Monday, 21 November 2011

One - and only one - further comment on Anglo-Catholics continuing to use Roman liturgies.
I still think the traditional justification for using the Roman Rite (just) holds good
(see a previous post), given this is merely a 'corrected' translation of the same Latin original.* 
But if those who are using it have definitively rejected any vision of reunion with Peter, then we have a new situation altogether. I suppose, liturgically, those who fall into that category should immediately start to grapple with the verbose but doctrinally minimalist ambiguities of Common Worship.

But, theologically, it really is coming to a choice between the urgent reunion of the once undivided Catholic Church and the liberal synagogue, although the latter may well be theistically too conservative for many of our fellow Anglicans.

*Merely? Given the changes, of course, much more significant in terms of liturgical culture than 'merely,' and much more significant for those used to a more dignified and reverent liturgical language.


  1. My concern is that it's not just about using the new words of the Eucharistic Prayers but changing all the "and also with you" to "and with your spirit" in addition to the words of the Gloria and Creed, the invitation to communion, the "Domine non sum dignus" etc etc. It changes the whole ethos of the service so that can no longer be called an Anglican service, 'suitable amended'. I think that +London is correct in his opinion - but, as a member of the Ordinariate, I would!!!

  2. Thanks for that important point. As someone who is more of the "suitably-amended / supplemented" school and still using traditional language for the Sunday Mass, I can't really comment on that. I would be very interested in hearing the views of those Anglo-Catholics who are going to remain Anglican for the foreseeable future and who nevertheless intend to use the English 3rd edition of the Roman Missal wholesale.
    My real question about +London was more about timing and motivation than the abandonment of ICEL texts.


Anonymous comments will not be published