tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post3141940077439181676..comments2024-02-04T15:10:18.485-05:00Comments on The Continuum: That Terrible TrentFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-23417852921574354252009-04-04T19:51:00.000-04:002009-04-04T19:51:00.000-04:00Poetreader:It seems to me that at least three elem...Poetreader:<BR/><BR/>It seems to me that at least three elements are weaving themselves in and out of this discussion:<BR/><BR/>First, the organic growth of the liturgy within its own cultural setting, with little or no outside influence. Historians among us may or may not agree that in the life of cultures there are sometimes "quiet" periods, conducive to such growth. I wonder if England, being an island nation, has experienced such occasional quiet periods. I assume here that there is indeed a historic connection between English culture and Anglican liturgy; <BR/><BR/>Second, what we call on the Roman side, the element of inculturation. The lively, and often unnerving, interaction between a culture and a new religious element introduced into it. Here, St. Paul on the Aeropagus comes to my mind as an early example of inculturation in action; <BR/><BR/>Finally, as you astutely observed, all this "must be judged as to its conformity with truth". I couldn't agree with you more, except that being somewhat obsessive about details I would have capitalized "truth". What are your thoughts on these musings of mine?Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-11351046165392800752009-04-03T10:41:00.000-04:002009-04-03T10:41:00.000-04:00"Local usage is the usage of local people, whereve...<I>"Local usage is the usage of local people, wherever their customs have come from."<BR/><BR/>So, in other words, for Anglicanism, "local customs" includes "foreign customs," even those popularized by the Counter Reformation? Under this view, almost anything, then, could be considered authentically Anglican, from Praise Bands to Snake Handling. Name it and claim it.</I><BR/><BR/>Now, come on, Death! You're grasping at straws here. I count you far too intelligent to think that there's no difference between adopting 'foreign' practices that fit into what one is doing, and adopting willy-nilly anything novel, whether it fits or not. That's entirely unfair and a rhetorical low blow indeed.<BR/><BR/>We can indeed discuss whether a given practice actually does fit or not. The development of liturgy through the centuries has been the accretion of structural and devotional elements from various sources, some of them absolutely pagan, onto the very simple outline found in Scripture, and doing so in such a way as to heighten the expression of the Gospel in those rites in a way that can be received by those who (as ancient formularies put it) 'stand around'.<BR/><BR/>There is not, and never in the history of Christianity has been, a pure rite that cannot be enriched or altered -- but, of course, EVERY addition or alteration must be judged as to its conformity with truth.<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-47396185915483582942009-04-03T03:18:00.000-04:002009-04-03T03:18:00.000-04:00Deth BredonThe point is that the Article does not ...Deth Bredon<BR/><BR/>The point is that the Article does not allow us to freeze the details of liturgy in one time. Furthermore, Anglicanism has become worldwide. Fr. Kirby is Australian, and I am American. To what degree are we bound to stay within the limits of English culture and the 16th and 17th centuries of that culture's development?Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-45527964259330205142009-04-02T18:38:00.000-04:002009-04-02T18:38:00.000-04:00ed,"Local usage is the usage of local people, wher...ed,<BR/><BR/>"Local usage is the usage of local people, wherever their customs have come from."<BR/><BR/>So, in other words, for Anglicanism, "local customs" includes "foreign customs," even those popularized by the Counter Reformation? Under this view, almost anything, then, could be considered authentically Anglican, from Praise Bands to Snake Handling. Name it and claim it.<BR/><BR/>Fr. Hart,<BR/><BR/>"Except in Jerusalem, it is all imported."<BR/><BR/>I believe you are conflating ceremonial Customary with the Liturgy itself, which of course orignated in the upper room. <BR/><BR/>Indeed, save for Holy Week, when both the East and West have generally tried to copy the Jerusalem Pilgrim Rites and Customs (which the locals did not use), the vast majority of local customs have never shown their respective faces in Jerusalem.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-83444679637323690232009-04-02T18:04:00.000-04:002009-04-02T18:04:00.000-04:00Fr Hart, are you suggesting that there is somethin...Fr Hart, are you suggesting that there is something unAnglican about my keeping an Infant Jesus of Prague on top of a 10c piece on the sideboard?Sandra McCollnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-52236167784512833132009-04-02T17:38:00.000-04:002009-04-02T17:38:00.000-04:00I believe there is a wide gulf between Anglicanism...I believe there is a wide gulf between Anglicanism and Anglicanist.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11296779647932655590noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-6928237392873354092009-04-02T16:51:00.000-04:002009-04-02T16:51:00.000-04:00Rites change and develop in response to what goes ...<I>Rites change and develop in response to what goes on around them, and that is not only inevitable, but desirable.</I><BR/><BR/>Within the limits of orthodoxy (and good taste) that is the basic meaning of the words, "the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners..." <BR/><BR/>I believe the motivation to use some of the Roman appearance, especially in vestments, was to state clearly to the RCC and the public that our minsters are, in fact, deacons, priests and bishops in the full sense of each word. We can debate if this approach was wise, or always wisely done; but the basic idea needs to be kept in mind or the whole subject cannot be discussed accurately. By the 1930s the goal of trying to begin a process of unity (both with Rome and the Orthodox) was, on the part of Canterbury, a clearly established fact of Anglican life. <BR/><BR/>It is obvious that this went too far in affecting the minds of some Anglo-Catholics, and in causing embarrassing and misleading affectations;* even more importantly, in importing a combination of ignorance with an inferiority complex, about which I have written much. So, I am mostly on Death Bredon's side.<BR/><BR/>But, I see no harm in using the Altar Missal. <BR/><BR/>* If the day comes when I find Anglicans burying statues of St. Joseph to sell a home, or asking St. Anthony to find their missing keys, I will know they have converted to Roman Catholicism in the most knowledgeable sense, with the deepest theological understanding of mother-in-law.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-12492558238177278642009-04-02T15:50:00.000-04:002009-04-02T15:50:00.000-04:00Fr. Hart,Yes, we have a BCP (1928), People's Missa...Fr. Hart,<BR/><BR/>Yes, we have a BCP (1928), People's Missal, and a 1940 Hymnal in every pew.<BR/><BR/>Fr. Brookshire is a fine Anglican priest and would cringe at the thought of a BCP-less Anglicanism.<BR/><BR/>Blessings!<BR/><BR/>St. WormAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-72211440634142514302009-04-02T15:45:00.000-04:002009-04-02T15:45:00.000-04:00I can personally attest as an ACC churchman that w...<I>I can personally attest as an ACC churchman that we do in fact have a People's Missal in the pews at my home church of St. John the Theologian's.</I><BR/><BR/>The exception that proves the rule. I hope that the BCP is there too.<BR/><BR/>Death:<BR/><BR/>Except in Jerusalem, it is all imported.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-59666238989640624062009-04-02T15:29:00.000-04:002009-04-02T15:29:00.000-04:00I do have to agree with Brother Ed re: change in r...I do have to agree with Brother Ed re: change in rites and customs. I think it possible to keep a BCP priority while introducing complimentary elements in its liturgy. The debate of course is what constitutes a proper and appropriate addition to our BCP? <BR/><BR/>I think the beauty of the ACC is that we can have a little flexibility in this regard without corrupting the spirit of the BCP. Anglicanism has to be rooted in the BCP for it to have any meaningful definition, yet I believe the BCP was arranged with the idea of flexibility within its service.<BR/><BR/>St. WormAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-79269053378145671062009-04-02T14:45:00.000-04:002009-04-02T14:45:00.000-04:00I'm sorry, Death, but you're barking up the wrong ...I'm sorry, Death, but you're barking up the wrong tree altogether. Local usage is the usage of local people, <I>wherever their customs have come from</I>. Either sociologically or liturgiologically, it is nonsense to claim that any body of customs has developed strictly locally without importing aspects from elsewhere. It doesn't happen. There is no such thing as a pure local way of doing things unsullied by outside influence. Every culture and every liturgical rite borrows from those it comes in contact with. Rites change and develop in response to what goes on around them, and that is not only inevitable, but desirable.<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-79857955210474532892009-04-02T13:39:00.000-04:002009-04-02T13:39:00.000-04:00Father Hart,I can personally attest as an ACC chur...Father Hart,<BR/><BR/>I can personally attest as an ACC churchman that we do in fact have a People's Missal in the pews at my home church of St. John the Theologian's.<BR/><BR/>I don't know if anyone actually follows along in the book because the liturgy is usually included in the bulletin.<BR/><BR/>St. WormAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-85996045703090155472009-04-02T12:49:00.000-04:002009-04-02T12:49:00.000-04:00"Neither is it an Anglican principle that customs ..."Neither is it an Anglican principle that customs cannot vary according to the needs of various places (and by logical implication, times), as long as the theology of the church, the word of God, dictates the practices rather than any other influence, ideology or spirit."<BR/><BR/>True -- and this qutation proves my point: By definition, local customs must the custom of the locale -- not some imported, nonnative, foreign system.<BR/><BR/>Indeed, the artificial and nonorganic importation of Roman Usage into traditionally English-Speaking locales is plainly a violation of Anglican's local custom principle. One might as well import Byzantine propers, ornaments, and ceremonial as that of a 19th Century Roman Catholic tat museum into North America (though B16 seems to turning those 'museums' back into 'going concerns.')<BR/><BR/>If you do either, your church may still be Catholic, but it most certainly wouldn't be Anglican.<BR/><BR/>If you want to be a Anglican-Roman hybrid (the "via three-quarters"), have at it. But don't pretend to be "mere" or "continuing" Anglicanism. Victorian Anglo-Catholicism wasn't authentic Anglicanism in 1870 and it still isn't today -- not anymore so than present GAFCON neo-Charasmatic Evangelical "Anglican" Realignment or the ascendant Liberal Catholics running the show in today's Cantuar Communion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-29319361931605573142009-04-02T12:22:00.000-04:002009-04-02T12:22:00.000-04:00Death Bredon:I know of no Continuing church, wheth...Death Bredon:<BR/><BR/>I know of no Continuing church, whether ACC, ACPK, UECNA, ACA, that has the People's Missals in the pews. Everywhere I have been it is the same. In the pews are the Hymnal and the Book of Common Prayer. The only Missal in the church is on the altar, for those churches that have missals at all. The Missal in such a case does only what I have said: It embellishes the Holy Communion Service of the Book of Common Prayer in ways I cannot find objectionable (neither can I find them to be necessary, except to meet the expectations of people in congregations). <BR/><BR/>The people in the pews have the Book of Common Prayer to draw from, therefore, not The People's Missal (the little <I>Red Book</I>- "But when you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao..." Oh well, that joke is a little too obvious).<BR/><BR/>As such, when used, the Missal takes a place that is completely subordinate to the Book of Common Prayer, limited very much to the few things I had mentioned before. Indeed, the Canon of the ACC mentioned by Fr. Kirby can be understood only in this way: The Missals that are approved have that approval for use only because they may be used in conformity to the Book of Common Prayer (implying that if any part of them cannot be <I>so</I> used, that part should not be used at all).<BR/><BR/>Neither is it an Anglican principle that customs cannot vary according to the needs of various places (and by logical implication, times), as long as the theology of the church, the word of God, dictates the practices rather than any other influence, ideology or spirit. <BR/><BR/>As Article XXXIV says, "It is not necessary that traditions and ceremonies be in all places one or utterly alike; for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's word."<BR/><BR/>The use of colors, the selection of vestments, etc., had evolved over the years to allow for the kind of ecumenical hopes that became a priority in the early 20th century. As such, the use of a chasuble that is white, green, red or violet conforms to Article XXXIV (violet, I say: Purple, I am told, is for bishops).<BR/><BR/>I cannot get excited about vestment controversies, inasmuch as they are quite nice, expected by the people, dignified for use at the altar, but wholly unnecessary for any theological or spiritual reason. They give the service a timeless quality that makes fashion irrelevant, and add to the festive quality of worship. Other than that, whether a chasuble or surplice and stole, is not worth fighting about. I see no reason to believe that God really cares about it. The Fathers celebrated in chasubles, and that was because everyone wore chasubles in the ancient Roman Empire. It was the suit and tie of its time. So, let's approach the subject of vestments as symbolic, festive, nice for the timeless quality they add, and beyond that as of no real importance. I don't care if they are English, Roman or Greek.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-10535349766963618652009-04-02T10:11:00.000-04:002009-04-02T10:11:00.000-04:00Fr. Hart,1. Minor Propers:The BCP tradition has a...Fr. Hart,<BR/><BR/>1. Minor Propers:<BR/><BR/>The BCP tradition has always expected that the Ordinary of the Mass may be supplemented by Minor propers -- Introit, Grail (Gradual is the Roman term), Communion Sentence, etc. -- or by hymns and anthems that serve the same purpose.<BR/><BR/>BUT, The Missal employs the 19th Century Roman Usages regarding minor propers. These are largely theologically unobjectionable, nut they are not within the British tradition. Why use Byzantine propers instead? A good example of just what an Anglican approach to the minor propers -- assuming that you don't want to use hymns, which has been the predominant Anglican way -- can be found in the last tradition edition of the BCP: The 1962 Canadian Edition.<BR/><BR/>2. Interpolations in the Ordinary<BR/><BR/>The REAL stinking point with the Missals, however, is their interpolations in the Ordinary of the Mass. For example, the Peoples Anglican Missal, specifies the following additional prayers all taken directly from the 19th C. Roman Missal: Judica me, Deus; Confiteor; Indulgentiam; "Nine Salutations;" Aufer a nobis; Oramus, te; Munda cor Meum; Jube, Domine. Dominus sit; Suscipe, sancte Pater; Deus, qui humanae substantiae; Offerimus tibi; In spiritu humilitatis; Veni, sanctificator; Per intercessionem; Incensum isrud; Dirigatur, Domine; Accendat in nobis; Lavabo; Susicpe, sancta Trinitas; Orate, frates; Suscipat Dominus;Commemaratio pro Defunctis; Libera nos; Haec commixito; Domine Jesu Christe, Fili Dei vivi; Perceptio Corporis tui; Panem caelstem; Domine, non sum dignus; Quid retribuam; Anima Christi; Domine, non sum dignus; Quod ore sumpsimus; Corpus teum, Domine; Placeat tibi; In principio. Additionally, various rubrics and ornamentations, which have no precedence in British tradition, but rather Roman, are also typically combined with Missals -- for simply example, Roman Vestments and Color sequences.<BR/><BR/>Admittedly, some of these interpolations are optional or said silently, and if they don't cause the service to drag are unobjectionable. But many were intentionally omitted or replaced by the framers of the BCP for the reason stated in the Preface of the BCP. Hence, to reinsert them, sometimes causing liturgical and redundancies, is certainly contrary to the BCP tradition. They may be theologically sound, but they are not Anglican because loyalty to the BCP is a constitutive formulary of Anglicanism. Additionally, employing Roman ornaments and ceremonial usages is also contrary to the Ornaments Rubric, which is again is an Anglican formulary.<BR/><BR/>3. Are the Missals Tridentine?<BR/><BR/>Even a cursory skimming of the Introduction to the People's Anglican Missal makes express that the whole point of the various English-Language Missals is an attempt to conform, as much as possible, the BCP Mass to that of the post-Tridentine Roman Missal. Virtually any history of the Victorian Anglican Catholic movement (John Shelton Reed's or Knockle's being among the best), which published the various Anglican Missals in the early 20th century, indicates that the whole point of this form of "churchmanship" was to be, as much as possible, ROMAN CATHOLIC within the the Anglican Communion even if Anglican traditions, customs, and canons must be abandoned or contravened. In contrast, the Prayer Book Catholic movement of which C.B. Moss, Vernon Staley, and the Anglican Society and Alcuin Club were at the vanguard, was responsible for the BRITISH CATHOLIC revival.<BR/><BR/>In sum, to mix the Anglican Missals with the "mere Catholicism" theological school of Anglicanism, the latter being the obvious import of the Anglican Formularies, is proverbial mixing of metaphors and completely anachronistic. Indeed, in todays England, the successors of the Victorian Anglo-Catholics are completely consistent with their historic aims at aping Rome have abandoned the Missals for the Novus Ordo, Apparently, the colonials didn't get the memo.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-86576138255325644172009-04-02T01:20:00.000-04:002009-04-02T01:20:00.000-04:00Death Bredon wrote:I respectfully disagree that Vi...Death Bredon wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>I respectfully disagree that Victorian Anglo-Catholic piety and Prayer-Book Catholicism share identical theology. The former are Tridentine and the latter are patristic...the dictum that the rule of faith follows the rule or worship and visa versa refutes the notion that two inconsistent churchmanships can express a single faith.</I><BR/><BR/>As Ed said, you may present your case. Demonstrate that the Missal is Tridentine, and that it contradicts the Book of Common Prayer to use the Missal for Holy Communion. <BR/><BR/>Let me introduce the terms "a Missal Holy Communion," and "a Prayer Book Mass," just to contradict a generally accepted pairing that I find misleading. Embellishment is not contradiction, and Introits, Graduals, Tracts, Communion sentences, etc., are mostly from the Book of Psalms, which was not written by Tridentine authors. I especially like this, from the Missal:<BR/><BR/>"Pray brethren, that this my sacrifice and yours, may be acceptable..." When I say these words I place just a bit of special emphasis on the words, "and yours." <BR/><BR/>How can these things be unacceptable to Anglicans?<BR/><BR/>Nonetheless, I am very critical of some things I see in the two major editions of the Anglican Missal, none of which need interfere with my celebrations at a church that is accustomed to the historic usages. I have said what those things are many times, including my criticism of one of the Ash Wed. prayers in a comment on this very thread.<BR/><BR/>Fr.Kirby wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>Two, it has never been the practice to interpret Church decrees and canons according to the opinions of their framers unless those opinions have been explicitly incorporated into the text.</I><BR/><BR/>That is why I have said that efforts at an orthodox interpretation have ecumenical potential. But, as we know from centuries of practice, such is a reinterpretation. Pope Benedict's definition of "transubstantiation", to date one of the best examples, is still a redefinition with a corrective element built in. <BR/><BR/><I>And that is precisely the way we have always interpreted the Anglican Formularies, which also have their difficulties!</I><BR/><BR/>I am not so sure that, as a body, these writings have genuine difficulties. I think I have spent a ton of e-ink demonstrating just how truly Catholic and Patristic the Formularies are, <I>especially</I> in light of the intentions of the writers in their historic context.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-53657925020452831662009-04-02T00:55:00.000-04:002009-04-02T00:55:00.000-04:00Sandra wrote:your remark some months ago now that ...Sandra wrote:<BR/><BR/><I>your remark some months ago now that having canon law was an indispensable criterion for consideration when choosing a continuing jurisdiction...</I><BR/><BR/>That sounds like something I would say. Frankly, I have learned from experience that without Canon Law <I>that is actually followed and enforced,</I> bishops and archbishops can do whatever and whenever, to whomever.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-11922213944414053262009-04-01T17:52:00.000-04:002009-04-01T17:52:00.000-04:00There you go, Ed. All you have to do is get a bit ...There you go, Ed. All you have to do is get a bit crotchety, and then start saying the sweetest things, and we all behave ourselves.Sandra McCollnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-33868370307222558502009-04-01T10:30:00.000-04:002009-04-01T10:30:00.000-04:00Father Kirby,Maybe my view would not fit neatly wi...Father Kirby,<BR/><BR/>Maybe my view would not fit neatly within the normal bounds of Anglican Catholicism, but I would very much like to see evidence that is unbiblical. The thrust of so much of the New Testament is plainly eschatological, and the locus of that is what God is do here on Earth, including Our Lord's prayer that God's Kingdom come "on Earth as it is in Heaven."<BR/><BR/>We have to acknowledge that much of the church as moved away from this understanding, and an emphasis on the eschaton and the resurrection of the dead, favoring a view that emphasizes going to Heaven when you die above all else. <BR/><BR/>I suppose "Paradise" would be a more accurate description of the pre-Resurrection state, but that's just not how Christians that I have known speak. <BR/><BR/>If you, on the other hand, want to call the eschatological realization of God's promises "Heaven," I'm not going to stop you, but it's hardly accurate at best and at worst leads to an interpretation that is essentially gnostic: that Christ allows us to escape the material world for a spiritual Heaven. Such an understanding seems to undergird much of protestant evangelicalism, but it's not consistent with the God who called his creation good and then deigned to enter into it Himself.<BR/><BR/>(Veriword is "dedulia." Is that like hyperdulia?)Brian Goldnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-9912504339564597872009-04-01T09:46:00.000-04:002009-04-01T09:46:00.000-04:00Thank you all. I just want to comment that I am p...Thank you all. I just want to comment that I am proud to have just published the last five comments. I don't agree with every detail of what the commenters have said, but I thoroughly appreciate the spirit in which they all post and the calm reason they all bring to the discussion. I've got a reputation for always carping about tone, attitude, and manners, and felt I needed to declare it openly when I'm pleased, as I most certainly am.<BR/><BR/>edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-35833660756050231022009-04-01T00:10:00.000-04:002009-04-01T00:10:00.000-04:00Sandra,Actually the first interest in the Church o...Sandra,<BR/><BR/>Actually the first interest in the Church of England in matters ritualistic were undertaken by laymen rather than clerics. Here I am thinking of the Cambridge Camden Society whose researches were finally collected and published under the editorship of the Reverend Vernon Staley.<BR/><BR/>Secondly, the first celebration of the eucharist in full obedience to the rubrics of the 1662 BCP and the relevant canons of the CofE was initiated and arranged by a group of laymen. Vestments, incense, sung lessons, etc., the whole thing as an experiment which they never expected to see repeated in their lifetime. That it caught on with the clerics and then with a more educated group of people in the pews was probably a mater of surprise to everyone. I suspect that the first folk to seek a full obedience to the BCP those very widely read in the history of the Church and knew at what cost the events surrounding the so-called Glorious Revolution meant to the English and Scots Churches and to Churchmen.<BR/><BR/>Diane, I don't hate the Roman Church. I simply know it all too well having come from a family which moved between it, Orthodoxy and middle American protestantism. Oh, we had been Anglicans in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries until we crossed into Tennessee and the Church failed to cross with us. I learned to serve the Tridentine mass as a teenager and did so for an American cardinal called to the curia for my favorite uncle, a Roman by birth and religion. My uncle and aunt's house and the houses of their cloest friends were always open to the Roman clergy, monsignori and bishops, who were frequently witty and delightful persons. But they were also, as are we all, human and sinners. And I am not going to go any farther than that with the exception of saying that for the last thousand years they would have done considerably better if they had read St Paul more closely and followed his advice.<BR/><BR/>You must remember that the bishops of Rome are also only men. My uncle who had known Pius XII from boyhood cordially detested him - not as pope but as a human being. Humans are like that. I never quite understood that since he was an exceptionally good man, a faithful husband and a devout churchman who was probably far more generous with the Church than many of his friends.<BR/><BR/>I am also, as a very high churchman, as much a devote of the Blessed Virgin as an Anglican can be. But it was my Roman friends and relatives who were distressed by what they feared would be Rome going to far in terms of defining a Marian dogma which even they felt to be unacceptable. As an Anglican (and young), I didn't think I had a dog in the fight. It took me a while to realize that all of us, in fact, did.<BR/><BR/>I realize, also, that you would like all of us to accept the peculiar teachings and claims of the Roman Church or refrain from open criticism. Now I have no idea of where in the English speaking world you live, but such is not a very American attitude. Nor would I ask that you refrain from criticism of me or my opinions. Your faith in Rome is clearly deeply held; I hope your faith in Jesus is as strong and as intense. If it is so, I won't worry about anything else.<BR/><BR/>As for the issue of Church unity, I feel that it must be pursued by all of us with the greatest charity possible, but it is also equally important what whether Roman, Orthodox or Anglican that we get the doctrine, discipline and worship of the Church, the one Church to which we all belong by virtue of our baptism as right as possible. We must also look to our own faults first and let me be the first to confess that it may seem to others, especially Ed and Father Kirby, that I have not always done that, and work and pray to see that they are in as much conformity with Catholic faith, Apostolic order, Orthodox worship and Evangelical mission as we can possibly bring them. And in saying this, let me also be very clear, that Rome, in the person of Benedict XVI, Cardinal Kasper and others have worked very hard to bring Anglicans back to their own best vision of themselves. I am sure that they have offended a great many of their co-religionists in so doing, but they acted with courage and charity and in their own best vision of the historic role of the Roman See. We would do well to also live up to their example - in this case.<BR/><BR/>But in my own mind, the best way that Anglicans can respond to the bishop of Rome and his suffragans is for us to be the best possible Anglicans and not attempt to ape Rome in its Tridentine or more modern modes. That does not mean that we have to give up the use of the best of the missal prayers for the purpose of private devotion or even of preaching, but whether in the streets or at the altar, at the mass or at the office, we should not be ashamed to look Anglican, sound Anglican and even smell Anglican - I recommend a high quality of pure frankincense - remembering that during the Cromwellian interregnum, Anglican celebrations stunned the French court with the beauty of their vestments, their profound bows and the clouds of incense which accompanied their worship.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-38104864483169857112009-03-31T23:03:00.000-04:002009-03-31T23:03:00.000-04:00Sandra,Just for the record (not that it matters mu...Sandra,<BR/><BR/>Just for the record (not that it matters much) I'm a Missal Anglican myself. I will defy any here who think they're higher church than me. I simply believe the anchor of our tradition is the Prayer Book, and a deficient love for the BCP and a greater love for the Missal (I DO LOVE THE MISSAL!) concerns me on some levels. <BR/><BR/>All I've ever asked of any Anglican is to not confuse Romanism for Anglo-Catholicism. We're not simply catholics without a Pope. <BR/><BR/>Blessings!<BR/><BR/>St. WormAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-12960351388927113772009-03-31T22:47:00.000-04:002009-03-31T22:47:00.000-04:00As our Lord once remarked, it is better for us to ...As our Lord once remarked, it is better for us to be hot or cold. He also said blessed are the peacemakers. He wants us to be one. <BR/><BR/>It seems to me that the passions of the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation are very much alive today. I view of what has been written here, I strongly agree with Poetreader and Father Kirby - the devil is in the details, and they should be engaged one by one, with patience and charity. Sweeping generalizations, while perhaps gratifying to the ego, only inflame the unproductive passions and discord among us. May they be anathema.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-4833315020987055542009-03-31T22:06:00.000-04:002009-03-31T22:06:00.000-04:00Fr Kirby: Holding and expressing an honest belief ...Fr Kirby: Holding and expressing an honest belief that a form of service authorised by a canon should not be so authorised, on whatever grounds, and no matter how stridently expressed, is not a 'violation of the canon' and does not affect church membership. A violation would be to use a form of worship not authorised.<BR/><BR/>I am, as I expect you to be, a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia. I violently disagree with some of the laws operating within the States of said Commonwealth permitting things which I belive to be downright evil, although, to my shame, I probably do too little to express that disagreement. That does not affect my citizenship, nor my fundamental loyalty to my country of citizenship or to those of its Courts of which I am an unworthy officer.<BR/><BR/>Canons are not the Mosaic Law. They can be amended, repealed, re-enacted, and so forth. Disagreement is not violation. Violation consists of deliberately doing something they prohibit or not doing something they require.Sandra McCollnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-45802053060193344652009-03-31T21:30:00.000-04:002009-03-31T21:30:00.000-04:00Fr Hart,I understand what you are saying a little ...Fr Hart,<BR/><BR/>I understand what you are saying a little better now, and apologise if I did not sufficiently "contextualise" your comments using what you had said before in this and other fora. But could it not still be fairly perceived that some of your earlier comments on this thread were overstated and sounded too much like an unreserved, general condemnation of Trent?<BR/><BR/>As for what was going on in the mind of the Tridentine bishops when they made their statements, there are two problems with that interpretive approach. First, we know they disagreed among themselves in certain areas and these disagreements had a subtle impact on what was <I>not</I> said. Two, it has never been the practice to interpret Church decrees and canons according to the opinions of their framers <I>unless those opinions have been explicitly incorporated into the text</I>. The fact is that we seldom know the opinions of every person approving the text (and it is in the approval as much as the writing that the authority lies) and we cannot be sure that such opinions were ever meant by their holders to be imposed as obligatory unless they actually do so manifestly. And then there is the over-riding hand of God to be taken into account. <B>And that is precisely the way we have always interpreted the Anglican Formularies, which also have their difficulties!</B> Therefore, it is the words themselves we must attend to, not any popular but not strictly necessary interpretation of them.<BR/><BR/>Sandra,<BR/><BR/>Ed has perfectly expressed my point. Canon Law is a servant of the Church, not its master. But when the law of the church says "this liturgy is authorised for use" this has always been understand as having doctrinal implications, as well as obliging the proper participation of those present at such liturgies. "The law of praying is the law of believing". So, outright condemnation of a canonically authorised rite is not a trivial matter and does affect church membership.<BR/><BR/>As for the Australian reference, I think I know what and who you are talking about, and agree with your discomfort with the activities of the person probably referred to, who is no longer alive. Enough said.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.com