you contending, then, that the claims of Rome and Constantinople are false because they are innovations in the apostolic tradition, at some point in time, or that even if such a claim is primordial, it is nevertheless false? Or would you say that up to a certain point in time there was a visible body that could claim to be the 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' or the 'One True Church,' but that at a certain point this was no longer the case?"
Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!
The historical argument for why we ought to yield to Rome (to use the words of Fr. John Hunwicke, words with which I strongly disagree) "a juridical status to which we should be prepared in humility juridically to submit," is wholly unpersuasive, lacking the basis required to make anything a true doctrine: Revelation. The best way to understand revelation is with a hypothetical question: When did God ever say so? That question can never be answered without applying the standard of the Universal Church in accordance with Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est; that standard expressed in our own Article VI:
"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."
I find it strange that many writers and apologists think that they are true to the Fathers when they require Patristic testimony instead of Biblical teaching, as the test of sound doctrine. It indicates that they have not read the Fathers, at least not very much. From very early on, the "Fundamentalist" approach of our Article VI was the Patristic method. They did not argue from some concept of Doctrinal Development in the flawed sense of that ole' card Newman. They did not build on each other, citing previous Fathers as proof of anything. They quoted Scripture. That is the Patristic method, and it is the Catholic Tradition.
I answered my friend in these words, and "them's fightin' words," I must admit (but all is not lost; we must think of that last scene in The Quiet Man, the drunken calm after the storm when John Wayne and Victor McLaglin are pals again).
So, my friend, after all these years, and all the things I have written (especially on The Continuum) you still really don't understand me, or the patrimony that we Continue?
Heresy is false teaching, not dissent from a diocese that claims some God given power to rule everybody from a central location. Heresy voids the authority of any See or bishop. Also, nothing compels us to recognize a doctrine of Manifest Political Unity as necessary to identify the Church.
It seems pointless to fault Anglicans of past generations for creating division, when in fact the Two One True Churches had already manged to create this problem for us when, in the course of human events, the tyranny of Rome under its Spanish masters impelled them to the separation. Not only that, but Rome's practices amounted to heresy in that the people were denied even the clearest understanding of their faith, all things done in a tongue not "understanded by the people," with the very Gospel itself buried under the rubble from centuries of ever-increasing superstition. It had become the false gospel of Rome (Gal. 1:8). Instead of the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, most clearly taught by the anonymous writer to the Hebrews, was the spectacle of burdens and "merits" that negated His once for all offering of Himself on the cross. There can be no ecumenical gains without truth taking priority over all other considerations, including whether or not Rome ought to be quite as central an HQ as it claims to be.
For the rest, I will let my colleague, Fr. Kirby speak for all of us. See the link.
"Are you contending, then, that the claims of Rome and Constantinople are false because they are innovations in the apostolic tradition, at some point in time, or that even if such a claim is primordial, it is nevertheless false? Or would you say that up to a certain point in time there was a visible body that could claim to be the 'One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' or the 'One True Church,' but that at a certain point this was no longer the case?"
Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!The historical argument for why we ought to yield to Rome (to use the words of Fr. John Hunwicke, words with which I strongly disagree) "a juridical status to which we should be prepared in humility juridically to submit," is wholly unpersuasive, lacking the basis required to make anything a true doctrine: Revelation. The best way to understand revelation is with a hypothetical question: When did God ever say so? That question can never be answered without applying the standard of the Universal Church in accordance with Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est; that standard expressed in our own Article VI:
"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation."
I find it strange that many writers and apologists think that they are true to the Fathers when they require Patristic testimony instead of Biblical teaching, as the test of sound doctrine. It indicates that they have not read the Fathers, at least not very much. From very early on, the "Fundamentalist" approach of our Article VI was the Patristic method. They did not argue from some concept of Doctrinal Development in the flawed sense of that ole' card Newman. They did not build on each other, citing previous Fathers as proof of anything. They quoted Scripture. That is the Patristic method, and it is the Catholic Tradition.
I answered my friend in these words, and "them's fightin' words," I must admit (but all is not lost; we must think of that last scene in The Quiet Man, the drunken calm after the storm when John Wayne and Victor McLaglin are pals again).
So, my friend, after all these years, and all the things I have written (especially on The Continuum) you still really don't understand me, or the patrimony that we Continue?
Heresy is false teaching, not dissent from a diocese that claims some God given power to rule everybody from a central location. Heresy voids the authority of any See or bishop. Also, nothing compels us to recognize a doctrine of Manifest Political Unity as necessary to identify the Church.
It seems pointless to fault Anglicans of past generations for creating division, when in fact the Two One True Churches had already manged to create this problem for us when, in the course of human events, the tyranny of Rome under its Spanish masters impelled them to the separation. Not only that, but Rome's practices amounted to heresy in that the people were denied even the clearest understanding of their faith, all things done in a tongue not "understanded by the people," with the very Gospel itself buried under the rubble from centuries of ever-increasing superstition. It had become the false gospel of Rome (Gal. 1:8). Instead of the sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice, most clearly taught by the anonymous writer to the Hebrews, was the spectacle of burdens and "merits" that negated His once for all offering of Himself on the cross. There can be no ecumenical gains without truth taking priority over all other considerations, including whether or not Rome ought to be quite as central an HQ as it claims to be.
For the rest, I will let my colleague, Fr. Kirby speak for all of us. See the link.
52 comments:
I was told that John Paul II once made the comparison that Book of Common Prayer Anglicanism was like a religious order.
If he did truly make that comparison, I would have to agree with it.
The Book of Common Prayer is not just a book of liturgies for daily offices or Sunday communion. The BCP is very literally a 7 day per week scriptural "road map" to salvation. If we truly follow the prayer offices, or the family prayers in the BCP, read or sing the Psalms according to its established pattern, follow its rules for fasting and observances, we can't be far off the path to salvation.
It has been said that 80% of the BCP is directly from the words of the Bible. I just don't know how any denomination or church could be more scriptural than that.
When we define Anglican - at least true, orthodox Anglicanism - I don't believe that one can make a definition that doesn't include the Book of Common Prayer. Granted, as the Affirmation of St. Louis states, there are ecumenical councils, and other aspects to Anglicanism.
But, Father, you have hit upon the key to Anglicanism, and that is that Anglicanism is grounded in, and has its very foundation in, the scriptures. That foundational, scriptural faith has been complied into the Book of Common Prayer. The Book of Common Prayer is scriptural, strong, pious in nature, and elegant in its language.
BCP Catholic
It can hardly be said any more clearly. But every time I hear the argument so well put, I hear from my ancient past my Roman uncle (by the city of his birth and his faith) ending an argument which he was losing by pounding the table and not quite shouting, "Don't tell me; I'm a Roman. I know!"
I think that from the moment that Rome was no longer the imperial city, they - the Romans - were looking for a way to regain what they had lost. They shattered the unity of the Church for it and poisoned the well of faith in the West. So we all need to know and memorize the argument and be prepared to make it over and over and over. At least until the last trump.
I confess that I feel a little alienated by the 'let's act and dress as if the reformation and the Anglican-Roman schism of the 16th century had never occurred' approach of Anglo-Papalists of Fr Hunwicke's camp. Make that 'completely alienated'. (I also wonder how one can possibly conclude how one ought to act or dress if those events, and, presumably, everything giving rise to them, had not occurred, and therefore conclude that modern Romans in that alternative reality might not be at all the way they currently are, but I digress . . .) As alienated and as bewildered as I feel when priests of that stamp deny me my heritage and force a foreign one upon me, I nevertheless become concerned that this blog is turning into a Fr Hunwicke-bashing session. Can we possibly play the ball and not the man?
The trouble I have is a small one that comes down to authority. Some folks, Newman being one of them, felt the need for an "infallible authority" here on earth. I don't see a need for one. The Church got on fine for at least 1,000 years without one.
I realize that modernism and post-modernism present difficulties for us where it may seem that two people can present very convincing arguments with two very opposite results. Consider issues of ordination and other sacraments. The thing is, you don't need an infallible authority to settle these. You just need poor, flawed human Reason to notice that one side, somewhere, is committing a logical fallacy of omission or commission.
Saying "Gosh, golly, I don't know how we can decide, and so we need an authority to tell me!" does not demonstrate the need for one. I don't mean to sound crass or disrespectful, but the perceived need for a security blanket does not prove the need of one, nor does it provide one in actuality. We have the Law and the Prophets. We have the Gospel. We have a long history of people interpreting all three. We have our own ability to discern them properly.
I'm beginning to think that's all we get, and the rest, as Cardinal Ratzinger himself says, is interpretation. Even the Ecumenical Councils, though binding in Christological regards, are not exactly what anyone would call infallible or binding in their totality. (Anyone kneeling after Easter? I thought so.)
An example, as pure lagniappe, of a logical fallacy used in argumentation: some pro-Roman Catholics like to argue for the Bishop of Rome's "pivotal" role in the first seven Ecumenical councils. More often than not, Rome could barely be bothered to send a legate, who was often late for the party. I'm sure there are specialists who have the detailed information on hand far more readily than I do.
I don't mean to beat up on particular people, but merely to suggest that a perceived need or dislike for something in Christian tradition doesn't equate to that thing a) being necessary or b) actually existing. Roman Catholics (including their entire polity) and Protestants (in all their various polities) are both demonstrably guilty of doing this, and so none of them, I don't think, can be said to monopolize "The Church."
You know the BCP formularies are not the only liturgy of which 80% is Scripture... the Tridentine Mass is similarly composed and the Breviary also.
Please let us remember that Cranmer did not compose the BCP but compiled it - from long existing liturgies of the same origin as that later reformed and codified text of Pius V.
Yes, there are some beautiful prayers which Cranmer composed and added, his translations too beautifully rendered ancient Collects into English - but the work was not all of his own, but drew upon already existing and historical texts, customs and forms.
Scriptural liturgy did not begin with the Reformation!
An excellent analysis, Fr. Hart, but I do agree with Sandra that there's been too much attention paid to Fr. Hunwicke here. He's a good and devout priest, who has come to conclusions you and I don't accept, but surely not in the spirit of those you and I have recently been in discussion with. I've been thinking that I'd be happier discussing the principles without so much reference to this particular advocate of the other side.
Fr. Jerome. I happen to be nearly as favorably inclined toward the Tridentine Mass as you (though I do prefer distinctly Anglican formularies). I do not believe its text contradicts Scripture, but, though there is a lot of Scripture quoted therein, its imagery and way of thinking is often quite distinct from that found in Holy Writ. While that's not necessarily a bad thing (as there is more than one way of supporting Scriptural truths), it is a characteristic of the rite. Cranmer, whether translating aspects of the Roman Liturgy or writing original material, was infused with the language and images of Scripture in a way the older liturgies mp longer did. He tweaked his sources in that direction. It is not an insult to the Roman liturgy to state that the Anglican has a higher [proportion of Scripture incorporated, but mere observation. The observation can be used, not to disparage anyone else, but to illustrate what our attitude toward Scripture actually is.
ed
(Cont...)
_________
Another problem with your position (whereas Fr Hunwicke escapes it) is with the complete separation of the juridical church from the sacramental church (where jurisdictions--particularly those not based on an Apostolic See--don't matter, only the Succession, doctrine and the Sacraments do). From a historical perspective (and it's not trumping the Fathers over the Scriptures) the Patristic teaching rightly interprets the Scriptures and there is nothing (as Dr Tighe mentions) that justifies the ACC's ecclesiology.
I hope this makes sense.
In Christ,
Andy B.
As I have written earlier when it came to offices I cut my teeth on the Monastic Diurnal and I knew the Tridentine mass in Latin before I ever knew that the Book of common Prayer existed - which probably makes my alleged prayer book fundamentalism seem quite strange to the fans of the former - so when I read Father Hart's article and went back and re-read Father Kirby's as well, the opinions of Father Hunwicke simply never occurred to me. Nor do I see either of these articles as bashing or intending to bash the good priest personally. In reading Father H's words I did not think of Father Hunwicke at all.
On the use of Scripture in the two liturgies, one does have to admit that both are extremely scriptural, but I would argue that they use Scripture quite differently. The Tridentine liturgy like most of the pre-Reformation Latin rites is heavy on the use of Scriptures poetic snippets but short on the reading of substantial portions of the Bible on a daily basis. They were also done in a language that was not understood by well of ninety five per cent of the people. What good did that do? The poetry of it appealed to the poet in me and also, I think, to Ed, but it seems clear that the Church needed something much more that poetic allusion.
Martin Thornton somewhere in his writings states that the prayer lives and writings of the English mystics of the fourteenth century demanded a liturgy such as we find in the prayer book. That is an idea which I am happy to second. Certainly the primers were working their way towards it before Cranmer and committee set themselves to work to provide it. Much of the translation work which we credit to Cranmer was already done and he merely improved upon it.
All the above being said, I agree with PB Catholic about the use of the liturgy as a whole. I only wish more missions and parishes in the Continuum were up to the doing of it - and I don't believe the priest has to do it all. Lay men and even lay women can read the offices in church if the priest is unable to be there to do it.
On the other hand, I believe that we as Anglicans need to look at the prayer book model again in the light of the Councils and those "non-binding" disciplinary canons. It would certainly help us to have more standing and less kneeling, especially at the more solemn prayers to indicate the doctrine of the priesthood of all believers. When I was a cadet there was a period in which we were not allowed to touch our knees to the ground it brought me to reconsider or recognize the number of times the phrase "stand praying" occurs in the New Testament.
This statement surprised me:
but Rome's practices amounted to heresy in that the people were denied even the clearest understanding of their faith, all things done in a tongue not "understanded by the people," with the very Gospel itself buried under the rubble from centuries of ever-increasing superstition
Or should I say, surprised and disappointed. Someone must have really made you angry, Fr. Hart, because it is uncharactaristically H.C. Lea-ish, when I have come to expect you to be more like Robert Southern or Owen Chadwick
I'm going to go pick up a copy of Eamonn Duffy's "Stripping of the Altars" to recover from this little shock.
I must say firmly that I disagree with Father Hunwicke, but also that I read his blog regularly! I admire him for standing up and speaking his mind THOUGH HIS DOING SO IRRITATES ME IMMENSLY and it has occured to me that he would get ,'stick,' for his views. It has never prevented him from speaking out as far as I know. I cannot see why we should have to hide our names if we do not want to. I use a non-de-plume simply because to use the title and be associated with the ideas gives me an immense pleasure!
James Petty.
Another excellent post, which makes me genuinely grieve that we are both Anglicans yet not in Communion. Many excellent comments as well.
Art. 19 is my favoite retort to the "two one true" wannabes. "As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch have erred: so also the Church of Rome has erred, not only in their living and manner of ceremonies, but also in matters of faith".
I once heard a Lutheran pastor mention that the Eastern Orthodox Church acts as if it excommunicated its last heretic in 787, and has magically been free from any innovation since. Yet the first centuries of the councilar age were alwaye about resolving theological controversy against the measure of scripture. The churched erred when it maimed St Maximos the Confessor and exiled St Chrsysostom. It then reformed itself in the next generation. At some point Rome and the EO lost the ability to internally reform themselves due to erors in the excercise of polity and manner of living.
Speaking as a "Pastoral Provision" Roman Catholic, I must say that Anglicanism should be preserved in its integrity. Rome can learn some things from the authentic Anglican tradition -- for example, how to be more "Catholic" and "Apostolic" in its own thinking and practice. "Juridical" arguments simply don't stand up to more pragmatic ones ("pragmatic" meaning -- so to speak -- "the proof is in the pudding"); nor do theoretical and idealistic assertions about "the one true Church" count for very much when folks are really looking for sound biblical exposition, a reasonable assimilation of tradition -- one free of superstition and dubious novelties --, and reliable pastoral oversight (not to be confused with "legal" oversight -- something Rome has confused with "pastoral" for a long, long time).
At any rate, just to mention one fly in the ointment, after the priest scandals of 2002 (which only indicated what remains a serious problem in the RC fold), let's not presume to argue about ecclesiastical theory any more. It's increasingly irrelevant to make bold claims about "proper jurisdiction" instead of wisely being silent and dealing with the dark aspects and hypocrisies of one's own fallible institution -- and Orthodoxy and Rome have shown that, in practice, they actually (if not theoretically) have their obvious fallibilities. The strength of Anglicanism, which has -- God knows -- a lot of troubles and imperfections, is that it has frequently shown the humility to acknowledge its own failures while holding to its best formularies. At least this is so among those who hold on to their heritage faithfully, among whom are those who contribute to this blog.
Andy Bartus wrote:
...there is nothing (as Dr Tighe mentions) that justifies the ACC's ecclesiology.
Dr. William Tighe is an old friend of mine, and we have never agreed about Rome and Anglicanism. I dare say, that in this life, we never will. Our ecclesiology is well set forth and defended in classic Anglican Formularies, and we do not accept Rome's theories, or the Orthodox theories, of OneTrueChurchdom.
Another problem with your position (whereas Fr Hunwicke escapes it) is with the complete separation of the juridical church from the sacramental church...
"The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ’s ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same." from Article XIX
The problem with needing a Universal jurisdiction in the RC sense, is twofold.
1) We inherited a church with division in polity from you Two One True Church fellows, and so we did not create it. Nor would we have escaped it, with or without an English Reformation
2) The problem of false doctrines, dubious dogmas, and superstition hiding the Gospel, not to mention deadly polity that required all things in a foreign tongue, amounted to an emergency. A clean escape from Roman dictates was necessary to save souls.
I am all for genuine ecumenism, and eventual unity. It helps not one whit to lose the treasures of Anglicanism in the process.
RC Cola:
Stripping of the Altars demonstrates the cruelty of Thomas Cromwell and the greed of Henry VIII. But, it also proves that, later, in the time of Elizabeth, the English reformation was not based on a hatred for their heritage as English Catholics.
The facts is, as harsh as my words may appear in the 21st century, the troubles of the 16th century justify them. "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romas 10:17) When the people are given straw for food, they perish. How can they hear from a strange tongue that is not interpreted? How can they feed on straw? The English Reformation was absolutely necessary.
Father Hart:
Amen and well said. The English Reformation was indeed necessary.
No one is more ecumenical than myself. I am a member of the Anglican Use Society as an associate member, as I am not Roman Catholic, but a continuing Anglican by membership. My ecumenism also extends to our Protestant brethren as well.
Ecumenism is a wonderful goal that we should all work for, even if complete jurisdictional unity isn't possible, we can still work and pray together.
But, as you said, forgetting the necessity of the English Reformation, and loosing our orthodox Anglican identity, would do know one any good.
People attending services that they cannot even comprehend, because the services are in a foreign tongue, to me, is a pastoral emergency.
BCP Catholic
It occurs to me to add a simple fact: The particular critics of Anglicanism, that I was writing about, confuse the visible Church with a complex theory of jurisdiction. They may think that theory is the Visible Church; but it is not visible at all. In any local venue, a congregation of the faithful where the word of God is preached in purity, and the sacraments are administered,is visible. Like the Incarnate Christ, their eyes can see and their hands can handle it.
Now, that's the Catholic Church.
I remember when I first began attending Divine Liturgy at different Orthodox parishes I was surprised at how much was familiar to me as a Westerner. A lot was similar to the old Methodist services, the Anglican Mass, the LCMS Mass, etc. Then it hit me, it is because the scripture is what commonly unites them. There were some style differences but the substance was all there.
Fortunatley I am a one true church person now. Phew.... Now if I can only find that one true parish. Does that make sense?
"At some point Rome and the EO lost the ability to internally reform themselves due to erors in the excercise of polity and manner of living"
Apparently you don't follow what goes on in the Orthodox church. Holy cow it gets messy but Christ perfects his church. Our problem as humans is that our timing is not God's. Sometimes reform seems lengthy to us but in God's time it is but a day. Let's not forget God is in charge.
I know way more Orthodox Christians who few traditional Anglicans as "unofficial" members of the Orthodox Church. It may take what seems to us to be an eternity but I have faith that Christ will perfect his church and one day we will have a very official unity. That is why I am here, because it will be in our relationships and understanding of one another that Christ will forge that unity.
Father Hart,
It occurs to me that we, as Catholics, are much like the Trinity and equally as misunderstood. We are not branches (anymore than the Father, Son, and Spirit, are branches). We are the Church; be we Orthodox, Anglican, Roman, Coptic, etc., ad infinitum. To insist that one representation of that body is the only allowable representation is simply illogical.
Jim Ryland
Fr. Hart:
Again, I add my hearty Amen.
The visible church is indeed, to the lay people, the little parish church we worship in, and in which we receive the sacraments.
That very basic communities are the building blocks that serve as the foundation of the church.
I believe that all of us realize that our little parish community is a grassroots part of a larger organism, so to speak - the whole body of Christ.
I am not advocating congregationalism, lest anyone make that accusation. But the local parish is the place where people experience the living God, and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, where we pray, where we confess our sins, faults and failings, etc.
And no matter how many wonderful bishops that we have, or how elaborate a cathedral, or how many diocesan officials, if we don't have the basic Christian communities, call them parishes, congregations, or missions, then we really have nothing.
It is at that grass roots level, that new members are incorporated into the Body of Christ as well. Special, fancy programs developed by a bishop or diocesan committee don't incorporate new souls into the Body of Christ. Everyday people who are dedicated disciples of Christ - ie. the Priesthood of All Believers - are responsible for bringing in their unchurched friends and neighbors to be incorporated into Christ's Body.
BCP Catholic
The visible church is indeed, to the lay people, the little parish church we worship in, and in which we receive the sacraments.
St.Ignatius taught that where the bishop is, Christ is present; and where Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. The local parish is where the bishop himself goes to be present among the people; he must make his visitations. Anything other than the local parish becomes mere theory to the people.
I think Sandra makes a very valid point with regard to modern Anglo-Papists and their seeming rejection of their Anglican Heritage. You may be aware of the recent launch of the FCA in the UK (Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans) a follow-up from the Gafcon meeting. This meeting sought to unite those within the Church of England, both evangelical and catholic, who wanted to uphold Biblical standard of faith, morals and doctrine as outlined in the Jerusalem Declaration. While I know that there has been some valid criticism of the Gafcon movement and its suggestion that the ‘ordination’ of women is a second order issue, the Jerusalem Declaration does put the 1662 BCP and the Articles firmly at the heart of the faith that historical Anglicanism borne witness to. Since the meeting / launch of FCA the majority of UK Anglo-catholic blogs have since distanced themselves from the meeting because of the references made to the BCP and Articles. It’s almost as if they fear a strong Anglicanism that doesn’t ape Rome because of its ‘perceived inadequacies’.
While I respect Fr Hunwicke (and even enjoy using his Ordo) I do believe that his position needs challenging. The UK lacks a strong voice advocating the Reformed-Catholicism of our Anglican heritage and appreciation of the BCP-tradition and historic formularies (Articles, Homilies etc). Even the UK Continuing Churches seem a little unsure about it (I still haven’t found one that uses the 1662 or 1928 UK BCPs – its all ‘English Missal’ and I struggle to see how that is in any way continuing Anglicanism…).
At the FCA launch one of the key questions was ‘What is an Anglican?’ At least here in this forum there are some people who appear to know the answer!
Fr Edward
Fr Hart - I read that quote of St Ignatius and go cold... how many times have I heard that to justify "episcopi vaganti" outfits of all stripes?! Indeed, the Doctor's words are true - but in a context - a bishop on his own is not "The" Church (unless one applies a redactionism to the concept of "one true Church" in a single Bishop... or is that Rome?!).
Also, I must take issue with this concept, much trumpeted here, that "English" is the raison d'etre of Anglicans and the BCP. Has this book not been translated into other tongues? Is it not the question of the "vernacular" that is the foundation of Anglican liturgy? Aside from that, I really do not understand the concept that liturgy in another language is bad per se. This makes nonsense with regard even to the application of the BCP in various languages... If I am a visitor somewhere I am supposed to be "enlightened" and "enriched" by hearing worship in a tongue not my own...?" Should I not be furnished with a service book in my language anywhere I go then in order to appreciate the worship of the Church?
Latin "was" the "universal" language of the West - that in itself expressed the idea of "One Church" more than any other... with the exception (in broad terms) of universal norms in the offering of the Liturgy (given by Pius V).
Admittedly poor catechism existed prior to the Reformation - nobody denies that - even so, is it such a leap to expect people to be able to follow the liturgy even if not in their tongue with a translated book? Especially if it means that people all around the world can worship and expect to be able to worship in (more or less, excepting slight differences in "usuage") the same way... making the same responses?
Re the "Scriptural liturgy" question... there is perhaps "slightly" more [i]quoted[/i] Scripture in the BCP Holy Communion (in its basic "Ordinary" rather than the variable propers) but it is not much and I fail to see how "its imagery and way of thinking is often quite distinct from that found in Holy Writ"... I'd appreciate and example? It is true that the Canon (which I admit I presume you are referring to) contains imagery accumulated and expressed by the Great Tradition of the Church (meaning many years prior to the "Split" and the "Reformation") - most of it relating to supplication, pleading, sacrifice, the precedence of the New Rite over the Old with Scriptural imagery and references... But as this Canon was "finalised" just within the Patristic period and based on more ancient usage, where is it so widely divergent from Holy Writ?
It almost sounds as if Anglicans are saying that because "it's meaning isn't simple and plain" that therefore it is somehow lacking... In reply, I would say the true Catholic interpretation or "meaning of the 39 Articles" is rather less obvious (without the "Homilies" and Frs Hart and Kirby's excellent explanations)?!
I suppose it may all come down to one's literary tastes... whether one prefers something that requires thought and something that requires a greater understanding of the references made in the text... to something that "says what it means" however "wordily" it too trys to express it?! *{];¬)
Canon Lloyd:
With all due respect, you seem to erect a straw man. The Anglican principle is based on I Cor 14, about the gift of tongues needing an interpretation in Church. Though Latin is not the gift of tongues, the Biblical principle remains the same; "That the church may be edified." This is one my main criticisms of Fr. Hunwicke's article about silent celebrations and non-communicating masses.
The principle is "a tongue understanded by the people." That is because "Faith cometh by hearing...", and because the sacrifice is that of the whole church assembled (indeed, the whole Church Universal), not only of the priests. When English is not "understanded by the people," then it is no more effective than Latin. The BCP has been translated into many languages, as has the Bible. The great missionary bishop, Henry Whipple, used translations of the Bible and the BCP in such languages as Dakota (Souix), Chippewa, etc. In Easton, MD. we used both an English BCP and a Spanish one, depending on who the service was for.
In the context of 16th century England, that vernacular was English.
Fr. Edward:
Well said.
I know this isn't going to be a popular statement.I also fail to see how the American Missal or the Anglican Missal continues true Anglicanism.
These were published as a way to add bits and pieces from the Tridentine Mass, to try to be imitation Roman Catholic.
Do they continue true orthodox Anglicanism? Only in that they do contain prayers from the traditional BCP within the imitation Roman services. But in reality, other than trying to imitate Rome, the only thing the use of the Missals add is unnecessary/unneeded extra length to the Communion Service.
I am always amused that some churches in the continuum talk and talk about how they value the 1928 BCP, and, yet, never use it. They use the Missals for Mass and have long since abandonded Morning Prayer and Evensong. The 1928 BCP that they claim to admire, is never used.
Thankfully there are continuum priests like Father D., at St. Mary's, Akron, Ohio, who truly do value the 1928 BCP and offer Mass from it, as well as Morning Prayer.
BCP Catholic
BCP Catholic:
We have heard this before. I really cannot see why a word for word reproduction of the 1928 American BCP is somehow invalidated by the Minor Propers (which are from the Psalms), and moving the Gloria to the front. It just does not make sense to me.
Fr. Robert Hart said...
BCP Catholic:
We have heard this before. I really cannot see why a word for word reproduction of the 1928 American BCP is somehow invalidated by the Minor Propers(which are from the Psalms), and moving the Gloria to the front. It just does not make sense to me.
The 'UK context' that I speak of gives this arguement a slightly different feel. In England the majority of Anglo-catholics use the modern Roman Missal and Breviary.
The once established tradition of moving the Gloria and adding the Prayer of Oblation to the (1662) Prayer of Consecration or even using 1662 'straight' with 'catholic externals' fell away in the 1950s to be replaced by either the English Missal or Roman Rite.
Over here in the UK there is no 'Missal' or 'BCP' arguement. Anglo-catholics (and continuers) simply don't use the BCP. It's modern Roman Rite or English Missal.
As a result, there is clearly a crisis of Anglican identity and confidence.
Fr Edward
Fr. Hart:
It isn't so much the additions of minor propers, or moving Gloria In Excelcis, that is the problem to me.
The problem is the attitude of many clergy who are snobbish toward the 1928 BCP, and make comments that "the 1928 BCP isn't 'catholic' enough,", "the 1928 BCP needs to be done away with and revised," etc.
The 1928 BCP is perfectly "primitive catholic", and perhaps more primitive catholic than any other liturgy in the world.
But, to me, what those clergy who insist on the Missal are really saying, is that the 1928 BCP isn't Roman enough. And, sadly, because many of the continuum's clergy have no other education than memorizing the Cathechism of the Roman Catholic Church, Rome is the only standard that they understand to judge catholicism. Sadly, what these clergy are practicing is not really Anglicanism, but rather
1950s Roman Catholicism.
BCP Catholic
Fr Edward wrote: "I think Sandra makes a very valid point with regard to modern Anglo-Papists and their seeming rejection of their Anglican Heritage."
Actually, I believe it isn't just the modern ones. They go back to the 19th century (which in the history of post-Oxford movement Anglicanism isn't very long). They have, however, taken different forms over the years, in order to keep up with the Romans. Nevertheless, part of my discomfort about the personal mention of Fr H was a recognition that he was not alone, but was representative of a tendency and a movement of a considerable size and even antiquity.
Fr Edward also wrote: "The UK lacks a strong voice advocating the Reformed-Catholicism of our Anglican heritage and appreciation of the BCP-tradition and historic formularies (Articles, Homilies etc)." Have you met Canon Middleton? He's one of a very rare breed, but I believe he has friends, even in England.
SCP Catolic wrote:
The 1928 BCP is perfectly "primitive catholic", and perhaps more primitive catholic than any other liturgy in the world...But, to me, what those clergy who insist on the Missal are really saying, is that the 1928 BCP isn't Roman enough. And, sadly, because many of the continuum's clergy have no other education than memorizing the Cathechism of the Roman Catholic Church, Rome is the only standard that they understand to judge catholicism. Sadly, what these clergy are practicing is not really Anglicanism, but rather
1950s Roman Catholicism.
Ah, now that I understand perfectly. You are completely right in your diagnosis of these problems.
"We have heard this before. I really cannot see why a word for word reproduction of the 1928 American BCP is somehow invalidated by the Minor Propers (which are from the Psalms), and moving the Gloria to the front. It just does not make sense to me."
And I could almost hear the tone of exasperation in your voice as you wrote the above. Why? Because from your viewpoint there doesn't seem to be that much difference. But to so many of us the difference is immense, much greater than you will allow yourself to believe.
First of all, let us be clear, it is not the minor propers. English high churchmen were using them before the "Back to Baroque" movement began, but they were doing so in services in which the words and order of the prayer book were fairly strictly kept. So what exactly is the discussion actually about.
First and most important is the order of the prayer book service and the strict keeping of its rubrics. As we should all know, the Gloria was not part of the primitive service and was at first restricted to bishops and only gradually extended to others. That, in itself, puts it outside the Anglican Canon. But if the celebrant does not TARP, i.e., take the ablutions immediately after the communions are finished, but covers the remainder of the sacrament with the veil before finishing the service, something very different is happening, happens, that what you will find in the missal order. Whether you are singing or merely saying the Gloria with the traditional bows, it is the sacramental presence remaining on the altar which becomes the central point of worship. And this, I believe, was what the framers of this order intended. It is the Anglican form of adoration.
You should try it sometime, but don't do it except with a couple of assistants whom you have previously briefed. And you may not feel the power of the experience the first time. It may not come immediately but it will come.
I could add a few points about the Roman ceremonial at our Lord's words of administration which was only invented in 1502 and did not make it into the Roman missal until 1570 destroying 1500 years of classical restraint around the central point of the Eucharist. Frankly it doesn't even fit into the old Roman canon so we should not be surprised that it works against the text of ours.
But these are things which you can only know by experience and when you have been told that the other is "the real Catholic thing" most never allow themselves the opportunity to discover the reality of our own rite.
"Sadly, what these clergy are practicing is not really Anglicanism, but rather 1950s Roman Catholicism"
From the RC perspective - since the paltypus is your chosen mascot, one would expect unusual combinations of this sort forming one whole. By the way, some of us are of the opinion that 1950s Roman Catholicism did have many positive aspects to it. In my view, the well being of your mascot shouldn't by affected by this practice of some of your clergy.
Fr Edward wrote; Over here in the UK there is no "Missal or BCP argument" It's either modern Roman Rite or English Missal.
I'm delighted to inform Fr Edward, and all 'Continuum' readers, that the English Prayer Book of 1662 is authorized for use in The Traditional Anglican Church (TAC), and although no-one would now use the service of Holy Communion as it stands in that book, several TTAC parishes and missions use variations on it.
desertowl
"Sadly, what these clergy are practicing is not really Anglicanism, but rather
1950s Roman Catholicism."
I take what I get. 1950s RCism is a lot better than the 1970s RCism which the Australian papalists seem to be so fond of.
I have never really thought it much of an issue whether the Gloria is said upfront or at the end. Just don't change the words. At St. Benedict's we have two Holy Communion services on Sunday morning. At 9:00 it is straight Prayer Book with the Gloria at the end (after ablutions), and at 11:00 what many call a "Missal Mass" with the Gloria at the beginning. Frankly, wherever I have been, the addition of Minor Propers, the Centurion's Prayer, the upfront Gloria, and chanting of the Sursum Corda, do not change what the people experience: For everyone present it is the BCP Holy Communion with a few verbal ornaments to dress it up, and sometimes asperges and/or incense.
And, it is about time somebody reminded the Missal users that their big red book allows the Gloria to be said/ sung either right after the Kyrie or after the Thanksgiving near the end (just like the BCP). Frankly, both make perfect sense.
1. For near the beginning: It makes the words apply most notably to the service that is still beginning.
2. Near the end: It reminds us that as we go out into the world we still need to pray and find His mercy.
Also, having it near the end sort of fits Matt. 26:30, at least on occasions where there is no organist and hymn singing (as is often the case early, with a first service of Holy Communion).
Fr. Hart:
Never having seen the Altar book of the Anglican Missal, I did not realize that the Gloria In Excelcis could remain at the end of the service where it is in the 1928 BCP.
To me, moving the Gloria In Excelcis is what I dislike most about the Missal. Not only is it just an attempt to mimic Rome, but it looses it place as a majestic and beautiful song of praise and celebration after receiving the Precious Body and Blood of Christ.
The Gloria In Excelcis is such a meaningful culmination of the Holy Communion service. It is such a shame to move it forward out of its desired place.
BCP Catholic
I'm a little perplexed by some of Canon Tallis' liturgical history. I find the apparent connection of the end-of-service Gloria with Eucharistic adoration problematic at best. Perhaps we can so interpret it in this day, and without a doubt some have so seen it, but that was clearly not the intent of the book that made the change: that of 1552, as that book directed:
... And yf any of the bread or wine remayne, the Curate shall have it to his own use.
It would appear that the compilers of that Book were unconcerned with any persistent presence after Communion, and that this move was not, thus, intended for purpose of adoration. True, many may well have taken it that way after the serious abuse that rubric called for was corrected under Elizabeth, and reverent consumption was required, but that could not have been the intent of the radical revisers of 1552.
I'm also puzzled as to what ceremony at the consecration was "invented" in 1502. The elevation of the Body seems to have been practiced under Gregory the Great, or at least in many places around his time, and the elevation of the cup seems to have gradually followed. It would certainly appear that in England, long before 1502 the major Eucharistic activity of laypeople was to "see" the elevation, and, for this purpose squints were cut into the roodscreens and sometimes the side walls of the sanctuaries to accommodate this viewing. I haven't run across any evidence of the elevation being introduced so late as that in England, and find it hard to credit in the light of what I have read.
ed
Ed:
Excess bread and wine were commonly left over because, in those days before church supply stores when they were brought as offerings by the faithful, they were not consecrated. The rubrics make it clear that what had been consecrated was never to be so used. When they clarified that in 1662, by adding the words "unconsecrated" they changed nothing. The made clear the original intent of that rubric.
I am surprised that you made this comment. Such irreverence, treating the sacrament as profane, was never permitted in Anglican rubrics.
I'm afraid I cannot make the rubrics of 1552 say anything other than what I observed. I find them very clear. That Book, unlike those of 1549 and 1559 contains no prohibition for the reversion of consecrated bread to common use. I find also ample evidence that the latter end of Edward's reign was dominated by radical reformers who indeed condemned all reverence to the elements and very loudly at that. I won't charge Cranmer with such notions, but I have read them from others, and Cranmer's doctrine of subservience to the king would have made it very difficult to resit.
Thank God that that book was in very brief use, and that Elizabeth ensured that the church be in the hands of actual Anglicans and that the Prayer Book be conformed to Catholic truth. 1549 was a thoroughly Catholic Book, and the Elizabethan BCP, though strange in its order, was thoroughly in conformity with Catholic truth, 1552, so far as I can see, represents a failed attempt by radical protestants to take over the church of England and to replace Anglican Reformed Catholicism with something rather different.
That said, I would agree that no Anglican Rubrics permitted such irreverence, but I do not regard that book as truly an Anglican one.
Ed:
Left over bread, by definition, was the surplus provided, that which had never been used, but did not need to be wasted.
I believe the later revision is proof enough of what that the earlier rubric did not mean. The fact that the earlier one varied from the Lutheran rule that it almost (as in not quite) mimics, makes the variation quite significant. Cranmer was still around when that earlier one was written, and he was not the man his more recently drawn caricatures portray.
Ed wrote:
"True, many may well have taken it that way after the serious abuse that rubric called for was corrected under Elizabeth, and reverent consumption was required, but that could not have been the intent of the radical revisers of 1552."
Ed, this rubric remains unchanged in the 1559 BCP and was not changed until 1662. I am aware of no corrections, or attempted corrections, "under Elizabeth." Are you? There was the prosecution of the Rev'd Robert Johnson of Northampton in 1572, which resulted in his removal, but that concerned a different abuse. Johnson was wont, when one or both of the communion elements were spent, to call for "fresh" bread and/or wine to be brought, and delivered to the communicants without any further consecration. He said that he was following the BCP rubrics as they then stood, and that the whole notion of "consecration" was a popish error, for which he invoked Cranmer's writings in his support, as the Words of Institution were addressed to the congregation, not, "as an incantation," to the elements.
I am aware that after 1625 various Laudian bishops, in their visitation articles, began to make a distinction between "consecrated" and "unconsecrated" elements, and to require the practice that was to be mandated in 1661, but there is too much evidence to indicate that the rubric to the effect that if any of the bread or wine remain the curate shall have it to his own use meant exactly what it seemed to mean (which was fully in accordance with Cranmer's deliberate avoidance of the word "consecration") under both Edward VI, Elizabeth I, as well as under James I, to explain it as assuming a difference between "consecrated" and "unconsecrated."
There are two very good essays that deal with these problems in *Liturgical Studies by E. C. Ratcliff* ed. D. H. Tripp (London, 1978: SPCK). One is "The Liturgical Work of Archbishop Cranmer," the other "The English Usage of Eucharistic Consecration." The latter discusses "the Johnson Case" at some length, and in that context contrasts the views of Cranmer and John Jewel on "consecration" (Jewel was much more "Calvinist" in the narrow sense of the term, and so was willing to use the word in a way that Cranmer had not been).
Well, I seem to have opened a can of worms I perhaps regret opening.
I don't have Elizabeth's book on hand, but I had understood that her rubric was more like that of 1662. If that is not true, then some of what I said needs to be modified. Basically, though, my point is that there is nothing in the liturgical books of the period to suggest that eucharistic adoration was the intent in moving the Gloria, and much in the expressed attitudes of those around Edward to imply otherwise.
If it seems appropriate to many to regard it so, that is fine, especially as it does seem plausible that Elizabeth herself may have so thought, but commitment to questionable history only weakens one's position, and that's my primary point here..
ed
CORRECTIONS
The date of the Ratcliff book's publication was 1976, not 1978, and the second essay to which I referred there is entitled "The English Usage of Eucharistic Consecration 1548-1662." In it, at one point, Ratcliff writes of Cranmer's views, "As the sacrament of Baptism is 'perfected' or accomplished in washing with water in representation of cleansing from sins, so the sacrament of the Eucharist is 'perfected' or accomplished in the eating and drinking of bread and wine in representation of feeding upon Christ. Except in the process of eating and drinking, therefore, the bread and wine of the Communion are no more sacrament than the water in the baptismal font. The holy use to which each class of element is put make sit sacrament, and so 'consecrates' it. what, then, is the function of the Words of Institution at the Communion ... they denote the holy use to which the elements, set upon the communion table, are to be put by the communicants; and that declare the figurative which Christ himself attached to the bread and wine, and which the communicants are to recall as they eat and drink. hence the words are 'consecratory' only in an entirely new sense of that term, if at all." (p. 208)
I could cite quite a lot more to the same effect from both essay, but instead I will commend them to your attention. Ratcliff (1896-1967) was an academic liturgical historian, and certainly not, like Dix, an "Anglo-Papalist," but as Tripp (one of his graduate students and a Methodist minister), states in his introduction, "His wide and unprejudiced study of Anglican history and theology convinced him that the traditional Anglo-Catholic case was indefensible; and at the end of his life he ... was indeed preparing ... to seek communion with the Orthodox, when he died."
As to another matter, the elevation of the consecrated host and chalice at consecration, first appears in the rubrics of the Latin Mass in Paris, towards the middle of the 13th century (it is the so-called "lesser elevation" of both at once during the doxology to the Canon that goes back at least to the time of Gregory the Great). It spread rapidly thereafter throughout Western Europe (sometimes taking the form of an elevation of the consecrated host only, but more usually of both). It seems to have entered the papal rite during the Avignon papacy (1309-1377) and the rubrics to that effect in a papal missal of 1486. Pius V merely "standardized" these elevations in the Roman Rite.
Luther, as some may know, held these elevations in high esteem (even though he considered them an adiaphoron), and was quite annoyed to find that they had been abolished at Wittenberg in 1543, when he was out of town. Some German Lutheran territories even added an anti-Calvinist proclamation to these elevations, which they retained, in the 1560s, but the elevation was abolished in most German Lutheran territories between 1600 and 1660, it having already been abolished in Denmark in 1556 and Sweden in 1593. It lasted in Schleswig-Holstein until 1797, and in Norway until 1814.
If one wishes to understand Cranmer's position on the Sacrament, his "Treatise on the Lord's Supper" is clear. For him it was central and sacred, and the consecrated bread and wine were to be treated reverently. His theology was guided by his reading of the fathers as well as scripture (patristic learning being particularly rich for its time in England -- more so than on the continent). Cranmer even advocated -- more as a wish than anything else -- the practice of daily communion. It wasn't until 1910 and Pius X that a similar advocacy was voiced in Roman Catholicism.
desertowl wrote; "I'm delighted to inform Fr Edward, and all 'Continuum' readers, that the English Prayer Book of 1662 is authorized for use in The Traditional Anglican Church (TAC), and although no-one would now use the service of Holy Communion as it stands in that book, several TTAC parishes and missions use variations on it."
This is good news indeed! Can you tell me which Parishes and Missons use it? I've visited two and one is English Missal and the other the American Anglican Missal.
However, I would say though that TTAC really should be prepared to use 1662 'straight' (at least as it appears in the 'Shorter Prayer Book') if they are going to be something that the average CofE member can recognise as 'continuing' the faith and worship that they once knew.
Fr Edward
Fr Edward asks which parishes and missions of TTAC use versions of the 1662 Holy Communion service.
Four which certainly do, and I am inclined to believe that they are not the only ones are;
St Luke's, Ampthill, Bedfordshire; Aske Hall Chapel, North Yorkshire; St Mary the Virgin, Darlington; and Our Lady of Jesmond, Newcastle upon Tyne.They are all listed on the TTAC website and the Rev Michael Gray, who is the priest at Ampthill describes the form of service in an article on the separate St Luke's website.
'Variations' on the 1662 rite typically consist of the omission of the ten Commandments and Exhortations, and the re-instatement of the Agnus Dei and Benedictus.
desertowl
Bill Tighe wrote:
but there is too much evidence to indicate that the rubric to the effect that if any of the bread or wine remain the curate shall have it to his own use meant exactly what it seemed to mean (which was fully in accordance with Cranmer's deliberate avoidance of the word "consecration") under both Edward VI, Elizabeth I, as well as under James I, to explain it as assuming a difference between "consecrated" and "unconsecrated."
It may seem bold to disagree with the learned Dr. Tighe; but the opinions of modern essay writers is no evidence, especially compared to what Addison has rightly pointed out about Cranmer's reverence for the sacrament. The prosecution of the Rev. Robert Johnson of Northampton in 1572 is, itself, evidence that the authorities of the Church and state saw a difference between consecrated and unconsecrated elements.
This does not mean that I am sold on the notion that the Gloria was considered Eucharistic Devotion. I think that idea stands in want of evidence (as presented in the one passing comment above). In that era they wanted to get away from that. It is evident, however, that the issue was not fear of idolatry, but the emphasis on receiving the sacrament; i.e., as in "The Sacraments were not ordained of Christ to be gazed upon or to be carried about, but that we should duly use them." A "superstitious" approach was seen as contradicting the plain simple need for God's grace; adoration was seen as antithetical to the emphasis on receiving. It was a different time, a foreign country called the past.
The "Gloria" was put at the end of the Communion service as a thanksgiving to God. Cranmer and his company constructed the services of Communion and the two daily offices to flow in cycles, moving from penitence through the means of grace to concluding praise. Holy Communion is actually comprised of two cycles, and the "Gloria" serves as the summation of "the sacrifice of thanksgiving".
I think it is quite doubtful that Cranmer would ever have failed to make a marked distinction between what was consecrated and what not.
I could not think of a finer thanksgiving for the Holy Communion than the Gloria In Excelcis. This is why I think it belongs at the end, as our thanksgiving for receiving the Precious Body and Blood of Christ, and the grace the sacrament imparts to us.
If a priest uses the Missal in the place the Roman church does, instead of at the end as in the 1928 BCP, this wonderful song of praise and thanksgiving cannot function as Cranmer designed it to do.
BCP Catholic
I associate the Gloria at the end with my early days on straight BCP: decalogue (which I still get on Advent I and Lent I), no Benedictus or Agnus Dei, and communion immediately following the words of institution. Once you add Benedictus or Agnus Dei, or communicate later, you're no longer in 1662, but in 1928.
In any case, BCP Catholic: 1549 puts the Gloria at the beginning. I'm not entirely sure of the history of it, but a non-rosy-coloured view of 1552 and later would say that they followed from a desire in 1552 to make HC as little like Mass as possible. In any case, it's a sad pity it wasn't repaired in 1559. To the best of my knowledge, the Sarum Mass had always had the Gloria up the front end. Moving the Gloria back to its pre-1552 position isn't moving closer to modern Rome, but to historic catholicism. 1552 has a lot to answer for (and I think Ed would back me on that one).
Further, I don't believe any edition of the BCP was compiled solely by Cranmer. And even if it were, I wouldn't want to base my view of what Anglicanism, or the true faith, ought to be on the vision of one man, be it Cranmer, Luther, Calvin, or anyone else. Anglicanism isn't 'Cranmerism', and I think it's actually true to Cranmer's vision to say so.
Finally, it is a fact that some time late in the 16th century, the Sanctus and Gloria ceased to be sung, and musical settings of the Communion ceased to bother to include them. There are various possible explanations: 1. ante-Communion became common, with the service concluding at the offertory; 2. the choir boys were turfed out at the offertory like catechumens; 3. the piety of the time determined that what happened after the offertory was too solemn to be decorated with music. That being the case, the opportunity for the Gloria to be a hymn of thanksgiving greatly diminished. I even remember being told off by an ancient choir man in the 1970s for daring to play loud organ music after a 1662 Holy Communion service. I was but a child (and no prodigy) and not well schooled, but I think he was articulating a version of that same tendency towards austerity.
Regarding the interpretation of the Elizabethan Book of Common Prayer of 1559 with respect to remaining Sacramental Elements, it is worth noting that the royally authorised 1560 Latin BCP included provision for Reservation to communicate the sick (after the 1549 pattern, i.e., on the same day as consecration) and that Abp Parker's modifications to the proposed Reformatio Legum specifically allowed for the 1549 type of Reservation also. While most of the bishops appear to have been in favour of this new canon law, the Queen was not, though obviously not because of Reservation.
So, we can not assume from the 1559 retention of the rubric about bread and wine remaining that the Church taught that the Sacrament ceased to be Sacrament at the end of the liturgy, nor that non-consecrated bread could stand in for that prayed over in the Eucharist. The general disapproval by the Reformers of reservation of the sacrament or even allowing it to go outside the Church walls for any other purpose argues against interpreting the rubric as applying to the Sacrament itself, whatever Cranmer's views may have been.
I had intended to stay in this discussion but my well went out and when you have humans and animals to care for, water is a necessity so I apologize to all.
Ed's view of the rubric in 1552 (which was never an official liturgy of the Church as it lacked approval by both Covocations and Parliament) fails to take into consideration two things. The first is that early liturgical books actually had few rubrics because the celebrant was expected to know and follow custom. Consequently the rubric which he quotes refers back to the attempt being made in 1552 and continued in 1559 to substitute regular bread such as was used in the Orthodox liturgy for what Elizabeth I calling "singing cakes." When a loaf is cut apart to provide pieces for the few who would have informed the priest of their intention to communicate, there would have been a fair amount remaining for the curate to take home.
The placing of the Gloria after the communion probably was a result of a reading of Mark 14: 26, "And when they had sung a hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives."
Father Hart, I don't quite know how to say this, but I would like you to give the rubrics of our American prayer book a chance by doing as they say and not taking the ablutions until after the blessing. That means that the linen veil has to be used and then the rest done immediately after the blessing.
Ed, when it comes to elevations in the liturgy before the Roman missal of 1570 there are two considerations. The first is the type of vestment still worn by the celebrant at that time. If you are wearing the classical conical chasuble, you are not going to be able to lift much higher than in front of your face. Such chasubles were still in use in Elizabeth's chapels because the bishops who celebrated in front of her said so and complained mightily of them, "the golden vestments of the papacy," to their friends in Zurich while the last surviving example , made according to the experts in such matters in the 1590's, rests in a French museum. certain alterations to it suggest that it was still in use during the reign of James I who gave it to the French ambassador who arranged the marriage of Prince Charles to the French princess.
Its sides had been cut away so that the priest could do the Tridentine rag of 'genuflect, elevate, genuflect' with both the host and chalice, which was the ceremonial change of which I wrote.
I really appreciate Sandra's pointing out that we are not Cranmerians and such a designation as one finds with Lutherans and Calvinists. Indeed, since we were never required to express our faith in either the Church of England, Canada, Australia or the United States, but only in the "One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church" of the creeds, that alone pushed us ever back to the fathers and the primitive church.
I am also very grateful for Father kirby's preceding post as it saved me from pointing out what the Church did in the Latin Liber Precum Publicarum. I have a rather strange belief that it would be very educational for Anglicans to participate in celebrations of the 1549, 1552, 1559 and 1662 services in which the rubrics were followed exactly and music from the appropriate period was used. I have done so on a couple of occasions and my people have always found it informative and helpful It might be even more so for the clergy who have read them but never celebrated the same. As one who this last Pentecost did 1549 again at Canon Hollister's excellent suggestion, I find I learn and appreciate more from it each time I do so.
Post a Comment