![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
The Late Roman Aggression
Oct. 21st, 2009 07:25 pmWell, actually that was the setting up of a set of dioceses in England in the mid nineteeth century. However...
There are a couple of interesting things about this.
First, it seems to me that the measure is as much aimed at the Roman hierarchy as at the Anglican Church. It's been possible for years to have "Anglican Rite" (usually the English or Anglican Missal) churches for disaffected Anglicans; I knew a group in Toronto who were asking for one. However, the local bishops were rarely enthusiastic and tended to do a good imitation of a brick wall. (This was similar to the situation with regard to Tridentine Rite services.) As with the Tridentine Rite rules, this now effectively bypasses the bishops -- in the TR case by setting up automatic rules for allowing the celebrations, in this case by providing a parallel structure with different ordinaries which can bypass the standard hierarchy if necessary.
Secondly, all the previous variants of this (including the Antiochene Eastern acceptance of an "Anglican" rite in the rite of St. Tikhon) have tended to take the standard Western Rite as a norm (i.e. the Missals which were a product of the Anglo-Catholic movement) and in particular the Gregorian Canon. If this means accepting the BCP -- the English BCP, or maybe the 1927 book and its cousins -- as a sufficiently Catholic rite to stand alongside the ancient rites of East and West, then it's a different ball game. This may be an echo of a shift at Rome around the narrower question of the Novus Ordo versus the Tridentine Rite where there is no longer the emphasis on there being one and only one acceptable rite which was the strong line under Paul VI and John Paul II. It may have some interesting implications regarding recognition of the forms of nonstandard rites, in that case.
Thirdly, it's a little hard to see exactly who this is aimed at. Serious Anglo-Catholics don't want the BCP -- they would be an audience for an Elizabethan-language Tridentine Rite with decent music, but most of them have been ignoring the BCP for the last century in favour of the Western Rite in one form or another. As one blogger put it, "The Society of the Holy Cross and forward in Faith in the UK, for example, consist mostly of priests whose views on the Anglican Liturgy vary from “Quite a nice little Tudor Communion Service” to “nasty Protestant invention”." (see http://saintclementsblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/roman-catholic-anglican-rite/).
If it's the case that the rite with Anglican elements is essentially the English Missal -- and the phrasing is consistent with this: "while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony" -- then it makes more sense, but it would then appeal mainly to a smallish core of non-Affirming Anglo-Catholics. However, it would be consistent with the traditional Roman approach to reunion -- that it is to be encouraged by leaving it open for the dissidents to return piecemeal. (It would be a nice umbrella for the TAC churches, who have been pushing for reunion, to manage reunion with Rome under, but they aren't exactly a major bloc.)
Protestants won't go to Rome and already have their own Network. Even in England, most of the seriously disaffected ACs have already left for Rome, or they've become less disaffected and at least decided to try to live with their Affirming Catholic confreres. But except as a stalking horse for better music and liturgy in Rome, it doesn't seem to me to be a winner. I mean, if you have a choice between Brompton Oratory or Westminster Cathedral and an "Anglican Rite" church with OK music somewhere in London, the choice isn't hard to make, now, is it? On the other hand, if the "Anglican Rite" church in a provincial town does Byrd, Tallis and Weelkes and the normal Roman church does guitar masses, the choice is reversed, but it would be just as reversed if the alternative were a Tridentine Rite mass with Victoria and Palestrina. Cardinal Levada has guessed at the scale of crossovers as being in the hundreds, which sounds about right.
There are a couple of interesting things about this.
First, it seems to me that the measure is as much aimed at the Roman hierarchy as at the Anglican Church. It's been possible for years to have "Anglican Rite" (usually the English or Anglican Missal) churches for disaffected Anglicans; I knew a group in Toronto who were asking for one. However, the local bishops were rarely enthusiastic and tended to do a good imitation of a brick wall. (This was similar to the situation with regard to Tridentine Rite services.) As with the Tridentine Rite rules, this now effectively bypasses the bishops -- in the TR case by setting up automatic rules for allowing the celebrations, in this case by providing a parallel structure with different ordinaries which can bypass the standard hierarchy if necessary.
Secondly, all the previous variants of this (including the Antiochene Eastern acceptance of an "Anglican" rite in the rite of St. Tikhon) have tended to take the standard Western Rite as a norm (i.e. the Missals which were a product of the Anglo-Catholic movement) and in particular the Gregorian Canon. If this means accepting the BCP -- the English BCP, or maybe the 1927 book and its cousins -- as a sufficiently Catholic rite to stand alongside the ancient rites of East and West, then it's a different ball game. This may be an echo of a shift at Rome around the narrower question of the Novus Ordo versus the Tridentine Rite where there is no longer the emphasis on there being one and only one acceptable rite which was the strong line under Paul VI and John Paul II. It may have some interesting implications regarding recognition of the forms of nonstandard rites, in that case.
Thirdly, it's a little hard to see exactly who this is aimed at. Serious Anglo-Catholics don't want the BCP -- they would be an audience for an Elizabethan-language Tridentine Rite with decent music, but most of them have been ignoring the BCP for the last century in favour of the Western Rite in one form or another. As one blogger put it, "The Society of the Holy Cross and forward in Faith in the UK, for example, consist mostly of priests whose views on the Anglican Liturgy vary from “Quite a nice little Tudor Communion Service” to “nasty Protestant invention”." (see http://saintclementsblog.wordpress.com/2009/10/20/roman-catholic-anglican-rite/).
If it's the case that the rite with Anglican elements is essentially the English Missal -- and the phrasing is consistent with this: "while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony" -- then it makes more sense, but it would then appeal mainly to a smallish core of non-Affirming Anglo-Catholics. However, it would be consistent with the traditional Roman approach to reunion -- that it is to be encouraged by leaving it open for the dissidents to return piecemeal. (It would be a nice umbrella for the TAC churches, who have been pushing for reunion, to manage reunion with Rome under, but they aren't exactly a major bloc.)
Protestants won't go to Rome and already have their own Network. Even in England, most of the seriously disaffected ACs have already left for Rome, or they've become less disaffected and at least decided to try to live with their Affirming Catholic confreres. But except as a stalking horse for better music and liturgy in Rome, it doesn't seem to me to be a winner. I mean, if you have a choice between Brompton Oratory or Westminster Cathedral and an "Anglican Rite" church with OK music somewhere in London, the choice isn't hard to make, now, is it? On the other hand, if the "Anglican Rite" church in a provincial town does Byrd, Tallis and Weelkes and the normal Roman church does guitar masses, the choice is reversed, but it would be just as reversed if the alternative were a Tridentine Rite mass with Victoria and Palestrina. Cardinal Levada has guessed at the scale of crossovers as being in the hundreds, which sounds about right.
