tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post8886956399863969430..comments2024-03-24T15:19:06.377-04:00Comments on The Continuum: Fightin' wordsFr. Robert Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-12646192084086219882009-07-18T19:38:15.721-04:002009-07-18T19:38:15.721-04:00I had intended to stay in this discussion but my w...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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." <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-73764857695512336362009-07-15T10:10:41.512-04:002009-07-15T10:10:41.512-04:00Regarding the interpretation of the Elizabethan Bo...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 <i>Reformatio Legum</i> 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.<br /><br />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.Fr Matthew Kirbyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14386951752314314095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-78521088896909060112009-07-14T04:41:46.772-04:002009-07-14T04:41:46.772-04:00I associate the Gloria at the end with my early da...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.<br /><br />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).<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Sandra McCollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15452475999110574881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-26242405057171866062009-07-13T20:41:52.133-04:002009-07-13T20:41:52.133-04:00I could not think of a finer thanksgiving for the ...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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />BCP CatholicAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-28272094842773900032009-07-13T19:43:54.003-04:002009-07-13T19:43:54.003-04:00The "Gloria" was put at the end of the C...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".<br /><br />I think it is quite doubtful that Cranmer would ever have failed to make a marked distinction between what was consecrated and what not.Addisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18314106473494041240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-51480025668226048242009-07-13T19:13:56.585-04:002009-07-13T19:13:56.585-04:00Bill Tighe wrote:
but there is too much evidence ...Bill Tighe wrote:<br /><br /><i>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."</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-47775227432431531042009-07-13T15:38:14.417-04:002009-07-13T15:38:14.417-04:00Fr Edward asks which parishes and missions of TTAC...Fr Edward asks which parishes and missions of TTAC use versions of the 1662 Holy Communion service.<br />Four which certainly do, and I am inclined to believe that they are not the only ones are;<br />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.<br />'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.<br />desertowlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-34111519245626677742009-07-13T14:09:35.574-04:002009-07-13T14:09:35.574-04:00desertowl wrote; "I'm delighted to inform...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."<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />Fr EdwardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-31267967829559403602009-07-13T13:36:50.272-04:002009-07-13T13:36:50.272-04:00If one wishes to understand Cranmer's position...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.Addisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18314106473494041240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-23395251523524466052009-07-13T13:20:57.698-04:002009-07-13T13:20:57.698-04:00CORRECTIONS
The date of the Ratcliff book's p...CORRECTIONS<br /><br />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)<br /><br />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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-53822955650651601172009-07-13T13:02:04.408-04:002009-07-13T13:02:04.408-04:00Well, I seem to have opened a can of worms I perha...Well, I seem to have opened a can of worms I perhaps regret opening.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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..<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-32083346366921876122009-07-13T12:34:22.304-04:002009-07-13T12:34:22.304-04:00Ed wrote:
"True, many may well have taken it...Ed wrote:<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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." <br /><br />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).William Tighehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16634494183165592707noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-86003427742838752842009-07-13T10:18:09.923-04:002009-07-13T10:18:09.923-04:00Ed:
Left over bread, by definition, was the surpl...Ed:<br /><br />Left over bread, by definition, was the surplus provided, that which had never been used, but did not need to be wasted. <br /><br />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.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-29323652036632262242009-07-13T00:17:37.333-04:002009-07-13T00:17:37.333-04:00I'm afraid I cannot make the rubrics of 1552 s...I'm afraid I cannot make the rubrics of 1552 say anything other than what I observed. I find them very clear. That Book, <b>unlike those of 1549 and 1559</b> 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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />That said, I would agree that no <i>Anglican</i> Rubrics permitted such irreverence, but I do not regard that book as truly an Anglican one.poetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-40773231624142762852009-07-12T23:02:31.130-04:002009-07-12T23:02:31.130-04:00Ed:
Excess bread and wine were commonly left over...Ed:<br /><br />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. <br /><br />I am surprised that you made this comment. Such irreverence, treating the sacrament as profane, was never permitted in Anglican rubrics.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-61414747635147415522009-07-12T19:19:57.203-04:002009-07-12T19:19:57.203-04:00I'm a little perplexed by some of Canon Tallis...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:<br /><br /><i> ... And yf any of the bread or wine remayne, the Curate shall have it to his own use.</i><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />edpoetreaderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11613032927883843078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-57807432708783478082009-07-12T19:13:01.698-04:002009-07-12T19:13:01.698-04:00Fr. Hart:
Never having seen the Altar book of the...Fr. Hart:<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />BCP CatholicAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-2759782955673755882009-07-12T16:28:01.743-04:002009-07-12T16:28:01.743-04:00I have never really thought it much of an issue wh...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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />1. For near the beginning: It makes the words apply most notably to the service that is still beginning.<br /><br />2. Near the end: It reminds us that as we go out into the world we still need to pray and find His mercy.<br /><br />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. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-80374799769056218402009-07-12T16:14:38.698-04:002009-07-12T16:14:38.698-04:00"Sadly, what these clergy are practicing is n..."Sadly, what these clergy are practicing is not really Anglicanism, but rather<br />1950s Roman Catholicism."<br /><br />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.Sandra McCollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15452475999110574881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-39872513488116748412009-07-12T15:11:20.669-04:002009-07-12T15:11:20.669-04:00Fr Edward wrote; Over here in the UK there is no &...Fr Edward wrote; Over here in the UK there is no "Missal or BCP argument" It's either modern Roman Rite or English Missal.<br />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.<br /><br />desertowlAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-6313312251781587702009-07-12T06:51:06.485-04:002009-07-12T06:51:06.485-04:00"Sadly, what these clergy are practicing is n..."Sadly, what these clergy are practicing is not really Anglicanism, but rather 1950s Roman Catholicism"<br /><br />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.Marknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-21804453571420356412009-07-12T00:32:29.439-04:002009-07-12T00:32:29.439-04:00"We have heard this before. I really cannot s..."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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Canon Tallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05182884929479435751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-84700876732092033962009-07-12T00:23:44.004-04:002009-07-12T00:23:44.004-04:00SCP Catolic wrote:
The 1928 BCP is perfectly "...SCP Catolic wrote:<br /><i>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<br />1950s Roman Catholicism.</i><br /><br />Ah, now that I understand perfectly. You are completely right in your diagnosis of these problems.Fr. Robert Harthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05892141425033196616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-55717320123876393082009-07-11T17:20:50.081-04:002009-07-11T17:20:50.081-04:00Fr Edward wrote: "I think Sandra makes a very...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."<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.Sandra McCollhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15452475999110574881noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18902745.post-22456734501004493672009-07-11T15:41:46.454-04:002009-07-11T15:41:46.454-04:00Fr. Hart:
It isn't so much the additions of m...Fr. Hart:<br /><br />It isn't so much the additions of minor propers, or moving Gloria In Excelcis, that is the problem to me.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />The 1928 BCP is perfectly "primitive catholic", and perhaps more primitive catholic than any other liturgy in the world.<br /><br />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 <br />1950s Roman Catholicism.<br /><br />BCP CatholicAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com