In his recent essay posted on the Old High Churchman blog site and then reposted on the Continuum blog site, Bishop Robinson of the United Episcopal Church in North America puts to his audience the incisive question whether the Affirmation of St. Louis “is a prism for the understanding of older formularies — the Articles, Homilies, and the Book of Common Prayer — or their replacement.” In Bishop Robinson’s perspective, when viewed in its actual historical context as a statement issued by the Congress of Concerned Churchmen, the Affirmation should be understood as statement intending “to maintain the Anglican Tradition whilst linking it unequivocally to the faith of the Church before the disunion of East and West.” In sum, to his mind, the Affirmation was meant to be a basis for “a revived Anglican body in North America,” not some wholesale reconstitution of Anglicanism.
In sharp contrast to Bishop Robinson’s views, Archbishop Haverland of the Anglican Catholic Church (”ACC”) recently posted his own essay at the Retro-Church blog site setting forth his own view that Affirmation of St. Louis constitutes a new and superseding formulary upon which his jurisdiction is primarily founded. Thus, contrary to Bishop Robinson, Archbishop Haverland contends that the Affirmation constitutes a replacement of the old Anglican formularies for other Anglican formularies not traditionally recognized as such. Archbishop Haverland enumerats the formularies of the ACC as three: (1) the Affirmation of St. Louis; (2) the ever so fleeting “Henrican Settlement;” and all things within the borader Anglican historical tradition that are consistent with (3) the ACC’s Constitution and Canons. Moreover, he further specifies that the Articles of Religion, the Homilies, and the unqualified Book of Common Prayer are not formularies of the ACC. Thus, though Archbishop Haverland states that “the Affirmation of Saint Louis is the lens through which we view all Anglican authorities,” his understanding of the Affirmation as a prism is one in which the Affirmation so extensively bends the light of English religious tradition that, “[t]he particular Anglican authorities actually received in the ACC are not what they were in the Churches from which we came.” In sum, for Archbishop Haverland, the Affirmation is, if not in itself a complete replacement formulary, is one that nevertheless one that supersedes traditional understandings about Anglican formularies and therefore guides and conditions ACC’s understanding of what the new set of formularies are.
Not surprisingly, due to the typicality of Archbishop Haverland’s understanding of Anglican formularies in the Continuum, in his essay Bishop Robinson bemoans the fact that, in the Continuum, “the Affirmation of St. Louis has been misused to attempt to engineer Anglicanism into a species of Old Catholicism.” What Bishop Robinson undoubtedly has in mind here is the Old Catholic of Utrecht, which spilt from the Roman Catholic Communion over the purported dogma of Papal Infallibility decreed at the First Vatican Council of 1870. Indeed, the Old Catholic movement rejected the extravagant, Papal claims yet remained theologically and liturgically and spiritually a product of the Counter-Reformation. Thus, they were very much bird of a feather of with the English Anglo-Catholics, who arose from the sub-Tractarian, Advanced Ritualism Movement and who drew more upon the Counter-Reformation for its inspiration than it did upon the English Reformation and its distinctive Elizabethan Settlement.
The Counter-Reformation favoring sentiment that has become so popular in the Continuum is most visibly manifested in Anglo-Catholic attitudes towards the Book of Common Prayer. Indeed, by the early 20th Century, Anglo-Catholics had generally settled upon using one of the various Missals with its all its interpolations for the celebration of the Eucharist and justified this variance from the well-settled standard of the Book of Common Prayer under the very thinly veiled guise of ritual “supplementation,” Whether viewed as supplement or revision, the effect of the so-called Anglican Missals was and is to twist the Holy Communion service of the Book of Common Prayer into something more like a venacular rendering of the Tridentine Mass. Moreover, Anglo-Catholics began taking, and generally still do take, their ceremonial direction from Roman sources, which is why a properly executed Missal Mass reeks of pre-Vatican II Romanism rather than anything recognizably English in origin.
But, Anglo-Catholicism is not merely a mater of external ritual affinity with the medieval Latin church. Indeed, the truism that the rule of faith follows the rule of worship, necessitates that all substantial liturgical divergence are ultimately grounded in substantive theological differences. And, as evidenced by what Archbishop Haverland expressly indicates are not formularies for Anglo-Catholics — the classical Anglican formularies most dead-set against the Council of Trent: the Articles, the Homilies, the unadulterated Book of Common Prayer — we easily deduce that the source of the difference between Anglicanism and Anglo-Catholicism is one and same with that which marks the difference between the Counter-Reformation and the English Reformation: the Council of Trent and its affirmation of the most objectionable, sectarian, medieval Latin religious developments.
Like the continental Old Catholics before them, Anglo-Catholics stake no dogmatic claim in Trent, and thus do not typically enumerate it as an express formulary. This typical omission, however, is a long practiced partial deception handed down from the original Anglo-Catholicis, who were nevertheless patently and visibly children of Counter-Reformation faith and practice even if they do not walk in lock step with their Roman Catholic brethren. Indeed, American Anglo-Catholics not only follow Tridentine liturgical patterns, but encourage popular Tridentine spiritual disciplines and personal piety, as well as champion divines who teach, propagate, and promote the mostly a line of theological opinions and speculation consistent with the Council Trent, many of which dcotrines are expressly condemned by the Articles of Religion.
Indeed, the degree of affinity that American Anglo-Catholicim has for all things Tridentine proportionately manifests the degree of its loyalty to the Counter-Reformation as over and against the Elizabethan Settlement. And this is no secret, as Archbishop Haverland expressly repudiates the actual English Religious Settlement, put in place by Elizabeth I and reaffirmed at the Restoration of Charles II in favor the ever so fleeting “Henrican Settlement.” Moreover, it is precisely this adherence to the spirit of the Counter-Reformation, through the vehicle of an historically inaccurate understanding of the Affirmation of St. Louis, combined of course with a simultaneous rejection of the Papal claims, that motivates Bishop Robinson to accurately and insightfully characterize the Anglo-Catholic ascendency within the Continuum, not as continuing authentic Anglicanism, but rather engineering an entirely new, ahistorical creature appropriately described as “a species of Old Catholicism.”
In sum, those traditional Anglicans who decry, and are dismayed by, the innovations and moral decay that runs rampant in the Canterbury Communion, and most especially here in the United States, are forced by circumstance to choose between a reading of the Affirmation of St. Louis that calls for a revival of the historic Anglicanism set forth in the Elizabethan Settlement and its constituent formularies, or the alternative reading that calls for the anachronistic creation of an English Old Catholicism that expressly rejects the Elizabethan Settlement, the Articles of Religion, and the unaltered Book of Common Prayer, all in favor of the sum and substance of the Counter-Reformation as it stood prior to the First Vatican Council. These two approaches, while not utterly dissimilar or without any common ground, nevertheless present two fundamentally contrary and ultimately irreconcilable understandings of the Christian Faith — one being grounded in the developments and accretions of the medieval Latin church minus the Papal Claims, and the other looking to, and being guided by, the “consistent mind and voice of the most ancient Fathers,” as Queen Elizabeth I put it. The choice is ours to make.
River Thames Beach Party 
Death,
Thanks for a terrific post. One reads this and shakes his head at the thought of a lost opportunity. Joining together the faith of the undivided Church with the authentic Anglican patrimony; now that’s a perfect match, entirely in accord with the vision of the Reformers, Settlement divines and Carolines.
It is intriguing to ponder how the Affirmation could become a document that upholds the formularies and canons. Perhaps the creation of an accompaning cathecism would be the answer. The unqualified acceptance of seven sacraments, for example, would need to be explained, in good Anglican fashion, as two Dominical sacraments “generally necessary to salvation”, and five minor sacraments (recourse to the second bk of homilies would be helpful here). The seven general councils would also need to be tempered in terms of the first four having the preeminence
The 7th would be the most daunting challenge, but one could turn to Field, Bramhall and, especially, Moss for assistance.
Thanks, again
-Mark
Mark,
Thank you for the excellent comment.
Personally, I am persuaded that Bishop Robinson is correct that the Affirmation was intended only as an emergency measure following the scandalous Episcopal General Convention of 1976. In short, contrary to Archbishop Haverland’s view, we are under no obligation to view the Affirmation as expressing a new and superseding religious settlement for the English-Speaking Peoples. As such, instead, we can read the Affirmation as consistent with traditional Anglican formularies along the lines you have so thoughtfully outline.
Mark, you are a visionary. Yes, indeed, a “lost opportunity” in more ways than one. To understand how various Denver-consecration Bishops interpreted St. Louis, you have engage their canons. St. Louis does not demand a rejection of the Elizabethan Settlement (after all, the final set of articles were ratified with the 1571 canon). However, ACC C&C seems to force a difference, calling the Settlement “unworkable”, drawing a rather artificial line at 1543. Supposedly this better clarifies matters. In my mind it’s more like a pandora’s box, leaving priests to privately (re)answer the question of Trent and Roman medievalism. All this in the name of an English-tongue catholicism. Perhaps this a broad catholic church is exciting, but whatever happened to Anglicanism?
Death,
This is another brilliant post from you guys and I will link to it tomorrow. I completely agree that there has been an opportunity that has been squandered. While I think the bishops and others at St Louis were good men, there is also the sinking feeling on my part that at least some of them were profoundly mistaken. Are the St Louis churches to be Anglican, or are they to be Old Catholic? If the jury is not in deliberations yet, there is much work to be done to make a case for historic Anglicanism.
Thanks to you guys, as well as Frs. Hart and Wells (and now Bishop Robinson) for giving me some hope.
Will,
Please don’t get me wrong — I do think Archbishop Haverland and the other leaders of the “St. Louis Continuum” are generally good men. But a fair question has been put–does the Affirmation of St. Louis reaffirm Anglicanism or inaugurate English Old Catholicism? And, I believe the Archbishop’s own words indicate he is with the later, whether he would accept the appellation or not. Of course, the follow-up question of how should “mere Anglicans” respond to English Old Catholicism or American Anglo-Catholicism or whatever you want to call it?
Dear Will,
” Are the St Louis churches to be Anglican, or are they to be Old Catholic?”
It’s really a local option. It depends how the priest feels in the morning.
Death,
A superceding religious settlement? But we already have the TEC.
Casting all levity aside, I have great respect for Abp Haverland. He is both a scholar and a faithful shepherd of Christ’s flock. His “Anglican Catholic Faith and Practice” has many good things in it; much of it can be squared with traditional Anglican principles, but his less-than-enthusiastic treatment of the Articles is telling.
Comparing Haverland in this matter with a great Prayer Book Catholic, like the late Lou Tarsitano, is enlightening. Haverland’s opinion of the Articles is highly qualified. While it has “many memorable phrases”, he assumes that certain articles, at least, are at odds with the faith of the undivided Church. By contrast, Tarsitano’s book refers to the Articles again and again; and there is no hint of that tenativeness, which you find in Haverland’s treatment.
I should mention that around ten years ago Touchstone ran a brief article by Fr. Tarsitano on the books that had most influenced him. Occupying a stellar place on his list was Browne’s commentary on the Articles of Religion. Browne was a revelation to Tarsitano, because (paraphrasing his words), he was delighted to discover how deeply steeped the doctrines of the English Reformation and Elizabethan Settlement were in the early Fathers.
The difference between the two, I’d say, is that one man has a rock-solid confidence in the historical formularies, while the other doesn’t.
Mark,
I believe that your levity has hit upon a very valid point. Today, we are faced with at least three alternatives to authentic Anglicanism all of which claim to be the real Anglicanism but are not.
In historical order of challenge:
First, we have the post-Glorious Revolution, partisan Evangelicals, who have glossed the Elizabethan Settlement as a “Calvinist Moment” and, as such, disingenuously co-opted it.
Second, we have Anglo-Catholics–or perhaps more accurately, the English Old Catholics–who have bought the revisionist gloss on the Elizabeth Settlement as Calvinist and have therefore rejected it in favor of an Anglophone Counter-Reformation.
Third, we have the now ascendant Liberals in the TEC and in England, who also accept the Calvinist, revisionist reading of the Elizabethan Settlement and have rejected it in favor of inclusivism.
In light of this three-fronted challenge to authentic Anglicanism, only a small and scatter remnant, following the good example of the late and Reverend Louis Taristano, have held the line against all challengers and witnessed to the historically accurate, original understanding of the English Religious Settlement, which is neither Calvinist, nor Medieval Latin, nor Comprehensive.
Death, I think you are precisely right in terms of your classification of the three parties pretending to being Anglicans but who are not. But i would not call the second “the Old Catholic Party” but use a word which I believe I was the very first to use. I think of them as “Anglo-papists” because as in the period of the Reformation when in 1543 The King’s Book was issue, the eventual reformers labeled it “popery without the pope.”
As things stand, I am finding the 1543 date stranger and stranger because it was such a time of retrograde motion when it seemed that the whole idea of a return to the faith and practice of the earliest Church would fail entirely. And stranger still in that none of the things contained in that book are practiced in the ACC. It is almost as if they are afraid to admit what actually happened and was ordered in that year.
H Lee Poteet,
The proper name for the psuedo-Anglicanism described in ACC Archbishop Haverland’s recent essay on formularies, which is posted over at the Retro-Church blog site, is indeed a perplexing question.
In contemporary times, the term “Anglo-Papalist” has most commonly been reserved for English Anglo-Catholics, who revere the Pope as the Holy Father and are most likely to swim the Tiber in response to B16’s recent call. So, I hesitate to use the Anglo-Papalist appellation to describe ascendant position in the ACC for fear of causing even more terminological confusion!
But, I think your invocation of the phrase “popery without the Pope” is quite apt. Moreover, that phrase calls to mind Bishop Robinson’s observation that many in the Continuum have abused the Affirmation of St. Louis to construct “a species of Old Catholicism,” which historically broke away from Rome over the Papal Claims. Thus, I most certain that American, Tridentine Anglo-Catholicism typical in the Continuum is more properly categorized as a species of Old Catholicism than of Anglicanism. Still, For me, as a proper name for this churchmanship, I prefer the term “Tridentine Anglo-Catholic,” as that appellation is both historically and theologically desprictive. It also distinguishes Archbishop Haverland’s brand of American Anglo-Catholicism from the very different non-Tridentine, Prayer-Book sort of Anglo-Catholicism typified by C.B. Moss.
*****
As for specifying the King’s Book as a formulary despite ignoring most what is contained therein, I can only speculate that the ACC and Archbishop Haverland are motivated by (1) a desperate need to separate themselves from the Elizabethan Articles of Religion while at the same time at least (2) asserting, however tenuously, some sort of historical link to the English Church. But, the fact that they prefer to follow very little of the King’s Book and none of the Elizabethan Settlement expose the disingenuousness of their claims to represent any sort of classical Anglicanism at all. That which was born only in Victorian England and specifies 1543-47 as its formative period cannot seriously contend for classification as classical Anglicanism.
Dear Death,
Right on #2 and #3. Don’t forget they are trying to bring in ACA parishes. The Anglo-papists make up a large constituency which +Haverland would like to bring back to ACC.
Death Bredon,
I enjoyed your post very much. It’s helped me get a far better picture of the situation, and your love for the Church Fathers and sense of their formative role in the emergence of classical Anglicanism is of course something I share.
What I read here, I must admit, makes me share Mark’s sense of lost opportunities, and of a truly formidable challenge to restore historic Anglicanism, all the more keenly.
Frankly, we can’t simply have what we might like as individual Anglican enthusiasts. The people we have to think about are the non-experts, the lonely and afraid who need reassurance, the mums and dads who need security, guidance, and leadership, the children and teenagers who need boundaries alongside a sense of self-worth and of being loved.
I honestly believe the 1662 BCP (and close, historic derivatives) with the Articles and the Ordinal are a sound basis on which to provide this. In all the debates we overlook maybe their disarming simplicity, a pastoral effectiveness that I’m not sure can be surpassed. The damage done by trying to improve on them far outweighs the good.
Nicholas,
Thank you for your kind comment.
I hope that, in my post, I have at least hinted at the reason the Thames River Beach Party and the concept of an Anglican Preservation Society is so desperately needed. Indeed, Anglicanism proper, with all its virtues which you so aptly point out, is under assault from without.
From without, the secularized world is growing more and more intolerant of Christianity. And from within, the partisan Evangelicals would co-opt Anglicanism as a mere subspecies of Continental Calvinism; many so-called Continuing Anglicans would reconstruct it into a species of Old Catholicism; and the ascendant Liberals in Canterbury and 815 would dilute it into mere syrup of mutually-affirming inclusivism.
In light of these challenges, I am ever the more thankful for your Comfortable Words website, which is a crucial and effective witness to the proper of the authentic and unaldultered Anglicanism.
No indeed, what you said was very clear: you articulate very clearly the fragmentation of the Communion, and the forces at work in it.
In your post, you hit the nail squarely on the head when you gave us a choice between a Church characterised by development, and one characterised by back-to the-sources.
My point really was that the pastoral arguments in favour of back-to-the-sources underline what you are saying very strongly.
The very simplicity of the BCP’s rubrics, and the lack of complex catechetical/confessional documents, are powerful pastoral tools. They bring the rhythms of daily prayer and a sense of divine governance within the reach of laypeople who are not particularly religion-minded but are instinctive believers.
These are the people who have abandoned the churches since the developments of the 1960s, after all. Some people may think we’re antiquarians but actually we have a practical, everyday message that ordinary people really want to hear.
The 1543 date which gives us The Kings Book is naught but smoke and mirrors. There is nothing in the articles of that book which is kept in the ACC or in any part of the Continuum. Do they require clerical celibacy? I think not. Do they insist on communion in one kind only and deny the people the cup? Not on your live? Is confession to a priest required before the receiving of communion? I don’t think so! And finally do they use the Sarum missal in Latin? Well, not as this time. And do they follow the Sarum rules as to ornaments and liturgical colours? Not on your life.
So, in actuality what they really do is keep the Elizabethan Settlement in the main with the exception of the use of the various missals substituting the Roman color sequence designed as a sign of submission to the Roman See along with various Roman ornaments, especially those decried by all Roman liturgical authorities as evidence of “Roman bad taste.”
In the face of such evident irrationality, the proper question is: why? And the answer is largely they either don’t know or are entirely unwilling to face the truth about how the beliefs and behaviors which they embrace came about and from whom. And that is largely a case of Brideshead Revisited on steroids. In short, old boy, this is nothing except a case of Brighton ‘catholicism’ writ large which they have been conned into by generation after generation of English and American poofs in holy orders.
A friend of mine many years back made a sort of mini-grand tour of the most famous of the English Anglo-Catholic parishes. What he found and reported back to us all was that they were essentially dominated by a very prissy class of homosexual. Prissy and very aggressive. The same I discovered to be true of those in New York City which is what gave TEO bishops like James Montgomery in Chicago, Moore in New York and Kilmer Myers in San Francisco and eventually V. Gene Robertson wherever. They also had dominated the English and American Church Unions and the Society of Saints Peter and Paul. And you have to admit, that for the most part, they had marvelous taste in church architecture and decoration as well as in church music. In most cases they didn’t found churches or begin new evangelical work, but once the churches were founded, up and going, they managed to take them over and displace the what was originally from Dearmer and the Alcuin Club with the curse of the English Missal and Ritual Notes. In some cases they went so far as to jettison even the English language missals for the Roman rite in Latin. And this was made possible by the same curious alliance of Anglo-papists and Calvinist evangelicals who saw to it that the deposited book was rejected by Parliament.
The question is: what is to be done?
I have to say the 1543 date doesn’t make any sense to me, either. It almost seems to me as though it is designed to allow the “local option” that Charles mentioned in his comment – being up to how the priest feels that day, so to speak.
Will,
I believe Archbishop Haverland points to 1543 and the fictional “Henrican Settlement” — absolutely nothing about English religion got “settled” during the reign of Henry VIII — because most scholars view the King’s Book as an attempt to put England on a path of National Catholicism, as opposed to Roman Catholicism, which today we would call English Old Catholicism. In short, whether you call it “Anglican Catholicism,” “Anglo-Catholicism,” or “English Old Catholicism,” for a fleeting moment during Hank’s reign, the ACC was prefigured.
BUT, as H Lee Poteet so correctly points out, Archbishop Haverland is very selective about the portions of King’s Book that he is willing to be bound by. Indeed, it might be fairer to say that he wants the medieval Latin theology of Henry VIII (frozen in the year 1543), but the praxis of Elizabeth I. And, suppose this creature falls could be said to fall somewhere between Old Catholicism and Anglicanism–a tertium quid as it were.
Still, regardless why Archbishop Haverland is choosing the theology of the Henry’s Book with the practices of Elizabeth’s Settlement, the fact remains that he is not committed to Anglican conformity but remains at least in part a recusant. And, worse, the Constitution and Canons of the ACC fully support him in this position, which I believe a good number of his clergy support. But most insidiously, due to the ACC’s adoption of many of the external’s of the Elizabethan Settlement, including partial adherence to the “Old Prayer Book,” many a layman is being deceived about the true theological heart of the ACC and other Continuum jurisdictions.
H Lee Poteet,
Perhaps Archbishop Haverland’s article is, as you suggest, simply a way to rationalize that fact that he, and many others in the Continuum, have gone in for “Brideshead Revisited on Steriods.” And, I have no doubts that many of the “Missal and Water” clergy in the Continuum are in fact just Anglicans who have allowed their liturgical formation to be guided by “Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.”
On the other hand, I have also encountered clergy in the Continuum that have gone well beyond a “Gin and Lace” veneer. For instance, they keep bodily relics of Saint under their altar, routinely schedule Sacred Heart of Mary Novenas, and celebrate noncommunicating High Masses followed by Benediction and Exposition in the evening. Use of the Gregorian Canon is also not unknown in the Continuum.
Of course, my parade of horribles is based on outlying examples, but they represent the real danger of a Continuum in which Missal-and-Water churchmanship is the center. English Old Catholic light, whatever its motivation, is still not Anglicanism.
Still, your final point is cogent. What is to be done? I think the first answer is that mere Anglicans must be visible witnesses through Prayer Book conformity and English ceremonial use. Of course, this burden largely falls upon clergy. But, it only takes a small group of committed laymen to begin proper, regular and public reading of the Office, which is a great way to make the BCP come alive for the folk.
Thanks, as always, for your comments. Perhaps you could recommend a manual that provides good guidance for lay reading of the Office?
Charles,
Whatever indeed happened to Anglicanism? For the life of me, I fail to see why the Henrician Settlement is tenable, while the Elizabethan is not. It probably boils down to prior theological commitments. Nevertheless, the ‘28 BCP is largely 1559 with the Scot’s eucharistic canon. For all intents and purposes, it is an Elizabethan (or, if you want to split hairs) post-Elizabethan liturgy. So why isn’t it untenable? There is the Missal, of course, but since it has the ‘28 canon, your’e still stuck with a rite that articulates the Reformed-Catholic (Augustinian realist/symbolic) mode of presence. How is that Henrician?
Hi Mark,
Most priests don’t study in either doctrine or worship, and this is part of the problem of leaving the great deposit of faith laid by Anglican divines to a “local option”. Some will apprehend Anglican divinity eagerly and well while others will fall back on EWTN. As we discussed before, the 1928 canon is closer to the 1549 than the Usager 1764. The exception is the sequence of the “narrative-oblation-epiclesis” order, plus a rubric for supplementary consecration. These are significant additions, worth noting. Nonetheless, the liturgy maintains a moderate real presence, and considering the modifications proposed by Seabury but rejected by synod, you have to conclude there is no ‘change in substance’ in either a ‘transelementation’ or ‘transubstantiation’ sense. The Articles framed and summed the theology of the liturgy, and so was never “independent”. But when you give Henrician formulas priority, you end up with something very confused, reopening many questions which the Elizabethan settlement closed shut. It’s great if you want more ACA’s, but not sound if you want an specifically Anglican church. Somewhere along the line confidence in the resourcement of the 16th and 17th centuries ought to be expressed judicially. Otherwise, Anglicanism is just something ‘tantallizing’ where a little protestantism is sprinkled with a little Romanism. When you study it from the law of prayer/law of faith, it just doesn’t make any sense. But, again, most don’t, and this is both a grace and liability at the same time.
Charles,
“Confidence in the resourcement of the 16th and 17th centuries ought to be expressed judically.”
Something very close to this has happened in the REC (An amazing transformation, if you consider the group’s history). That precedent is, perhaps, cause for hope, at least when it comes to the Evangelical and charismatic elements in the ACNA.
Many in the Continuum, however, hold their noses, whenever mention is made of the 16th and 17th centuries. I think Dom Gregory Dix did tremendous harm, in completely misinterpreting Cranmer (whos’ sacramental theology is anything but Zwinglian). I know a few Anglo-papalists who swear by “The Shape of the Liturgy”; and it’s a tough sell convincing them of our Reformer’s catholicity, when theyr’e convinced that Swiss theology infects the 1549 canon (!). If you want to be catholic, why adopt an “uncatholic age”as your model?
For that reason, I believe a ressourcement in the Continuum will be very to achieve- more difficult, perhaps, than a ressourcement in the ACNA; though heaven knows the latter would also require an effort of herculean proportions.
An absolutely essential requirement would be bishops who are Prayer Book catholics (like Bp. Robinson and the REC bishops). I’m sure there out there, somewhere in the Continuum; but I imagine they comprise a distinct minority. Theologically astute priests wouldn’t hurt either
“a little protestantism sprinkled with a little Romanism”.
No, it makes no sense at all, and it sounds like a bad meal.
Hi Mark,
“For that reason, I believe a ressourcement in the Continuum will be very hard to achieve- more difficult, perhaps, than a ressourcement in the ACNA; though heaven knows the latter would also require an effort of herculean proportions.”
Going back to your comment on “lost opportunity”. If the ACC had been more friendly to its Settlement past, not wooing ACA churches, +Haverland might have played a special, even pivotal role, alongside the REC in shaping the doctrine and worship of ACNA#2. Bp. Grote recently said if the APA had been on the College of Bishops, conservatives would’ve possessed enough votes to nullify all WO. As it is, the REC and former-TEC are still in the throws of debate, and the issue is unresolved. Imagine what a pro-Settlement ACC would have added? But ACC wants no more fighting with Canterbury aligned forces.
To their credit REC has not given up on Continuuing churches. AB Haverland has been invited to observe this year’s FACA conference. If he refuses, I don’t know how to take it except as a sign he is determined to create a ‘conservative center’ where the ACC stands alone.
Most ACC members don’t even know the REC supports 1928-use or has undergone any kind of liturgical-catholic change. Most seem to think the REC, like TEC, ordains women, and in my own parish I have given up trying to point-out otherwise. There is probably a reason for this, and most likely it is the ACNA #2, especially REC, poses competition. There is always the risk of BCP-minded priests jumping ship, etc..
Whatever waffling/equivocation you hear by AB Haverland or ACC priests, it’s with this delicate situation in mind– how to steer the course between ACA and ACNA #2.
Hi, Charles
The news about Haverland is encouraging; I was under the impression that the FACA had become a rather fallow project.
Your’e right about the level of ignorance concerning the REC within continuing circles. The notion that the REC has embraced wo, because of its affiliation with the ACNA, is absurd; ditto the idea that it remains a bastion of antisacramental, anticatholic churchmanship. The failure of the APA to come on board is indeed lamentable-though it’s difficult to blame them, when you consider the loopiness that adheres in more than a few ACNA parishes. In any case, it was enough to make Bp. Boyce change his affiliation from APA to REC. That was a real boon to the REC parishes on the West coast, which are rather few in number.
Mark,
While I do not think Charles’ reply to your very pertinent question is wrong, I thought I’d add my own two-cents worth.
Historically speaking, the Henrician “Settlement,” which settled nothing, indeed proved to be untenable. Moreover, theologically speaking, the as Charles has repeatedly argued in Anglican cyberspace, as have fully credentialed scholars of the English Reformation, the King’s Book was merely a step on England’s path towards its Reformation, which culminated in Elizabeth’s wonderful Settlement and its firth commitment “to the consistent mind and voice of the ancient Fathers.” So, in a word, yes, your rhetorical question about the untenableness of Archbishop Haverland’s elevation of the King’s Book circa 1543 to formulary status is very well taken.
However, after the Oxford Movement, some of its more extreme elements fell deeply in love with the innovations of the medieval Latin church (which in 1543 were still lingering in the English Church) despite the fact that one of the major tennets of the English Reformation was to sweep away such vain and precious accretions, as is evidence by the Articles or Religion settled upon under Elizabeth I and reinstated at the Restoration of Charles II. For these sub-Tractarian medievalists, then, at a minimum, the Articles o Religion had to be evaded and form of worship that more decidedly reflected the medieval view of the doctrine of Transubstantiation had to be found. Thus, with the introduction of the Missal, and a policy of religious disobedience regarding the the 39 Articles, the Tridentine Anglo-Catholic party was born. And, due largely to the studied indifference of, and policy o broad comprehensive championed by, post-Glorious Revolution, lattiutinaridan Broad Churchmen–the forerunners of todays Liberals ascendant in Canterbury and 815–the Tridentine Anglo-Catholics were allowed to squat in the C of E and its broader communion.
And though I, like you, agree that the Tridentine Anglo-Catholic position is untenable–a view that has always been held by a vast majority of Anglicans–it still has adherents today that are passing on B16’s recent invitation. And, most of them reside in the Continuum. This residency is reflected in Archbishop Haverland’s recent essay on formularies, and is enshrined in his monograph on Anglican Catholic Faith and Practice, as well as the Constitution and Canons of the ACC. Indeed, a close reading of all these works, reveals that the entire program of the ACC is too continue the radically unAnglican agenda of Tridentine Anglo-Catholicism.
Worse yet, no matter how many other elements of the Elizabethan Settlement are otherwise retained the Tridentine Anglo-Catholics, in most parishes in the Continuum today, this odd “species of Old Catholicism” has superseded the Anglican way to some degree or other, whether historically and theological tenable or not. To quote Archbishop Haverland, “like it or not; there you have it.”
Hi, Death
Good grief. Not a zweifrontenkrieg, but a dreifrontenkrieg. It is ironic how the definitive tradition of the Catholic Church in England, the tradition, iow, of Cranmer, Eliza I, Jewel, Hooker, Andrewes, Laud, Beveridge, etc, so easily becomes a beleaguered minority opinion.
Nevertheless, I still cling to the opinion that a ressourcement of the Anglican patrimony has the best chance of catching fire in the churches of the Continuum. The Hackney Phalanx, and other 18th-century CoE catholics, achieved a position of preeminece, during the 18th-century; an era not generally known for its theological and spiritual acumen.
Who’s to say the same can’t happen in a subsequent age of even greater spiritual confusion ?
Mark,
Indeed, a Anglican ressourcement, which, when properly understand, necessarily entails within it a Patristic ressourcement, is exactly what the doctor ordered.
Today, the Liberal party is the over-arching culprit for the decline of Canterbury Anglicanism, and the Liberal party has its roots in the Lattitudinarian comprehensiveness (now packaged under the label “inclusiveness”) that became popular after the Glorious Revolution.
Thus, IMHO, true Anglican churchmen, in whatever jurisdiction they find themselves, now more then ever desperately need to go behind the wishy-washy thinking of post-Glorious Revolution comprehensiveness and reclaim the victory that was won for Elizabethan church principles at the Restoration. Why we got soft on the formularies under the Hanoverians baffles me, and, in any case, is a great error needing rectification.
The Anglican and Patristic ressourcement we need, then, also entails going behind the post-Tractarian flirtations and love affairs with accrued innovations of medieval Latin church.
And, though I realize that such a remedy may be painful for many in the Continuum whose formation is American Anglo-Catholic in nature. Likewise, similar pain may be suffered by many in the ACNA, who have been deeply formed by contemporary pan-Evangelicalism. But, nevertheless, loyalty to the English Reformation and to the “consistent mind and voice of the most ancient Fathers” requires nothing less than setting aside our inconsistent attachments.
Death,
To ascribe to the Tractarians any or most of that to which we are objecting is to bend history out of all shape. The Tractarian movement began in 1833 and ended before 1845. What we are railing against did not begin until quite some time later, almost a generation, and was the result of the ritualist movement. It began innocently enough. A group of laymen of all things wondered what it would be like to see and experience a service of Holy Communion in which all of the rubrics of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer were absolutely obeyed. The rest is history and unfortunately, our history.
But this is yet not a completely fixed situation. They are of the belief that you can not be or intend to be of the Catholic party unless you do everything their way. The problem is that their way is not, in terms of the ancient and universal Church, the Catholic Way. Instead it is as dead ‘Prot’ as the program of the worst leftover from the clergy of the Roundheads. Why? Because it evades and denys true Catholic obedience and is, as Archbishop Fischer pointed out, nothing except congregationalism writ large. Our job is to point this out.
A patristic ressourcement is indeed of vital importance. Could there be a time in the not-too-distant-future when Anglican theologians will once again be hailed as stupor mundi?
A ressourcement, of the kind we are discussing, will undoubtedly ruffle Continuum and ACNA feathers. Se la Guerre.
Brothers,
This has been the most interesting and lively discussion yet and we have all come to the same conclusion, that there is not much Anglicanism left in modern Anglicanism. Anglicanism (in both the Communion and Continuum) has “Balkanized” or “tribalized”.
It is ironic that the inclusiveness to bring in most Anglophonic churchmen has also been its undoing. There are examples of parishes, diocese, provinces and jurisdictions which claim to be Anglican are anything but, the Jensenites in Sydney, the 815 crowd, the Latinists and the Free Church movement are all examples of this disintegration.
In this confusion the everyday layman suffers or is thrown in to a new orbit; Romish, Baptist, Non-Denominational Evangelicalism, some even jettison themselves from the Church all-together. Resourcement (Anglican and by extension Patristic) is necessary, I must agree with Nicholas’ solution.
At the grassroots or pew level, it is the Prayerbook that is the tool to salvage Anglicanism. Adherence to an orthodox BCP; the regular use of the Office of Instruction and teaching the catechism (forget this ALPHA non-sense), the reading of the Daily Offices, adherence to the Articles and Rubrics, the Ordinal (the scrapping of WO and lay celebrants), these are the easiest ways to bring the patrimony back to our churches.
Well said, Kevin. Yes, you and Nicholas are correct. While our general me message is of course the Gospel and our general medium of dissemination is Charity, it is still true that for we faithful Anglicans, the Book of Common is Prayer is both our special, particular message as well as our medium and method.
Which brings to my mind a simple question. Does anyone know of a good guide or manual for the lay celebration of the prayer-book Office? But two or three faithful need gather in any locality to start public witness to the Anglican Way.
I have some guides that I will send to you and anyone who is interested. They are 1 page each and I will send them as either MS Word .doc or Adobe Acrobat .pdf.
Also, the commonprayer.org website is a good source for learning the rhythm of the offices.
Thanks in advance!
Death’s post and the conversation following has been fascinating for me to read. As an evangelical (drawn to the church of Cranmer and Hooker) who came to Anglicanism and the BCP over the last ten years, I have found that often nothing is as it appears. I am presently a member of an APCK church and have come to see inconsistencies regarding its connection to the theology and practice of the BCP, the Articles, and the Homilies.
Could any of you comment on APCK’s place in the above conversation? I imagine some of my concerns that I have developed over the last couple of years may be confirmed.
Thank you
Jack,
I believe that the Anglican Province of Christ the King (APCK) has played an ambiguous role in the recent, stormy history of broader Anglicanism. On one had, the APCK, fearless lead by Archbishop Robert Morse, has bravely stood against the decay of biblical and traditional sexual morality commonly encountered in broader Anglicanism. On the other hand, IMHO, the APCK’s witness to the formularies of classical Anglicanism, such as the Book of Common Prayer and the Articles of Religion have been less than exemplary.
The APCK’s ambiguous witness to the English Religious Settlement is largely caused, IMHO, by the employment of the so-called Anglican Missals, which obscures the liturgical witness of the theology embodied in both the BCP and the Articles. However, unlike the ACC, the APCK has hesitated from enacting positive legislation, i.e. Constitutional provisions or canons, that expressly or formally demote the Articles. Thus, answers about the status of, and proper interpretation of, the Articles and Homilies, etc., within the APCK seem to depend upon who you talk to. In sum, the position of classical, Elizabethan-Settlement Anglicanism is unclear within the APCK.
Charles,
The matter of women in holy orders, as you pointed out, has yet to be resolved in the ACNA. It would be premature to predict an outcome, although Bp. Grote told me that traditionalist clergy are currently in the ascendant. If, however, it comes down to the innovation being embraced, I imagine it will result in schism-with traditionalists opting to depart, and to perhaps begin a parallel jurisdiction.
It never occurred to me that jealousy could be a reason why the REC continues to be seen in the worst light possible in some parts of the Continuum. The fact is defections from several continuing jursidictions have taken place in the last three-or-so- years, most notably from the UECNA and APCK. That catholic churchman from the Continuum would view the REC as a sanctuary for Prayer Book catholicism is, needless to say, gratifying.
Hi Mark,
My hope is AB Haverland begins attending the FACA meetings at least as an observer. Though APA refrained from ACNA negotiations, Bp. Grundorf sits on the ACNA college as the chair of FACA. We should not forget how the ACC lost the chance to tip the scales against pro-WO in the new ACNA. REC has positioned itself well, multiplying the REC’s influence way beyond her size. It’s really a primary example of ‘right place, right time’. Meanwhile ACC clergy say they’ve had enough fighting and are looking for stability. But “the Lord is a man of war” (Ex. 15:3). We need to fight the good fight too. If we hide our light, what good is it? REC, in contrast, has lost nothing by the ACNA rounds– rather REC has grown into a broad (yet rather orthodox) church. The negotiations will take time, so ACC doesn’t have to sit out. A lot of good stuff on the table. No certainty however. But you don’t know until you try…
Mark, can you throw out any BCP/Central-church bishops in REC akin to Bp. Robinson in the UEC? (men like Fr. Hassert?, etc, but consecrated to the bishopric.) I have the impression there still are many REC bishops who smell flowers outside the Anglican garden (say, taking too much from the Lutheran, Calvinist, etc.)? I know this is true at least on the East Coast or NE? Where (bishop/diocese) do you see classical Anglicanism having its best advocate?
Hi, Charles
The influence of the REC upon the ACNA has been entirely salutary. I would say that among the dioceses and ecclesial bodies that have come into federation within this new jurisdiction, the REC is uniquely poised to imbue it with historically Anglican principles of doctrine and worship. In fact, it already has; the declaration of doctrine, enshrined in the constitutions and canons of the ACNA ( itself a expansion of the earlier “Bishop’s statement”) was largely the work of Bp. Sutton, and takes as its model the doctrinal standards from the canons of the REC.
I have it from our bishops that the reluctance of the APA to actually merge with the REC ( that, after all, was the original plan) and, thus, affiliate with the ACNA, went against the wishes of Bp. Grundorf, and was due to the disapproval of some stratospherically high Anglo-Catholic squeaky wheels, with alot of clout. Bp. Boyce’s decision to disaffiliate his diocese from the APA and bring it into the REC, reflects the discouragement of those APA churchmen who were keen on the merger happening. It is also telling that an Anglo-Catholic bishop, overseeing a largely Anglo-Catholic diocese, would feel quite at home in the REC. Happily, his departure has done nothing to cool his long friendship with Bp. Grundorf; neither has it harmed the friendship between Grundorf and our bishops.
As to the question of which REC diocese is most representative of Classical Prayer Book standards, it is undoubtedly Bp. Grote’s geographically huge Diocese of Mid-America (which happens to be my own diocese). This is evidenced by the large number of high-church parishes that comprise it; and that, I believe, is the answer to your uncertainty concerning the Reformed Catholic bonafides of some of our bishops.
With the exception of the Rt. Rev. Al Gadsen, recently elected Ordinary of the Diocese of the SE ( the largest in the whole church, and, up til now, the least effected by the REC’s catholic ressourcement), all of our bishops, to a man, are Prayer Book Catholics. But shepherding the sheep, is a slow business, and however catholic a bishop may be, it would be exceedingly unpastoral of him to demand a major paradigm shift in a diocese long-entrenched in low-church practice.
The Diocese of the NE, for instance, has traditionally been the seat of militantly black-gown, unsacramental, and Evangelical churchmanship within the REC. Up until very recently, our PB, Leonard Riches, a high-church Anglican, who accepted with pride the aspersion “Neo-Oxfordian”, from a frothed black-gowner, was diocesan of the NE. He stepped down from that position, and handed it over to a younger man, the Rt. Rev. David Hicks, who, in fact, he helped mentor.
Progress has certainly been made in the NE, with regard to entering the orbit of classical Anglicanism (one parish, in fact, is rather Anglo-Catholic), but relative to other dioceses (especially the DMA, the place where much of our hard-won catholicism was pioneered), that progress has been slow, which is as it should be. Hence, the rather low-to middling character of the NE, is not a reflection of the theological commitments of either PB Riches or Bp. Hickes.
Checking out the lectures at the Anglican Way Institute ( anglicanwayinstitute.org) will give you an idea of how far the REC has come in embracing Anglican catholicism. Theyr’e also just downright fine lectures. Enjoy.
As a Highchurchman, I believe the Articles have to be viewed through the lense of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. This I think The ACC does, or is endevouring to do! Whilst I agree with a lot you people say, I have to ask just what was the ,’Elizabethan Settlement’? As I was taught and understand it, the Settlement was no more than a political compromise to enable the Calvinists to enter the Anglican Church without to much grief. The Articles themselves, were meant as a boundary over which the Dissenters, or nonconformists, were not allowed to step! It is the Councils, [Seven,] that are the basis of the Anglican faith and the Articles merely tools.
Dear Highchurchman,
Thank you for visiting the Thames River Beach Party! Please come and visit us any time.
And, yes, what you have been taught to understand about the Elizabethan Settlement is very commonly taught by many well-credentialed Anglican scholars, who are generally held in high esteem. But, I would suggest to you that this view is actually a revisionist view that arose after the Glorious Revolution and is greatly colored by the comprehensionist views that became popular after that time. Indeed, under this view, which seems to be the prevailing popular view, Calvinism is seen as a full-fledged component of the Settlement, even though those who were in fact Calvinists at that time fought tooth and nail against every aspect of the Settlement, e.g., the Articles of Religion and the Book of Common Prayers, decrying it all as “Popery!”
As a counterweight to the popularly held, albeit revisionist view of the Settlement, please allow me to commend to your review, E.J. Bicknell’s, “The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England,” (Longman’s 1957). In his excellent exposition, Bicknell spends a good deal of time on the historical context of the Articles and on the positions of the contemporary partisans, including the Calvinists, towards them. Before many pages of Bicknell’s historical introduction have passed, I believe you will begin to see just how impossible and counterfactual the view that the Articles, and indeed the entire Elizabethan Settlement, are a mere compromise between Calvinism and (Roman) Catholicism.
Another excellent work is George Every’s, “The High Church Party,” (SPCK 1956), which should go along way towards explaining how, before the Glorious Revolution, the universal understanding could be that the Elizabethan Settlement was hostile to Calvinism but how, afterwards, history got glossed over to retroactively give Calvinists a place within the Settlement due to the newly esteemed policy of Comprehension, which I might add has led directly to the meltdown of “official” Anglicanism.
In sum, I believe that a thorough investigation of the Elizabethan Settlement will show to you that its original goal was to refocus the C of E on the witness of the primitive Church, and the early Fathers, and most especially the fist four general Councils, which is not to exclude other, later clarifying councils. Hence, reading the Articles through the lens of the Councils is already built into them and is not a partisan approach to them at all–in contrast to reading them, for example, through the lens of the Council of Trent (Anglo-Catholicism) or through the lens of the Westminster Confession (Evangelicalism), which do constitute special pleading.
High Churchman, have you read page by page every word of Elizabeth’s prayer book? That and the episcopal discipline, more often administered by Elizabeth than the bishops for which she had to settle was the heart of the Settlement. It was not a political compromise because, at heart, Elizabeth was not a compromiser. As the writer of “Elizabeth and the Reformation Settlement” commented, she came to the throne with a complete ecclesiastical policy which she pursued for the totality of her reign. We are talking about a woman and a queen who spoke both Greek and Latin and who read Hebrew. In addition to attending Mattins and the Eucharist in the morning and Evening Prayer before supper, she read a chapter of the New Testament in Greek and a chapter of the Old Testament in Hebrew everyday possible. The services in her chapel and in every church which she could reach were as splendid as possible with the ancient vestments, incense and the music of Tallis and Byrd.
She believed as almost everyone in her time believed that there was only one church which meant that if you claimed to be Christian you should belong to it. She was asked to allow Roman services and said very politely ‘no’ explaining that to do so would set church against church. Her attitude toward the Calvinists was much the same. It was their duty to conform to the The Church and to learn from it. She did not want to push into their heads but felt that they needed to learn from the Church’s services. She chased down and punished the authors and printers of the Marprelate pamphlets attacking the bishops and the ancient form of the Church.
Those who have attacked her settlement have been those who were unable to accept the Catholic Faith as based upon the fullness of Holy Scripture as interpreted by, in her words, “the earliest bishops and Catholic fathers, the creeds and the councils. The English Church held to the first four councils because beginning with the fifth, the disciplinary canons were no longer in accordance with the New Testament although the theological rulings remained so. That is, I think, a very important difference.
Hello HighChurchman,
A political compromise compared to what? You have to remember the immediate prayer book before Elizabeth was the 1552 and 42 Articles. Cranmer is largely the author of both, and he was leaning toward the continent. When Elizabeth came to power, she wanted to bring the Church back to reforms of her father, Henry, and therefore she moved it in a more catholic direction. The Ornament’s Rubric was an expression of Elizabeth’s fidelity. The 1559 BCP was thus a “compromise” not between calvinists and catholics but between the 1549 and 1552 prayer book versions. Likewise the Articles were paired down and amended to better accommodate England’s ancient episcopacy and customs. So, if any “political compromise” happened it was toward an identification of Elizabeth with her father’s reign rather than her half-brother ‘edward’ and the Seymour family. Calvinists were happy with neither since both fell short. Anyway, the settlement represents a reform against calvinists, a loss of political power vs. late Edward. Yet of course, it was also based on Elizabeth’s own learning and convictions– likely what she was raised and tutored upon.
Oh… One extra point. When you use the seven ecumenical councils as the lens, you miss the apology that the Settlement and Restoration provide against Trent and Westminster (as Death points out), or at least you must ‘reinvent’ the wheel.
The assumption behind the ACC is the Settlement fails to apprehend or receive ‘catholic faith’. You have to remember, the English church remained a catholic church during her ‘reformation’ or resourcing. Thus, you don’t get any document which “breaks” from what proceeded but rather an ‘organic’ unfolding of creed.
Consequently, no document stands alone, and they must be understood both by what proceeded and was coterminous. The Articles themselves point to the context by which they build upon, i.e., starting with the trinity, to the creeds, and then scripture. They also point laterally to the homilies, crown, and convocation. This is a very ‘churchy’ style of confession, medieval in spirit, vs. Westminster and late-calvinist/modern confessions which are more tidy, more self-contained. It is also what makes Anglicanism challenging.
Another assumption behind tossing out the Settlement formularies is the threat of Rome and Zurich have receded or are no longer relevant. This in itself is ridiculous as we experience cannibalistic invitations from Rome along with rampant radical evangelicalism running amok in Lambeth today. This assumption of ‘long gone apologetics’ is meant to disarm, born by liberal ecumenical baggage with both protestants and Romans.
I agree with Charles’ main point here about the organic and Catholic nature of the Elizabethan Settlement.
But, as a technical quibble, I would say that there is nothing wrong per se with “us[ing] the seven ecumenical councils as a lens” for viewing the Articles as long as you simultaneously keep in mind the larger, organic, catholic historical/theological context of Elizabethan Settlement too. Indeed, the Articles are intended to be of one mind with Scripture, the catholic Creeds and Councils, and “the consistent mind and voice of the most early Fathers,” as Queen Elizabeth I put it.
Charles,
I so appreciate your remarks about “no document” standing alone. That is indeed the challenge of Anglicanism, which cannot be understood by any one formulary read in isolation. Unfortunately, this is a lesson that many Anglicans, both low-Church and high, have yet to learn.
It is a lamentable fact that we have an ignoble history of setting one formulary against the other: our low-church brethren, for example, have at times reserved all power of doctrinal authority to the Articles alone, relegating the Prayer Book to a merely liturgical function, ( Iow, stripping it of the power to express what Anglicans truly believe). Brethren on the higher end of the spectrum have been guilty of exactly the opposite.
I am more and more convinced that short of a thorough understanding of all Settlement documents, whether primary, secondary or tertiary, an accurate understanding of this strange beast known as Anglicanism, which confounds both Papist and Puritan expectations, will difficult to come by.
Hi Mark,
The Settlement documents should not be burdensome or numerous for priests. There are probably about a half-dozen major ones. It’s just a matter of taking the time to read them. Too many priests (from what I see and know) get their education from New Advent and top-five google searches. I hate to criticize, but it’s the root of the problem in the continuum. We don’t have real education standards, and too much of our ‘faith, order, and worship’ is left to a local option. Combine the two, and you got real troubles– ACA hemorrhaging from ACC, a kind of worship that doesn’t make sense with respect to Settlement doctrine, and a sort of catholic potpourri that possess no internal coherence. Like Death says, you can’t just have seven ecumenical councils, but provincial articles which more practically describes the trinitarian and christological implications with respect to modern error. This is what Anglicans loose when they dump the Settlement.
Charles and all,
I wish that some of them knew as much as they could find out on New Advent, but even that is frequently missing. I can think of a list of a minimum of ten books of which if they had so much as a passing knowledge it would greatly improve them understanding of the intended faith and practice of the classical Anglicanism. However what we too frequently find among the clergy and their camp followers is those whose knowledge of “Catholic” theology is of the kind acquired, as Bishop Gore once described it, from the penny pamphlets found in the tract racks of Westminster Cathedral.
Lee
Mark,
I suppose that one of us here at the Party ought to do a post about what comprised the Elizabethan Settlement. In many ways, it is like the British Constitution, which often mischaracterized as unwritten. To that contrary, almost all of the British Constitution is memorialized in documents, just not a single one. This same, very British, approach also defines the canonical parameters of the English Religious Settlement. Perhaps Nicholas will be inspired to get stuck into this, otherwise you will have to settle for a my feeble attempt.
Quite a task! I like Dearmer’s quote at Bp. Lee’s site. I am sure all of us could assemble a kind of basic list–
primary:
KJV w/ apocryprha (if technical, the Bishop’s Book or “voluminous text”)
39 Articles (in preface of 10 articles is precursor to 1571 canon)
Prayer Book
Supremacy Act (from which 1538-1604 canons sprout)
secondary:
homilies
injunctions, canons, visitation articles
longer catechisms
tertiary:
salient books of period divines (starting with Hooker, Jewel)
the example at the royal chapel
sermons from St. Paul’s Cross
other treatises/sermons from divines, starting with foremost Cathedrals and Universities (like Andrewes at Ely)
popular practice (see primers)
In doing so, it’s very important to rank these standards by Erastian consent– crown, convocation, synod. To break from this makes us little better than the puritan-rogue/Westminster Assembly!
oops… when I say prayer book, I mean what is bound within too… Ordinal, Litany, catechism, and Lectionary-Kalendar, etc. Sometimes “binding” makes things tricky. The 10 Articles for example were bound to the Great Bible (and I believe the 11 Articles to the bishop’s which were Elizabeth’s stop-gap before adopting 42/38/39). Sometimes these formulas are found bound together, sometimes apart.
Death,
That’s a terrific idea. A list comprising Settlement documents (with an emphasis upon those approved by Crown, Convocation and synod) would be a swell resource for one like meself, with a rudimentary grasp of secondary and tertiary formularies. I’m sure you would do a masterful job; ditto the other contributors at our jolly little gathering on the Thames.
ooops… #3…. “crown, convocation, parliament”…. sorry
Charles,
Entirely off topic, but I was wondering if you were still thinking through a series of “Theses”, defining Anglicanism, per Ben Guyon’s Theses. Such a project would fit hand-in-glove with a definitive list of Settlement documents.
I’d like to remind readers of the series of CD-ROMs on the BCP, 39, etc put out by the PBSUSA. There is more to come in this series.
Guide for LayReaders, put out originally in 1944 and again in 1962 with later printings covers all the ground layfolk could want in using the BCP. I still have my own copy from then.
The Henrician position of the ACC-OP is essentially moral bankruptcy, intellectual disrepute, profoundly sectarian, delusional. Not for nothing did +Robert Crawley of the Canadian Continuum describe this in 1980 as a ‘Brigadoon Church’—this applies to other jurisdictions, too, alas.
The REC’s new BCP is a reasonably successful conflation of 1662 and 1928. Everything is there. Back while he was studying at RES in Philadephia, Lou Traycik sent me a copy of a sermon by +Riches. Immediately, I thought of it as the beginning of a REC Oxford Movement. This was about 20 years ago.
If one carefully examines the missals and the BCP, one will quickly realise that the missals were compiled and edited on an indiscriminate basis, bordering on incompetence. With the possible exception of the editors of the 1930s edition of the American Missal, the level of wilful ignorance is mindboggling. Contemplate the Epistle for the Common of a Confessor Bishop, which is the most blatant farrago I have ever seen—compare with the Bible to see this yourself.
Not only were the missals incompetently drawn up but the actual use by clergy is less than intelligent. These clergy simply do not have a clue about what they are doing with the missals. Many of us can easily recall outright howlers on this point. But, we have to recognise the ‘cockroach element’ here. It all comes down to simple ape-ism. Gegen der Dummheit streifen die Goetter selbst vergebens—-Schiller.
All we can do, brethren, is to keep on plugging.
Death, my greetings to your folks at Duke’s Denver. What are you doing in Kentucky? Is Bunter still with you?
In +,
Benton
Bunter was with my distant cousin, the late Lord Peter Wimsey. As the descendant of on of Lord Peter’s illegitimate relatives, I have found the American South much more hospitable than Hyde Park.
If I have not ‘slanged’ the missals enough, here is the ultimate example of ill-considered editing and actual use.
The Latin Mass has, in the Quam oblationem the rough equivalent of the Epiclesis/Invocation. This comes immediately before the Qui pridie, which includes the Words of Institution. This pattern is followed by the 1549, the Scots 1637, the 1552-1662 tradition, and the Canadian 1962. By the time the Words are said, the Consecration of the Elements may be said to be complete. To be sure, the 1549 rubric expressly forbids the Elevations and suchlike reverences.
The US 1928, the English 1928, the Scots usage since 1764 Consecration prayers are of an Eastern pattern, rather than the Western of the aforementioned rites. The Epiclesis/Invocation comes well after the Words of Institution. Therefore, the understanding is that the Consecration cannot be said to be complete until the Epiclesis/Invocation has been said. The USA 1928 is very explicit on this head as the provisions for Re-Consecration and Communion of the Sick require that the Canon be read through the Epiclesis/Invocation.
The ceremonial provisions of the missals and Ritual Notes specify that the Elevations and the other suchlike reverences be done at the Words of Institution, just as if the 1928 Canon was of the Western pattern and that, the Words said, the Consecration might be said to be complete. This is simply not so. The specifications, directions, rubrics are completely misconceived and misplaced. The Elevations and the other reverences at the Words constitute ‘latriea’ to the UNconsecrated Elements—simple artolatry, a product of ape-ism.
Our Anglo-Catholic brethren really need to junk the missals and Ritual Notes and draw up new books that reflect the reality of our Canon. I suggest something that should have been done back in the 1960s. This would be a resetting of the Altar Service together with Lesser Feasts & Fasts, together with the necessary music, and possible, a really soundly Anglican Holy Week set—-possibly the Scots 1967 booklet. There is no need to go outside the BCPs for any of this materiel.
Heaven protect and guids us all.
In +,
Benton
Actually, Benton, the 1928 canon does not follow an Eastern model but the oldest known complete canon. The interesting thing about this particular model is that it is available in both Greek and Latin and predates both the Gelastian/Gregorian canon and the previous version of same before it was torn apart and pasted together into the present version. This canon dates to a period before the proper preface and the Sanctus and is about as short as 1552, 1559 and 1662. Its three major elements are the giving of thanks, the offering of oblation and the invocation of the Holy Spirit. Unlike the Gregorian canon it quotes the scriptural version of the divine words with out embroidery, but it is clear that they are not and could not be considered as consecratory
In the Gregorian canon it was the Suplices te rogamus that served the place of the epiclecsis and Vernon Staley points that before the ceremonial innovations made by pope Alexander Vi’s master of ceremonies in 1502, it was this paragraph in the canon that was considered most important.
The interesting thing about the 1552/1662 canon is that it attempts to mimic what happened in the upper room, so that after an invocation of the Spirit to make the elements the body and blood of our Lord, his words of administration are recited just before the elements themselves are distributed. In other words, the very words which our Lord used before he gave the disciples his body and blood were again made the words which worshipers would hear before receiving them.
And it should also be pointed out that both Elizabeth and other churchmen in her reign pointed out that no new ceremonial which the elevations certainly were was permitted in the English prayer book.
Consequently what is seen and experienced in too many continuum parishes is the result of massive functional illiteracy in which Ritual Notes has been substituted for the work of real scholars and experts.
Brother Lee,
I had never seen the Gelasian Canon; all I’d ever seen of this Sacramentary had to do with the Collects.
The suggestion that Rome considered the Supplices te to be that important, rather than the Quam oblationem gives me the understanding that the artolatry at the Verba goes back further than we realise.
Be that as it may be, the practical point is that the Exaudi nos in the Canon of 1549, Scots 1637, and the forms equivalent in the 1552-1662 Canons are what fill the function of Quam oblationem; they come before the Verba. The Quaesumus accipias in the 1549 Canon does not carry the weight of the Supplices te in the Gregorian.
So, we are confronted with the position of what fills the function. This position and function are what can possibly legitimise the Elevations. Otherwise, they are mere artolatry.
Now, somewhere last week, I read a blog that advocated a relocation of the Invocation of the ’28 to a ‘western position’, before the Verba. Due to our dis-unity, there just ain’t gonna be a sound agreement about BCP revision. While our ’28 isn’t perfect, there is no consensus about any future revision. Also, I suspect that the layfolk wouldn’t take kindly to any attempt at revision, given the present climate. Until there is a serious uniformity in the thorough use of the BCP, there is no point to it. In a liturgical sense, we live “In those days, there was no King in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes”. Until this evil fruit is off our diets, there will be no unity.
We are reminded of the theme of the 1552-1662 rite and the Upper Room. This is why, when using the 1662 rite, the pre-conceived ceremonial norms, whether they be Sarum or Tridentine, are completely misplaced. Given this reality, and the way churches were laid out over the centuries since Great Eliza up to the Ritualism in the 19th c, the whole pattern had to be different.
And, here we get into the intent and function of the Ornaments Rubric and how it operated and was applied. Since Ritualism, we tend to interpret it in legalistic terms; in the process completely ignoring what actually was done from Great Eliza to Victoria. For this, I refer us to Addleshaw & Etchell, “Architectural Setting of Anglican Worship” This book is absolutely necessary for our comprehension. Louis Bouyer, “Liturgy and Architecture” is also most useful for those addicted to more modern ideas.
Heaven guide us all.
In +,
Benton
Benton,
Whether we like it or not, the Ornaments Rubic contemplates that, to some extent, Sarum ceremonial norms do apply to the 1559 & 1662 editions of the BCP. But, in declaiming Sarum, I take it that you are referring to manual acts patient of artolatry. And, I believe that that principle is probably agreed by the River Thames Regulars–though we might have some disagreement about how to apply the anti-artolatry principle.
No worries regarding familial unpleasantness. I have long wise let the whole matter go. I have even forgiveness Mrs. Sayers for her tattle tale scribblings.
Brother Death,
I apologise for bringing up the unpleasant family history. Miss Sayers dropped a hint many years ago, but not in and great detail.
What with all the dreadful levelling of recent decades, Britain must be such a horrible place. Also, Enoch Powell did warn of another horrifying developement.
I can understand why you prefer the American South nowadays. However, where I live is too far south and over-run by Yankees and Damyankees.—including myself.
Deo vindice in +,
Benton
This is not my cup of tea. When in doubt, I say go to the earlier practice. The canons help us understand the intent of the prayer book. If elevation was suppressed, it was likely due to natural example combined with the Mass being called “communion” rather than “sacrifice”. There certainly is a shift away from the ‘words and bread’ toward ‘prayer and the people’. That said, neither the invocation nor words can be said alone. Also, notice while the sequence follows eastern/nonjuror examples, the content of the invocation refrains from asking the Spirit to “change” the bread. Emphasis remains on the faith of the people as instrument, and this keeps the theological content of our eucharistic prayer closer to the Carolines/Tudor books rather than Scottish Usager revisions. Just compare Seabury to the American 1789/90.
Charles,
I apologise for playing this scholarly game with Lee. Not only is it too abstruse; it was also off the immediate subject here, which is to further a better understanding of what the Affirmation says to us nonA-Cs. Again, my apologies. The fling about of Latin was entirely out of hand.
Benton
Brother Death,
Anent the Ornaments Rubric, we need to contemplate the change in the Church’ juridical system in the mid-19th c. The original highest ecclesiastical court was the old Court of Delegates, which also heard maritime cases. When this was altered, the newer highest authority was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. With this alteration of judicial authority came a change in perception. The Ornaments Rubric and all the rest came to be interpreted as statute law. This may have swept the older understandings into the dustbin. In other words, there was a certain flexibility and practicality before the change. Afterward, the interpretation became somewhat rigid. Where the Ornaments Rubric was applied or not applied according to the nature of the BCP, clergy began to think in literal terms. Due to the impules of the age, brought on by Walter Scott’s novels, a great movement of ‘restoration’ was brought about. Later on, the impulse toward Ritualism naturally followed.
While all parties did what they liked with the BCP, it was the restoration craze and the ritualism that provoked the riots and the trials. All this smacked of the old ‘Boogity, boogity, boogity, RROOOMMME attitudes still haging over from the 16th c. After all, Foxe’s Book of Martyrs was still in print—very much enlarged. Further, while most of the Parker Society volumes were serious, there was that volume of Thomas Becon with his scurrilous ‘Displaying of the Popish Mass’. Yes, passions were easily revived, renewed, exacerbated. Some of it still remains.
Well, as our Anglo-Catholic brethren turned to Rome for inspiration, the attitude continued. It was pronounced enough when/where clergy confined themselves to something resembling a form of ‘nativism’, a domestic revival rather than importation of popish exemplars.
Now, in our time, most parishes simply cannot afford all this. In some respects, it even looks ridiculously obsolete. I don’t think the revival or use of any elaborate furnishing of churches or clergy or use of anything evoking fussiness will fly nowadays. We will have to look at the past, including the Ornaments Rubric, and use it for a guide to what is more appropriate to our present condition. That will take some thinking. That, I think, is part of what we do down by the riverside.
In +,
Benton
Benton,
While I agree that the Ornaments Rubric, or any other rule or canon of the Church, ought not to be applied legalistically, I still maintain that we also ought not feel at liberty to pick and chose from the classical Anglican formularies. That is the very game that the Evangelicals, the Anglo-Catholics, and the Liberals all play, and it is why classical Anglicanism has been so maimed.
In sum, “ritualism” is not all of one suit–the employment of the principles of the Ornaments Rubric is not only legitimate but normative for proper, classical Anglicanism; whereas the employment of Roman Usage, whether Tridentine or post-conciliar, is lawless. That is to say, to chose the BCP but not the Ornaments rubric is just as lawless as anything any Anglo-Catholic has ever done.
Brother Death,
I wasn’t saying that the Ornaments Rubric should be set asise. I’m a strong believer in using the BCP, the whole BCP, nothing but the BCP. I hold the same view anent the Articles—the Ordinal, too.
What I was discussing is how the controversies became so bitter in the 19thc due to pre-conceptions, misconceptions, wilful ignorance, and ape-ism.
Yes, we’d rather follow the lead of the Ornaments Rubric rather than the liturgical fashions of pre- and post-Vatican II. I would say the same if the fashion became one of aping the Orthodox. However, I admit that I’d rather have the ikons in our churches than the awful art of the pre- and post-Vatican II Roman Catholic styles. Theologically speaking, the ikons are more fitting. For example, a wondrous ornament to our churches might be a 9partial, because some are inappropriate for us) set of the Great Feast ikons—rather than Stations of the Cross.
Years ago, Lou Traycik+ and I were discussing devotions to the BVM. What he knew were the RC devotions, which he deemed unfitting. I commended to him the Akathist Hymn, the classic Orthodox devotion. While he found some of the laguage overly ornate, he liked it. I think this was because the Orthodox aren’t continually badgering the Theotokos to badger her son. It is most praise and request of her prayers.
I recall an old story about an Orthodox bishop or archpriest visiting one of our cathedrals in England many years ago. His guide commented a regret for the absence of ikons. The Orthodox cleric replied, “But you do have the ikons”, pointing to all the stained-glass windows.
In a metaphorical sense, there are two ikons, not really fitting for us, that we might contmplate” that of St Mark of Ephesus, and that of the Restoration of Orthodoxy. If we have eyes to see, and minds to understand, they speak to us of what we of the Continuum are trying to preserve and uphold.
Heaven protect us this day.
In +,
Benton
Agreed.
[…] Some More Thoughts on the Affirmation of St. Louis […]
[…] monasteries, groups defined by ideology or whatever. Those words came back to me as a re-read an old article (2010) about the competing claims to the term Anglican. There are no no fewer than 66 comments, and […]