This Holy Faith: Being Anglican in the Catholic Church

Former Anglican Clergyman now married Catholic priest, Fr John Hodgins, explains: the Personal Ordinariates, clerical celibacy, stumbling blocks to becoming Catholic and more. Basically everything you need to know.

 

6 minutes Good discription regarding the nature of the Ordinariates

7 minute mark Married Clergy

10 minute mark- stumbling blocks people have to becoming Catholic

Between 10-20 minute mark- the relationship between the Ordinariate liturgy and the Roman Rite (including how elements of the English liturgy tradition are older than elements of the Extraordinary Form).

22-30 mark: discussing Thomas Crammer and John Cardinal Newman

 

30-45 mark: watch and find out!

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to This Holy Faith: Being Anglican in the Catholic Church

  1. tbako says:

    “including how the English liturgy is older than the Extraordinary” — just… no. I’ve heard this gratuitous “joke” in various quarters of the Ordinariate before, and it’s time for it to stop.

    Yes, the 1549 Prayer Book came before the Pian standardization of the Roman liturgy. But Cranmer’s work was a disruption, even if inspired partly by the medieval use of Sarum (along with his own inventions, and other sources like Cardinal Quignonez’s then-recent, unprecedentedly radical breviary reform, abrogated a few decades later).

    And Divine Worship as it stands today is itself only partly inspired 1549 and Sarum. In fact, our good Bishop Lopes himself stated that DW “is rooted in the ordinary form of the Roman Rite.” Heck, the calendar and lectionary, which are two essential components of the liturgy (arguably much more essential than outward ceremonial, comparable to one’s body versus his clothes), are both based substantially on the whole-cloth inventions of Bugnini’s Consilium!

    The Pian reform after Trent, on the other hand, was extremely conservative, in some ways even reactionary, and preserved the substantial continuity of the Roman Mass, in its core dating back to at least Gregory the Great. When Fr Hodgins says here that “our liturgy is older than the Tridentine, because our prayers have been in use before Trent,” that seems to imply the ridiculous notion that Pius V was some proto-Bugnini who wrote a brand-new liturgy and prayers, when nothing could be further from the truth! In fact, one of the hallmarks of the Tridentine-era “reform” was precisely the suppression of the Quignonez Breviary for being in substantial discontinuity with the then-millennium-old essence of the Roman Rite.

    So, no: Divine Worship is not in any way “older than the Tridentine Mass,” certainly not as a general statement. Some elements (e.g. communion under both kinds)? Sure. But as a whole, DW is a latter-day eclectic synthesis-by-committee of some very old, some moderately old, and some drastically new elements. And don’t get me wrong, I love and appreciate it for what it is. I see it as a constructive synthesis to a lot of sterile liturgical debate in the Latin church over the last 50 years. And, in fact, I personally prefer it to any other western form of the liturgy in current use (although I do wish we could have aligned with the traditional Roman calendar and either the Roman or at least the old BCP lectionary… alas). But let’s stop making unnecessary and unhistorical statements about it. It doesn’t help the Ordinariate in the long run.

    Like

    • tbako says:

      I appreciate your edits to the main post in response to my comment. I think the new wording represents the historical reality (or my admittedly limited understanding of it, anyway) much better.

      Like

    • Rev22:17 says:

      The Divine Worship liturgy is regarded as a form of the Roman Rite because, historically, it’s another branch of the same tree. The Sarum liturgy, which has strong parallels with the use of Rouen (Normandy) of the time, was basically an adaptation of the Roman Rite of the eleventh century — and it is one of the principal sources for the Divine Worship liturgy. The eucharistic liturgy in Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer was, in many ways, evolutionary: it inserted a few prayers of profound spirituality at various points in the mass of the Sarum liturgy, and may have rearranged the peripheral elements, while retaining the essential elements with only minor edits that would not invalidate anything in the rite itself.* The mainstream of the Roman Rite, meanwhile, continued to evolve until the Tridentine reform cast it… well, not quite concrete, but certainly in very thick mud (the most recent change to the Tridentine missal was in 1962, when Pope John XXIII inserted the mention of St. Joseph into the anaphora) and abrogated many of the other western uses (but the Mozarabic Rite and the Ambrosian Rite survived).

      I also think that you are misconstruing Bishop Lopes’s comment about the relationship between the Divine Worship missal and the ordinary form of the Roman Missal. The former is governed by the same general instructions as the latter, but it does not draw its prayers or other texts from the latter.

      Norm.

      * — The more consequential change in Anglican liturgy occurred in the rites of ordination, which, according to the papal bull Apostolicae curae promulgated by Pope Leo XIII in 1896, rendered Anglican ordinations, and thus Anglican sacraments other than baptism and marriage, “absolutely null and utterly void.”

      Like

      • tbako says:

        “It does not draw its prayers or other texts from the latter” — as I noted in my original comment, two major, essential components that make up any liturgy, namely, the biblical lectionary and the calendar, are both based on the drastically reformed Roman Rite, and have nothing to do with either Sarum or the usus antiquior of Rome. That ain’t exactly peanuts, and also spills into other things like Gospel canticle antiphons in the Office. And of course there are other novel features as well (e.g. the 1970 offertory prayers, and the dewfall-on-the-Trastevere anaphora [aka EP 2]) that are imported as options in the DW. Note, I’m not here passing judgment on these elements. My sole point is that, yes, Divine Worship is a mix of very old, moderately old, and pretty darn new elements. So taken as a whole, it’s not “older than the Extraordinary Form.”

        Like

      • Simon Dennerly says:

        Of course no body said Divine Worship is older than the Extraordinary Form…..

        Like

      • tbako says:

        “[Divine Worship] is the traditional Mass of the Latin Church, in fact we like to say it’s older than the Tridentine, because it goes back before Trent” — Fr. Hodgins

        In any case, I already explained my original objection and appreciated your clarification/edit to the post, so I’m not entirely sure why we continue rehashing it. It is not my intention to hog the comment thread on an otherwise great interview for a single point, so this will be my last comment on the matter.

        Like

  2. Simon Dennerly says:

    Hello Tom, I never said Divine Worship is older than the Extraordinary Form and respectfully I disagree to some of your statements. I do admit the comment you have taken exception too was a loose note when I was listening to the video (to give a loose outline of subject and time), and was posted as loose notes, but I should have cleaned up before posting (I have made an edit).

    But having done a recent liturgical project requiring an analysis of the Sarum Use, the 1549 Book of Common Prayer and Divine Worship- and in terms of language and form there is remarkable continuity in the English Liturgical Tradition (which was the term stated in the loose note, I did not say Divine Worship). I do not like that the Reformation happened as well, but the date of the First BCP and Crammer do historical predate what clearly became the Extraordinary Form: that is a fact that cannot be discounted. Also Divine Worship more closely resembles the Extraordinary Form than the Ordinary Form (hence the misnomer “Extraordinary Form in English” which it is not- but I will say the EF should be able to be celebrated in English IMHO).

    So I do see your point, but it is responding to a claim I did not make- the English Liturgical Tradition is a major part of the Patrimony that the Ordinariates are there for.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Pam says:

    Fine interview. I notice in the closed captioning of the Blessing at the very end that ‘Peace’ is rendered as ‘Feast’, and the ‘Amen’ as ‘on him’.

    Like

  4. Pingback: VIDEO: Answering Misunderstandings to the ‘Anglican’ Ordinariates | Anglicanorum Coetibus Society Blog

  5. Pingback: A Warning from the Church of England | Anglicanorum Coetibus Society Blog

  6. Pingback: My Interview with Holy Faith TV | Anglicanorum Coetibus Society Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s