learning from Anglicans
#21
(06-09-2011, 11:01 AM)newyorkcatholic Wrote: The truest Anglican Patrimony is really Catholic, which they guarded despite the heresies and problems in their "church," and which in this time of crisis might be very helpful to us.

True.
Reply
#22
It is true that allowances in practices are made for extreme reasons (early missionaries using signs, Native Americans being permitted vernacular Uses.) 

But Anglicans are not some tribe cut off from Christianity or European and Asian civilization.  They were a part of the Church that left amid avarice, lust, and horrible counsel.  Since then, Anglicans have had exposure to Christ in varying degrees, but sadly have been attached to a system that at its root is antagonistic to the Faith.

And that bitter root goes back to Cromwell and Cranmer - the author of the vast majority of the Book of Common Prayer.  Thus the patrimony is one chock full of dissent, not authentic, organic Catholicism.  Of course not all that Cranmer wrote was outright heretical, but the spirit behind the composition was wrongheaded.

There is something disordered in saying 'I wish to be in communion with Rome and I accept the truths of the Catholic Church!' and at the same time 'I want to retain a liturgy written for the purpose of dissenting from Petrine authority and confusing sacramental theology!'

Furthermore, there most certainly is Novus Ordo influence in the Anglican Use BDV.  The parts of Cranmer's liturgy that were heretical had to be scrubbed and reworded.  The Novus Ordo is the reigning Rite of the Church today, therefore these additions were so influenced.

To be clear, I'm not trying to be critical for the sake of criticism.  I think most former Anglicans opting for this Use are in many ways ahead of the average Novus Ordo attendee.  However, there have been more than isolated comments that cause alarm (weird statements from leaders that there was 'no converting' occurring, that coetibus anglicanorum is a middle road between Rome and (Anglican) Canturbury, that they are not becoming Roman Catholics, etc.) 

With this going unaddressed and wrapping it in Cranmer  is not a brick by brick construction of a new cathedral of tradition; rather it is another hose blasting sand away at another part of the crumbling old one.

My hope is that after some decades, those within this Use will desire a return to Sarum or adopt Tridentine.
Reply
#23
Ditto, Kingtheoden.  I was out of the loop on this and had assumed that the trad-Anglicans were using something Sarum-like and bringing that into the Catholic fold (which would be pretty awesome).  I hadn't realized they were still using Cranmer.

As it is, the N.O. is pretty Cranmer-ized as far as omissions from the TLM go: http://www.catholicapologetics.info/mode...s/ordo.htm
So, liturgically speaking, it's like they're only really converting from one Cranmer missal to a slightly different one (modified by the Cranmerrific N.O. missal).

Though I agree, they're a bit ahead of the curve...I've heard interviews with individual Anglican converts over the years on EWTN's The Journey Home who are gung-ho about embracing the Roman Catholic Church, but are sad that it means they get the N.O. in place of the comparatively beautiful and reverently celebrated liturgy they left behind.
Reply
#24
(06-09-2011, 06:30 PM)iona_scribe Wrote: Though I agree, they're a bit ahead of the curve...I've heard interviews with individual Anglican converts over the years on EWTN's The Journey Home who are gung-ho about embracing the Roman Catholic Church, but are sad that it means they get the N.O. in place of the comparatively beautiful and reverently celebrated liturgy they left behind.

True, but what's the point of the most beautiful liturgy if there is no Real Presence? Maybe "Anglican"-Catholic trads will start petitioning for a return to some form of the Sarum use.
Reply
#25
(06-09-2011, 06:35 PM)Melita Wrote:
(06-09-2011, 06:30 PM)iona_scribe Wrote: Though I agree, they're a bit ahead of the curve...I've heard interviews with individual Anglican converts over the years on EWTN's The Journey Home who are gung-ho about embracing the Roman Catholic Church, but are sad that it means they get the N.O. in place of the comparatively beautiful and reverently celebrated liturgy they left behind.

True, but what's the point of the most beautiful liturgy if there is no Real Presence? Maybe "Anglican"-Catholic trads will start petitioning for a return to some form of the Sarum use.

Yeah, I picked the Real Presence over a beautiful liturgy too, and I would do it again. But it's a shame that it has to be either or in some cases.  :(  My family's old Lutheran church's liturgy was the standard I used to (unfavorably) judge the beauty of the N.O. until I found peace at the TLM.
Reply
#26
A few points.

Although Cranmer was a heretic, the parts of the BCP approved by the church are not.

Historically I understand the upsetment here (having seen Tyburn Convent and the shrines of SS. Robert Southwell and Margaret Clitherow) but literally that form shares with the TLM a Godward worldview.

The English ordinariate doesn't do the Book of Divine Worship/Anglican Use or Sarum: they've been doing by-the-book Novus Ordo maybe with some trad panache in some places since their Anglo-Catholic days. And they don't want the Anglican Use or any other BCP-based services.

For the American ordinariate I'd like to see the Anglican Use replaced with the American Missal, a Tridentine Mass/old American BCP hybrid (see above on no heresy and on the Godward worldview). What American Anglo-Catholics used to do.

So hold your fire! These are allies not Protestant or Modernist enemies.

Sarum's nice but the English 'Reformation' killed it. IMO trying to revive it is a waste of time.

And the ordinariate converts don't want it.

The Anglican Breviary's great but I use Winfred Douglas' Monastic Diurnal; same idea (Roman Rite in classic BCP English) but easier.
Reply
#27
(06-09-2011, 06:30 PM)iona_scribe Wrote: So, liturgically speaking, it's like they're only really converting from one Cranmer missal to a slightly different one (modified by the Cranmerrific N.O. missal).

Cranmerrific.  Iona, I will have to borrow that most appropriate modifier!
Reply
#28
Feel free, kingtheoden  ;D  Now that I'm nearing 200 posts, my weird personality quirks are emerging.  :pazzo:

Youngfogey, welcome! And thanks for the clarifications.  I love the idea of Anglican converts being able to out-Catholic the Catholics :)
Reply
#29
(06-09-2011, 06:45 PM)iona_scribe Wrote:
(06-09-2011, 06:35 PM)Melita Wrote:
(06-09-2011, 06:30 PM)iona_scribe Wrote: Though I agree, they're a bit ahead of the curve...I've heard interviews with individual Anglican converts over the years on EWTN's The Journey Home who are gung-ho about embracing the Roman Catholic Church, but are sad that it means they get the N.O. in place of the comparatively beautiful and reverently celebrated liturgy they left behind.

True, but what's the point of the most beautiful liturgy if there is no Real Presence? Maybe "Anglican"-Catholic trads will start petitioning for a return to some form of the Sarum use.

Yeah, I picked the Real Presence over a beautiful liturgy too, and I would do it again. But it's a shame that it has to be either or in some cases.  :(   My family's old Lutheran church's liturgy was the standard I used to (unfavorably) judge the beauty of the N.O. until I found peace at the TLM.

How horrible it is that we have to choose.  I once read about a Catholic who told an Anglican friend, "after the break you guys got the beauty and we kept the truth."

Well at the TLM, I get both.  I do hope that with the ordinariate we will inch closer to restoring truth *and* beauty for more Catholics.
Reply
#30
youngfogey Wrote:Sarum's nice but the English 'Reformation' killed it. IMO trying to revive it is a waste of time.

Why? The Missal, music, and rubrics are still in existence. Why should we promote a Anglo-Catholic BCP hybrid over genuinely Catholic liturgy?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)