tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post2832690364518530806..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Still Christian, Still CatholicFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger44125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-1735038919074419602009-11-03T23:24:11.038-05:002009-11-03T23:24:11.038-05:00But always remember -- according to Leo XIII, the ...<i>But always remember -- according to Leo XIII, the omission of an admitted nonessential can nonetheless render something invalid!<br /></i><br /><br />Yes; by that reasoning I have infallibly determined that the "Anglican" use liturgy is absolutely null and utterly void. They cut out some of my favorite lines, which shows an obvious defect of Intention.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-64731953946950291522009-11-03T00:10:47.008-05:002009-11-03T00:10:47.008-05:00Fr. Hart wrote, "Considering the minimal requ...Fr. Hart wrote, "Considering the minimal requirements of sacramental validity, it is not possible for a few elaborations to render the Eucharist invalid."<br /><br />But always remember -- according to Leo XIII, the omission of an admitted nonessential can nonetheless render something invalid!<br /><br />John A. Hollister+John A. Hollisterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01325615323834517909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-28014102413190624092009-11-02T00:56:24.271-05:002009-11-02T00:56:24.271-05:00D.B.
Put another way, let me ask the Anglo-Cathol...D.B.<br /><br /><i>Put another way, let me ask the Anglo-Catholics what exactly they find compelling about Anglicanism that is not already fully provided for in the Old Catholic or Roman Catholic Communions?</i><br /><br />Who are the Anglo-Catholics? Since Rowan Williams and women Episcopal "priests" may be "Anglo-Catholics" these days, I no longer find the term useful in identifying anybody in particular. <br /><br />Nonetheless, I hope we, Continuing Anglicans, can all answer that we find Anglican doctrine and practice to be the most genuinely Catholic option of all. Unfortunately, not all do; some are eager to be Romans, and imagine there is no substantial difference, which proves that their ignorance is vast. Sadly, they are often made more ignorant still by suffering Anglo-Papalists as their teachers.<br /><br />Now, I would gladly use minor propers from the Sarum Missal; but, when the big red missals were made, most scholars had no access to the S.M., or so they said. However, much of what you attribute to closet Romanizing really has some of its roots in the Ecumenical Movement that was flourishing a century ago. This is why Anglicans and Lutherans have the Feast of Christ the King, and why chasubles, etc. caught on widely. The irony is that RCism in English speaking countries made the worst liturgical changes of all.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-78667764495067834442009-11-01T15:55:42.100-05:002009-11-01T15:55:42.100-05:00Fr. Hart,
I have no serious scruple with what you...Fr. Hart,<br /><br />I have no serious scruple with what you suggest -- though simply using the 1549 with the Sarum-derived minor propers from the 1962 Canadian edition of the BCP seems both easier and more principled in terms of adhering to distinct Anglican Identity.<br /><br />Rather, what I am objecting to is Anglo-Catholicism -- a Missal Mass with Ritual Notes ceremonial, the Counter-Reformation ornamentation, the expectation of Continental Catholic ascetical and spiritual practices, coupled with Tridentine teaching (or the Articles via Tract 90, which amounts to the same thing). For concrete example, the sort of thing found at such AC shrines as St. Clement's Philadelphia or Smokey Mary's in NYC, and mimicked to varying degrees throughout "The Continuum."<br /><br />Put another way, let me ask the Anglo-Catholics what exactly they find compelling about Anglicanism that is not already fully provided for in the Old Catholic or Roman Catholic Communions?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-35747972706657709112009-11-01T15:05:04.104-05:002009-11-01T15:05:04.104-05:00First of all, Anglicanism is about more than litur...First of all, Anglicanism is about more than liturgy; liturgy is only one of the issues. So, I do not understand DB's closing paragraph. Second, much of what is in the Missal can be used as a complement to the BCP, and restores things from the 1549 BCP. If complementary material were forbidden, we could have no hymnal. Finally, the question of validity was raised by DB two comments up. Considering the minimal requirements of sacramental validity, it is not possible for a few elaborations to render the Eucharist invalid.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-20408966245461465252009-11-01T13:47:07.557-05:002009-11-01T13:47:07.557-05:00Ed,
I am appealing to objective Anglican traditi...Ed,<br /><br /><br />I am appealing to objective Anglican tradition. And I have given my supporting authorities -- the formularies and the best scholarship regarding them. If you find these fact upsetting of nauseating, then the problem is all yours.<br /><br />And, if, as you say, I am engaging in subjective pleading of history, please produce of syllabus of authorities. So far, all I have seen are attempts to gloss the Anglican authorities with subjectivism.<br /><br />Indeed, if what the Missal supports say in this forum say were true, one has to wonder how and why the English Reformation ever even happen in the first place, and whether Anglicanism should';t be, at best, anything other than an allowable use in the Latin Rite of the Roman or Old Catholic Communions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-62285190286823853872009-11-01T09:48:10.484-05:002009-11-01T09:48:10.484-05:00DB,
I won't respond in detail to what you'...DB,<br />I won't respond in detail to what you've said, as we've been over all the same ground ad nauseam, but I need to make a couple quick observations that may sound a bit snarky, but no more so than yours.<br /><br /><i>Thus, to you, I am quibbling over legalisms.</i><br /><br />Yup, that is precisely what I do see.<br /><br /><i>And, I really do find your arguments to the contrary to be jesuitical in that they are illogical, but wrapped tightly in the clothe of the legalistic sophistry typical of the Scholastic tradition and that naming them as such is a fair debate, as it illustrates to other readers what is going on here.</i><br /><br />This also is precisely how your tendentious argumentation appears to me, and has so appeared as I've followed you in the past.<br /><br />Honestly, I see much of what you've been saying as an example of the pot calling the kettle black. I must admit I have trouble even following your rather peculiar way of reasoning. I would not have said any of what I've just posted except that you seem fond of making such accusations against others.<br /><br />There are a number of different ways in which the Anglican experience has been interpreted. Usually I'm closer in agreement with you than I am with AngloPapalists, but your narrowness of view is entirely out of accord with Anglican history, and, for that matter, with the rough and tumble of patristic times to which we look as a foundation.<br /><br />ed<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-1133827523343085232009-11-01T08:24:27.229-05:002009-11-01T08:24:27.229-05:00Fr. Kirby,
1. "it is not certain that there...Fr. Kirby,<br /><br />1. "it is not certain that there are insuperable doctrinal barriers [between Anglicanism and Rome]"<br /><br />You restate your position, and seem to be content that we can ignore the dominical obligation of unity by claiming that Rome and the East have violated procedural niceties. I would think that, if you believe what you say, and consider Christ's prayer "that they all be one," then you have a moral duty to take B16 up on his relatively gracious offer as a corrective to Pius V's rudeness.<br /><br />2. (A) As a point of clarification, I accept that the Latin Rite proper, considered alone, is valid --it is not so when accompanied by Counter-Reformation ceremonial and ornamentation -- so you have not "caught" me in a contradiction.<br /><br /> (B) As, you are "[un]certain that there are insuperable doctrinal barriers" between Anglicanism and Rome -- naturally you see no substantive theological differences between Pius V's Missal, the Anglican Missals, and the Book of Common of Prayer. Thus, to you, I am quibbling over legalisms.<br /><br /> Again, all I can say is that, if you do not have firm conviction that the English Reformation as expressed in the Elizabethan Settlement and all of its normative doctrines and practices such as the BCP, the Ornaments Rubric, the 39 Articles, etc. embodies SOMETHING DIFFERENT as well as greater obedience to Christ than everything that status-quo-ante and the current Roman status-quo, then you are self-evidently out of step with historical Anglicanism. I can also say that, in the immortal words of John McEnroe, you cannot be serious!<br /><br />3. Article IV of the Affirmation of St. Louis requires use of the BCP and allows supplementation CONFORMING thereto. Unless one employs the sort of special pleading that Newman used to conflate the 39 Articles and Trent, this can only mean the principles of the Ornaments Rubric apply. <br /><br />4. Yes, I really believe that Old Catholicism and Roman Catholicism are not Anglicanism, that Anglicanism is the most faithful way to follow our Lord, and is generally a moral imperative for the English-Speaking Peoples. And, I really do find your arguments to the contrary to be jesuitical in that they are illogical, but wrapped tightly in the clothe of the legalistic sophistry typical of the Scholastic tradition and that naming them as such is a fair debate, as it illustrates to other readers what is going on here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-54039342252167540532009-11-01T06:10:23.083-05:002009-11-01T06:10:23.083-05:00(cont'd)
4. What I find astonishing in all of...(cont'd)<br /><br />4. What I find astonishing in all of this is two things. One, the absence of coming to grips with or attempting to disprove my specific arguments and the constant resort instead to general condemnations and labellings -- "jesuitical" was one in the past. Two, the unreality of this whole concern. Do you really think things like changing from Green to Red liturgical colours on ordinary Sundays or replacing post-Tridentine Missal minor propers with Sarum Missal ones is going to transform Continuing Anglicanism and cause rejoicing and relief among the majority of the laity? Be much more pleasing and glorifying to God? Save more souls? If we all stopped genuflecting and only profoundly bowed instead, would a golden age begin? I'm sorry to seem sarcastic, but I just do not see how you can take this self-isolating position and raise it to an effectively dogmatic level, all the while claiming to be more Catholic. Do you seriously think such differences must reduce to separate jurisdictions, albeit in communion? Do people who use the Missals, with all their BCP material, and, as per usual, the BCP for the other offices and sacraments, really have to hive off to another church to please you?<br /><br />Canon Tallis,<br /><br />My defence of the co-existence of both English and Western rite traditions you said was charitable when I made it on this blog some time ago. Now you say I carried "emotional baggage" instead and was not the same theologian as usual. But then, as now, you do not refute particular points made but simply say things like: "the answer simply does not satisfy because it fails a whole series of historical,rational and emotional tests". If so, you should have proven it statement by statement, in the same way that I engaged in detail both forms of exclusivism in my post "Prayer Book Catholic vs Missal Catholic?". <br /><br />At the same time it is you who have said 'they will remain an "up yours" by a clergy too spoiled to understand or accept the visceral gut reaction many of us have to them'. Who is emotional? You speak of being poked in the eye, but whereas you and Death wish to condemn and forbid the usages of a large proportion of fellow Anglican Catholics, I am more than happy to allow both traditions to co-exist and grow. Especially, since, as I have noted repeatedly, I have used both in various contexts. <br /><br />Death calls on us to "repent" of lace and birettas. I have never possessed either. Whose language is extreme and unreasonable?<br /><br />Finally, if the Missals are less than orthodox, then so was the Sarum Missal and all other mediaeval English Missals, given the extreme similarities in the prayers. You can't blame that on Alexander VI, and you will be cutting off the branch your sitting on. <br /><br /><br />Anyway, I've had enough of this argument, as it seems to be getting us nowhere useful and I continue to be entirely unpersuaded of either of your exclusivist claims. I will continue to consider you my brethren however, whether you can recognise me as such or not.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-48114423957721629242009-11-01T06:09:29.231-05:002009-11-01T06:09:29.231-05:00Death,
1. The reason we are not in communion with...Death,<br /><br />1. The reason we are not in communion with Rome is their unilateral decision to have it so. We never excommunicated them. And we have always had divines, at least since the 17th Century, who have made this point and whose eirenic attempts to interpret Roman dogma in a patristically consistent fashion have been mirrored by similar interpretations permitted within the RCC. In other words, it is not certain that there are insuperable doctrinal barriers.<br /><br />The reason we are not in communion with the East is their non-decision to normalise relations with us despite the fact we reject no dogma of theirs, nor they of ours, and despite the fact we have since the Reformation rejected the Roman position on the purportedly schismatic position of the EOC. We are not intentionally separate from the Orthodox. If you really believe that neither the RCC nor the EOC have kept the Faith, and that Continuing Anglicans have also failed it through use of the Missals, then you have effectively denied the infallibility of the Church during the centuries before the Reformation and reduced the scope of "True Catholicism" today to that minority of Continuing Anglicans who agree with you and condemn the rest. This, I'm afraid, is a <i>reductio ad absurdum</i>. It appears to be self-refuting Anglican Sectarianism, not Anglican Catholicism, if taken to its logical conclusion.<br /><br />2. Since you have accepted the orthodoxy of the Latin rite, your appeal to "the law of praying is the law of believing" against adding Missal elements to BCP liturgies is incoherent. At no point have either you or Canon Tallis specified which part of Missal rite or ceremonial is unacceptable or unAnglican -- which is unsurprising since the differences between the Sarum rite you appeal to and the post-Tridentine rite are hardly overwhelming. Instead it seems to reduce to what such usage "symbolises" as to loyalties or the motives of those who went this route to begin with. In other words, it is <i>ad hominem</i>. <br /><br />The problem is, apart from risking the genetic fallacy in your argument, it is also factually wrong. Some of those who started down the Missal route were explicitly Anglo-Papalist in their reasoning, some were not. And most Anglican Missal users today, especially in the ACC, are not interested in becoming Roman Catholics. The trend to inserting private or "secret" prayers from the older or newer Latin rites is seen in the Directorium Anglicanum, and such practices even came to be adopted by Pusey in the end. But this document never refers to papal authority but bases its whole approach on principles it perceives in Anglican formularies and divines, as well as in pre-Reformational English Canon Law which was not explicitly rescinded.<br /><br />3. Nothing in the Affirmation prevents or condemns use of the Missals. Your appeal to Anglican "norms", a vague word not contained in the Affirmation, cannot hide this fact.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-49684423570502778132009-10-31T13:01:19.241-04:002009-10-31T13:01:19.241-04:00I'm going to leave these comments to be answer...I'm going to leave these comments to be answered by Fr, Kirby, to whom they are addressed, but I have to make one of my typical comments (that some say they dislike).<br /><br />Canon Tallis, you said this:<br /><br /><i>They expect the rest of us to bend the knee to their Baal, while they cannot conceal their sneers at our unevolved state. No wonder we can't get on with the job.</i><br /><br />Yes, the sneering you mention does exist, but it cuts both ways. Whoever is right, and whoever is wrong, I'm constantly seeing two groups sneering and/or railing at each other and blaming all the problems of the Continuing Church on each other. It's often said that when you point one finger at others, three are pointing back at yourself. I'm not alone in hating it whatever direction it comes from.<br />whichever direction the noise comes from it keeps us from getting on with the job.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-19198408838682220762009-10-31T11:57:33.304-04:002009-10-31T11:57:33.304-04:00Father Kirby,
While it is true that many of the s...Father Kirby,<br /> While it is true that many of the signers of the Affirmation of St Louis were missal users, . . . .well, they also a number of other things which the majority of their fellow signers would not have appreciated. And the result of that was the splitting of the Continuum and the driving into the wilderness of a good many who could, would and should have been with us except for the behavior of those who seemed to worship the missal more than they did anything or anyone else.<br /><br />You claim that the objections to the use of the missal and those other gross violations of the Ornaments Rubric have already been answered here, but the answer simply does not satisfy because it fails a whole series of historical,rational and emotional tests which anyone who really values the wholeness of the Anglican tradition can not help but make. And when you make those answers, we see another Father Kirby from the theologian whose answers never carry the same emotional baggage. Frankly, I prefer the theological voice.<br />Unlike some of the others, I was at St Louis and I heard the voices which the 'missal' clergy did not hear and frankly did not want to hear. I was also at Denver and realized the moment that Morse, Mote and Waterson walked through the door that we were going to be confronted with a rejection of Anglicanism for their version of papalism light which only too quickly split the Continuum at the following constitutional convention. Worse, it has continued to split and embroil the continuum with sets of clergy being more right than others because they were more committed a more Romano Anglicanism rather than the real thing. And because they are so right, so absolutely right, they had to crush those who saw things differently rather than accommodate them - well, we begin to understand what they like about Romanism.<br />The big thing about the back to Baroque movement is that it essentially involves a rejection of the central tenet of the English reformation, i.e., the restoration of doctrine, discipline and worship of the primitive Church as against an acceptance of the decadence of every aspect of Christianity which had grown up in the West from the invention and rise of the papacy as an institution. It also involved an explicit rejection of what was going on in Rome liturgically and otherwise from the beginning of the pontificate of Alexander VI whose master of ceremonies invented all those ceremonies so beloved to missalites but absolutely unknown to the previous Christian centuries. <br /><br />The additions to the prayer book traditions will continue to be a little less than orthodox and while they can and have been made "canonical" they will remain an "up yours" by a clergy too spoiled to understand or accept the visceral gut reaction many of us have to them. And really, how can one really be an Anglican and a cultural Anglophobe at the same time? And when you deliberately stick me in the eye, just how am I supposed to react?<br /><br />The Continuum has been in the wilderness for thirty years now because too many who call themselves Anglicans find themselves unable to make their peace with it. They expect the rest of us to bend the knee to their Baal, while they cannot conceal their sneers at our unevolved state. No wonder we can't get on with the job.<br /><br />"citesse"<br />"raills"Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-76187026227624287342009-10-31T11:43:05.461-04:002009-10-31T11:43:05.461-04:00Two additional points:
First, the notion that mat...Two additional points:<br /><br />First, the notion that matters liturgical are always secondary is incorrect -- Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi.<br /><br />Second, the fact that Missalites signed the Affirmation of St. Louis does not mean that the Affirmation approves wholesale substitution of the Missals and Ritual Notes and Counter-Reformation para-liturgical spirituality for Anglican norms -- the Congress involved a compromise among all catholic-minded Anglicans. The faithfulness of certain prelates to the Affirmation is in no small part why the Movement floundered from early defections and fissiparousness.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-35068364548583774642009-10-31T11:05:33.377-04:002009-10-31T11:05:33.377-04:00Fr. Kirby,
I respectfully disagree on both points...Fr. Kirby,<br /><br />I respectfully disagree on both points.<br /><br />First, our Lord prayed that we all may be one, and surely we have a duty to set aside all immaterial differences to achieve unity, even if a certain amount of humiliation is involved. We cannot say, were it true (whihc it is not) that we are dogmatically one with Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism but that their price of unity is too high.<br /><br />Second, while the American Missal does contain a good bit of BCP material (some of which is traditionally dropped by Missalers, e.g., the Decalogue, the Comfortable Words), it also interpolates almost the entire Latin Missal. To wit, with a BCP in one hand and my St. Joseph Roman Missal, I can follow a Anglican Missal Mass (with a resulting sore neck from the ping ponging back and forth. Worse yet, the Anglican Missal (American Edition), even allows for the Gregorian Canon to be used. But the crucial point is that addition of large amounts of Counter-Reformation or contemporary Roman liturgics and para-liturgics to our Anglican tradition, which is fully Orthodox-Catholic in and of itself, symbolizes disloyalty (e.g., the original Victorian Anglo-Catholics and most of the contemporary English Anglo-Papalists) or a mistaken desire to serve two masters based on the confusion or conflation of "Roman" with "Catholic."<br /><br />"Anglo-Cathoics repent! You have nothing to lose but your missals, lace, and birettas!" -- Death BredonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-26581924264227449572009-10-31T09:00:56.797-04:002009-10-31T09:00:56.797-04:00In sum, as the only valid apology for the separate...<i>In sum, as the only valid apology for the separate existence of Anglicanism apart from Rome or Orthodoxy is (1) its principle that adherence to the primitive Church as normative and its belief that Rome has greatly diverged therefrom and also the East somewhat; and (2) that this striving for restoration of the primitive faith without Papal accretion or Puritan subtraction be done in the cultural context of its folk -- the English Speaking race. I believe that this is what the Affirmation of St. Louis seeks to continue, but which is violated in certain canons of Continuum jurisdictions that arose from the St. Louis Movement and still claim the Affirmation as a foundational statement.</i><br /><br />Death,<br /><br />Your reasoning on our raison d'etre is based on a false premise: that we have deliberately separated from the RCC and EOC. Anglicans don't need a justification for not being part of the Greek Orthodox Church, for example, any more than any Serbian Orthodox person does. Or as I said just recently --<br /><br /><i>However, while I believe the ACC et al., are the legitmate continuation of Anglican jurisdiction, <b>which I take to be the native and natural Catholic jurisdiction of Britain and its former colonies and mission fields</b>, [emphasis added] I also recognise the EOC's and RCC's proper Patriatrchal jurisdictions. (Given the haphazard way the Western patriarchy came to be defined and grow, the fact that regional consent was relevant even in ancient times to how patriarchal boundaries shifted, and that the C of E was once treated as having a quasi-patriarchal status pre-Reformationally, as I understand it, I do not see us as even necessarily obliged to assume a distinct identity specifically within the Patriarchy of the West in a re-united Church.) So, if I was an Italian or Spaniard, for example, the RCC would be my Church. If I was Greek or Russian, the EOC would be. If we don't believe this, then we should have been prosyletising these nations and deliberately establishing explicitly competing hierarchies in order to restore Catholicism to these nations. That we have not and will not speaks volumes and shows that we do in fact accept the essential orthodoxy and catholicity of the sister Communions. This is a "dogmatic fact" for Anglicans, and thus must provide definite limits and parameters for our ecumenical and doctrinal claims.</i><br /><br />As for fidelity to the Affirmation, many of the original signers were Missal-users, so your historical interpretation is not tenable.<br /><br />As for the liturgical questions and cultural norms, you have made what is secondary primary, ignored the fact that the Missal liturgy is still full of BCP material not in the original Roman versions (which means the Missals involve mainly addition, not replacement) and ignored the fact that your specific objections have already been answered here. Once you admit the Missal is orthodox, customary and canonical, all anglophile cultural objections become largely irrelevant. Cultures evolve, and often in ways that don't follow the neat laws you might prefer. The important thing is for them to gain rather than lose elements during this evolution. So, I'll continue to refer to Ritual Notes and Parson's Handbook and use pastoral discretion and common sense under authority. That is the Anglican and the Catholic way.<br /><br />And, by the way, Anglican Catholicism does have something very much like an Eastern rite, and has had for decades, in the Indian Supplement to the BCP of 1960 if I remember the source correctly. And it is also authorised in the ACC.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-27827664082273905202009-10-30T13:13:21.536-04:002009-10-30T13:13:21.536-04:00Ed,
To the extent I have come accross as Moses de...Ed,<br /><br />To the extent I have come accross as Moses delivering my tablets, please accept my apologies. Sometimes, the vigorousness of my polemics gets away from me.<br /><br />My desire, apparently unachieved, is to preach from Speaker's Corner in Hyde Park, as it were, and not of my own authority, but that of the constitutional Anglican formularies of the English Religious Settlement, which have been the historical norms of Anglicanism and disregarding narrow, outlying parties and practices that have only been tolerated in the Ecclessia Anglicana for the sake of peace and charity.<br /><br />Boiled down to its essence, my contention is that unless the BCP is used in the spirit of the Ornaments rubric, any one claiming to be Anglican may as well just be an Episcopagan, Prayer-Book Presbydestinarian, Baptist or Mormon as far as I am concerned. Indeed, Anglicanism by assertion, even if gussied up with newly minted, high-tone canons, and purple of tactile succession, is just sound and fury.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-17907921282338614502009-10-30T12:57:59.718-04:002009-10-30T12:57:59.718-04:00Part II
Now, what I am NOT suggesting is that the...Part II<br /><br />Now, what I am NOT suggesting is that the old Latin Mass, translated to English, and deployed with Ritual Notes ceremonial is invalid, nor that Tridentine doctrine and Counter-Reformation spirituality is utterly outside the broadest bounds of Orthodox-Catholicism. Rather, I am contending that is something discrete from Anglicanism. Indeed, I would characterize those Missal Anglo-Catholics that see Trent as theologoumena as simply unacknowledged Ultrajectine Old Catholics of an English variety. And, for those rare birds that do consider Trent as dogma and the BCP and the Articles defective, but still can't accept Rome's New Dogma's, some form of Lefebvre-ism is probably the correct label.<br /> <br />But, which ever variety of Missal Catholicism one prefers, and whatever the respective merits of these religions, it just ain't Anglican in any meaningful sense, not unless any one who drafts a set of canons and wants to use the term "Anglican" can do so with equal credibility, regardless of historic norms (not the exceptions such as the Victorian Anglo-Catholics). Moreover, the Continuum's apparent attempt to comprehend Anglicanism proper, best represented by Old High Churchmen or Prayer Catholics, along Missal Catholics (i.e., English Old Catholics or more rarely English SSPXers) just makes for an incoherent and imprudent religious cacophony. Indeed, if we are going to go this far, we might as well have Eastern Rite Anglicanism as an option too!<br /><br />IMHO, our good-faith attempt to comprehend Missal and Prayer-Book Catholicism by reference to Article XXXIV and the practice of local custom simply misconstrues the elasticity of these venerable notions as well as ignores the axiom of Lex Ornadi, Lex Credendi. Inclusion of two religions, or worse yet a blend of each, in one communion leads to terrible confusion -- a sort of religious Frankensteinsim -- that can't manage to get out of its own way. <br /><br />For example, the absence of a uniform vision of Continuing Anglicanism has kept the PCK -- with its very Anglican common-law approach to canon law -- quite separated from the ACC, with its more Continental-style canon law system. Were both looking to Elizabethan and Caroline Anglican norms (not what tolerated for the sake of peace), then this sort of conflict, and many other issues would be easily resolved. But as is, on differing points, each of the Chamber's succession jurisdiction varies to varying degrees from Anglican norms, claiming for themselves the prerogatives of an entire National Church, and going about their own merry ways in splend, sectarian isolation. This ain't Anglican, and it ain't Catholic.<br /><br />Consequently, what I am suggesting is (1) that Missal Catholics ought reform themselves and conform to historical Anglican norms (not one narrow party movement that was merely tolerate for the sake of peace and is barely a hundred years old in any case), or, (2) lacking that, move on to form or join an Ultrjectine, English Old Catholicism. Per long settled Lambeth Decennial decree, intercommunion could be maintained between Anglicans and Old Catholics recognizing the Bonn 14 Theses, and we would both cooperate against "Liberal Christianity." But, merging these two discrete forms of Churchmanship -- nay, whole religious-culture systems -- into a single jurisdiction is not only confusing and detrimental to the spiritual formation of the clergy and laity alike, but also runs the risk of repeating the great latitudinarian or comprehensiveness problem that spoiled 815 and Cantuar -- the very thing that we all resist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-70371542640224252012009-10-30T12:52:21.485-04:002009-10-30T12:52:21.485-04:00Part I
Ed,
Three points in defense of my prescr...Part I<br /><br />Ed, <br /><br />Three points in defense of my prescriptive, cultural prejudice:<br /><br />First, Anglicanism proper has historically only tolerated the Missals for the sake of peace, just as it has tolerate minimally conforming Puritanism (or now, the Evangelicals as they are commonly known) as well as formerly the Broad-Church, Lattitude, or Low-Church party, which has gained numerical ascendancy among those claiming the Anglican appellation. Thus, if our goal is truly "continuing Anglicanism," as is the claim of the Affirmation of St. Louis, we should seek separation not only from the Anglo-Liberalism, but also Anglo-Evangelicalism and (Missal) Anglo-Catholicism -- else we have no principled or superior claim to the mantle of "Anglican," than any body else.<br /><br />Second, Article IV of the Affirmation of St. Louis allows supplementation to the Book of Common Prayer that is CONMFORMING thereto. On this point, I agree with Fr. Hart that use of the Missal to provide minor propers, when desired, is not greatly out of line, though the better practice would be to emply Sarum-Use minor propers. But, the incorporation of Pope Pius V's Counter-Reformation Missal via Article IV, or any loose canon language based on an overly broad construction of Article IV is not only contrary to the spirit of the St. Louis Movement, but Anglicanism as a whole.<br /><br />Third, I not at all certain that the PCK canons don't mirror the letter and principle of the Affirmation, in which case wholesale use of he Missals and Ritual Notes to interpose a Counter-Reformation spirituality into an Anglican Provence would be illicit, though I know that does in fact occur. While the ACC canons most certainly do provide for robust use of the Missals, numerous ACC parishes remain loyal to the spirit of the St. Louis Movement and historical Anglicanism norms. As for the UEC, I am admitedly ignorant of its canons.<br /><br />In sum, as the only valid apology for the separate existence of Anglicanism apart from Rome or Orthodoxy is (1) its principle that adherence to the primitive Church as normative and its belief that Rome has greatly diverged therefrom and also the East somewhat; and (2) that this striving for restoration of the primitive faith without Papal accretion or Puritan subtraction be done in the cultural context of its folk -- the English Speaking race. I believe that this is what the Affirmation of St. Louis seeks to continue, but which is violated in certain canons of Continuum jurisdictions that arose from the St. Louis Movement and still claim the Affirmation as a foundational statement. Hence, I am arguing for correction of course from within the Continuing Movement to avoid the fabrication a new church cut from whole clothes based on non-catholic principles of private judgment and taste.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-63844734058273178412009-10-30T11:31:09.990-04:002009-10-30T11:31:09.990-04:00Ed,
And your own is not? The real question is whe...Ed,<br /><br />And your own is not? The real question is whether one can claim to continue Anglicanism whose central tradition is defined by a series of prayer books, by abandoning same and the traditions which their rubrics assume for something so destructive if not dismissive of that tradition? <br /><br />In the Office of Baptism prays that we shall "continue Christ's faithful soldier and servant" until our lives end, but a soldier wears the proper uniform of his army or regiment just as a servant the proper livery. For those who want to position themselves as the very epitome of what it means to be Anglican to act in such a way that they validate, not Anglicanism and its tradition, but that of the worst traditions of the Roman See is simply indefensible.<br /><br />The role of a prophet as Father Nalls so recently pointed out is a trying one, but the sins and failings of establishment Anglicanism are no excuse for us going downt he same path. Neither Bishop Griswold nor Archbishop Williams came from low church or the old high church parties, but precisely from that party grown and fostered by Anglo-papalism masking as Catholic and Anglican.<br /><br />We have a very serious business at hand, the reconversion of this country and all of the English speaking world to the Catholic and Christian faith of our fathers. I believe as I thing DB would agree that in order to do so, we need to put away childish things which would include all the inventions of 16th century papalism and make an ever greater effort than the original English reformers to achieve the standard sought by both St Vincent of Lerins and Lancelot Andrewes in their respective canons by continuing "stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and prayers."<br /><br />And, yes, I am prejudiced and unabashedly so for the Anglicanism of the Elizabeth, the Caroline Divines, Farrer, Herbert, Jebb, Knox, Pusey, Keble and especially the high church party who found the courage to fully obey the rubrics of 1559 and 1662 without the temptation of imitate the worst of merely one of the scandalous periods in Roman history.<br /><br />"ockro"<br />"spiecrat"Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-18023278555555098942009-10-30T09:32:47.041-04:002009-10-30T09:32:47.041-04:00DB,
Your prejudice is showing. Since the major Co...DB,<br />Your prejudice is showing. Since the major Continuing Jurisdictions have on an official, canonical level, approved the Missals as perfectly licit choice: by your standards just expressed, you would need to reject these jurisdictions utterly. Since the major portion of the Canterbury Communion has rejected so very much of the Classic Anglican stance, you're painting yourself into a strange little schismatic corner. Within the Continuing Churches there are those who prefer to conform to the Missal, those who prefer to follow the BCP rites preciaely, and the majority, perhaps, who are content to follow a middle road between those extremes. Your preferences, even if strongly held are honorable, respectable, and expressive of a good theology, but your condemnation of the practices of others in good standing, many of whom, like myself, are very sympathetic to your theological positions, is very unseemly indeed. You may attempt to convince me that your way is better, and I welcome such a discussion, but to proclaim, as it were from Sinai, that my ways are evil is way over the top.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-20935131628205822062009-10-30T03:57:45.028-04:002009-10-30T03:57:45.028-04:00One final point to make my polemical point excruci...One final point to make my polemical point excruciatingly clear: Not only was it Pope Pius V who excommunicated the Established Church of England in 1571, effectively making English recusants presumptive outlaws and traitors. It was he who decreed a uniform use of the Latin Rite to conform to Counter-Reformation standards and to be used almost universally by Roman faithful. And it is Pius V's Missal that the drafters of the "Anglican" Missals were, according to their own words, attempting to unlawfully and unilaterally finagle into the Anglican Communion against the overwhelming consensus of Churchmen in an audacious show of symbolic disloyalty to both Crown, Church & Country. The subtext of the Missals are clear: Roman, Counter-Reformation & Rebellion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-8145966331153423512009-10-30T03:45:15.714-04:002009-10-30T03:45:15.714-04:00Correct as usual, Fr. Hart. Though a few notable ...Correct as usual, Fr. Hart. Though a few notable recusants remained loyal to the Crown and were gently tolerated therefore (a few even preferred by the Crown), many took Pope Pius V's decree an authorization for assassination attempts or to general undermine English government and its established religion. IMHO, the somewhat recent movie, "Elizabeth I," did a fair job of dramatizing this. <br /><br />Also, Pius's decree was instrumental in loosing the Spanish Armada -- only to sail directly into the "Protestant wind," which our Lord has so frequently breathed across the channel to protect that green and pleasant land. I believe an even more recent movie was made about that glorious battle.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-19634584738703377812009-10-30T00:39:16.186-04:002009-10-30T00:39:16.186-04:00...it excommunicated Elizabeth, and those who obey...<i>...it excommunicated Elizabeth, and those who obeyed her in religious matters...</i><br /><br />Considering the times, this did, in effect, require the "faithful" to rise up in rebellion, kill their queen and establish a new monarch. It called for civil war, perhaps endless civil war apart from Spain taking the opportunity to step into a weakened England and conquer it.<br /><br />Which was, by the way, the whole point.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-36863013421991793782009-10-28T20:13:16.816-04:002009-10-28T20:13:16.816-04:00I must agree with Mr. Cavanaugh in that it's a...I must agree with Mr. Cavanaugh in that it's a bit simplistic to pin the current claims of the papacy simply on a series of power grabs as some are prone to do (and I in no way endorse those claims as currently defined). Take French Catholicism, for example. As C.B. Moss was quick to point out in his book on the Old Catholics, reactions to the French revolution and the meddling of Napoleon had more to do with the victory of Ultramontanism in that country than any theological discussion.<br /><br />Similarly, the reigns of both Mary and Elizabeth were each terribly complex (as was the Henrician period, btw) and we'll get nowhere making generalized statements. Besides, it's not 16th Century England anymore and this constant searching for who was 'better' is futile. Suffice to say, we've all screwed up and continue to do so - which means penance for all involved.<br /><br />I leave you with the eminent advice of Monty Python's Lord of Swamp Castle: "Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who..."spaethacchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04729606800624213207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-71204530183200219692009-10-28T13:17:47.623-04:002009-10-28T13:17:47.623-04:00it excommunicated Elizabeth, and those who obeyed ...<i>it excommunicated Elizabeth, <b>and those who obeyed her in religious matters.</b></i><br /><br />I'm a bit confused. How does that differ from excommunicating a Church of England that recognized her as supreme governor on earth? The point is that, whether rightly or not, it was Rome that declared the break of Communion.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.com