Back to that ‘recent publication’ by one of the Catholic Societies…

“The Church Kalendar reminds us of the rhythm of feast and fast. Observe that the Rule bids us to participate in the liturgical celebration of the Eucharist, without specifically enjoining us to receiving Holy Communion. Prayerfully to refrain from receiving the Blessed Sacrament during Lent or Advent might be a fruitful spiritual devotion”.

When is it appropriate to abstain from receiving Holy Communion? Both the Anglican and Roman Catholic traditions seem to suggest that consciousness of a grave sin, or having failed to make the necessary preparations, are the only reasons why one might attend a celebration of the Eucharist and not receive the Sacrament (assuming that one is in Communion with the Priest celebrating and the Bishop on whose behalf he is presiding). In the Orthodox Church the Liturgy includes the dismissal of the Catechumens (those not yet admitted to Eucharistic fellowship) after the Liturgy of the Word and there is some suggestion that, in years past, those not intending to receive Communion at an Anglican celebration according to the 1662 Prayer Book would absent themselves after the Ante-Communion (though I understand that this was frowned upon).

It was public knowledge that those who were preparing for reception into the Roman Catholic Church via the Ordinariate were asked to attend Mass after the Rite of Election but not to partake of the Sacrament before being received into full Communion with the See of Rome, but this is standard for adults undergoing the RCIA. In the Church of England, the Prayer Book allows for those who are ‘desirest’ to be Confirmed to receive Holy Communion (assuming that they have been Baptised) and it is well known that Cranmer favoured, and sought to encourage, more frequent Communion. Non-communicating High Masses disappeared with the advent of the Parish Communion movement so why the sudden interest in Eucharistic Fasting? After a quick flick through the Catechism of the (Roman) Catholic Church, all I could find was the following…

1388 It is in keeping with the very meaning of the Eucharist that the faithful, if they have the required dispositions,²²¹ receive communion when they participate in the Mass.²²² As the Second Vatican Council says: “That more perfect form of participation in the Mass whereby the faithful, after the priest’s communion, receive the Lord’s Body from the same sacrifice, is warmly recommended.”²²³

1389 The Church obliges the faithful to take part in the Divine Liturgy on Sundays and feast days and, prepared by the sacrament of Reconciliation, to receive the Eucharist at least once a year, if possible during the Easter season.²²⁴ But the Church strongly encourages the faithful to receive the holy Eucharist on Sundays and feast days, or more often still, even daily.

Am I missing something here? Apart from the reasons stated above, is it appropriate that we should attend Mass and not recieve the physical and spiritual nourishment that is Christ’s gift to us of himself in the Eucharist?

Hybald

If last year marked the ‘parting of friends’ then perhaps this year was something of a ‘renewal’ as those who, for the moment, have decided to stay (together with one or two Ordinariate folk) made their way to Walsingham for the Anglican National Pilgrimage. The all important ‘numbers’ held steady and the predicted ‘gaps’ were conspicuous by their absence. The Mass was good, the mood was upbeat, the rain was merciful and Benediction from the site of the original Holy House was very special indeed. As the silver ’950′ balloons headed up into the sky a round of applause followed and the crowds gravitated towards the Bull. Curiously the Protestant protesters seemed to have called it a day already as the procession had stopped short of the Village pump and headed back into the Abbey grounds.  For me personally, it all felt special again and left me wondering if maybe, just maybe, the future isn’t quite as bleak as some are making out?

Hybald

The latest newsletter from one of the Catholic Societies reached Hibaldstow this morning and it included the following:

“Those who join the Ordinariate must be supportive of those who remain in the Church of England to work for that honoured position; just as those who remain in the Church of England must be supportive of those who join the Ordinariate.”

A noble suggestion, but how exactly does it work? So far I know that various (Anglican) Catholic Societies have given money to the Ordinariate and some (former) clergy have been allowed to remain in their Parsonage Houses until July. Certainly, those who have joined the Ordinariate have ‘left much behind’ but they are now a part of the Roman Catholic Church – they are no longer Anglicans and, as previously stated, their (re)Confirmations and (re)Ordinations raise doubts that any kind of ‘equality of status’ can continue to exist between them and those who remain in the Church of England above and beyond our common Baptism (which some have been quick to acknowledge). Mutual support naturally requires some degree of ‘mutuality’ and I can’t help but wonder what kind of ’mutuality’ can or does exist between the two groups, other than a sense of ’shared history’?

Having acknowledged the people (and money) that have crossed the Tiber I can’t help but wonder ‘how’ the Ordinariate can hope to ‘support’ those who are staying in the C of E? What does it do for us? Yes, it puts flesh on the bones of the Apostolic Constitution, but if that wasn’t your cup of tea in the first place then what else can it do for you? The various Ordinariate Blogs appear to do little more than tell us how wonderful it all is, how terrible it all was, what it feels like to ‘come home’ and then urge us to join in the much-talked-of ‘second wave’.

Don’t get me wrong, I wish those who have joined the Ordinariate the very best for the future and rejoice that they have found somewhere that is right for them. But the ‘parting of friends’ is just that and one wonders if a bit of ‘distance’ might not be a positive thing even if it means some of the Catholic Societies ‘going to the wall’? By and large, the Roman Catholic Church does a wonderful job of supporting those who join it and I have to ask if Ordinariate Catholics really need the support of those they’ve left behind above and beyond our continued friendship, prayers and admiration?

We shouldn’t forget those Anglican Parishes that are now struggling financially and numerically (not to mention emotionally) having lost Priests and people to the Ordinariate. I can’t help but wonder if they are the ones who need our help and  support, while the Ordinariate remains free to grow and develop under the wing (and watchful eye) of the Mother Church of Western Christendom?

Hybald

The publication of the new English translation of the Roman Missal, in many ways closer in style to trad-language Anglican rites, has caused something of a dilemma amongst Anglo-catholic clergy. Elements of the 1974 Missal blended easily with the ASB and CW while common(ish) texts for the Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Lord’s Prayer and Agnus Dei allowed for cross-fertilisation in music and a degree of ecumenical familiarity / consensus.

But now all that has come to an end.

Some clergy will no doubt embrace the new Missal in its entirety while others will try to cherry-pick elements they feel they can use (the new RC Post Communion Collects are far superior to the muddled and root-less CW offerings).

But the loss of those staple ‘common texts’ raises the question of whether Anglo-catholics can (and should) use the new Missal as it sets them adrift (at least liturgically) from what goes on in neighbouring Anglican Parishes and even from the Anglican Communion at large.

Some ‘Roman Rite’ Anglican Parishes have indicated that they will cease to be so from Advent and instead opt for what we might call the ‘Walsingham / ACS’ adaptation of CW (retaining some elements of the 1974 Missal) together with the RCL / CW Lectionary.

Could this signal a new-dawn for Anglican ‘Common Prayer’ or will the publication of new Roman Missal signal a further fragmentation within post-Ordinariate Anglo-catholicism?

Hybald

The ‘mixed emotions’ continue as Catholics, Anglicans and soon-to-be Ordinariate Catholics gathered at Westminster Cathedral as part of the the Walsingham 950 celebrations. The photos included at least two of the former PEVs, the former Walsingham sisters, together with the Priest Administrator, the Vicar of Walsingham and some of the Anglican Guardians in procession. Not having been there, I can’t speculate as to whether the atmosphere was something akin to a new sense of solidarity and cooperation or if it felt rather uneasy. Of all the photos from the Mass the image that struck me was that of the RC image of OLW flanked in the background by two clergymen in Anglican choir dress (see opposite). It reminded me of Michael Yelton’s biography of Alfred Hope Pattern and how, in many ways, it was the unique nature of Anglicanism in this country that allowed a maverick like Hope Pattern to re-establish devotion to Our Lady and in doing so to provide the catalyst for Walsingham to become what we see today.

All of this leaves me wondering if such things can, or could, ever happen again now that the Ordinariate has been established and the future for Anglo-Catholics in the Church of England seems so bleak? Will it be possible for the popular imagination to be captured again in such away or will we sail into uncertain futures bricked-up in our little ghettos? Will the Ordinariate really be able to reach out beyond it’s own constituency or further than the remnant of Anglo-Catholicism in the CofE? Will the Catholic minority that remains have the confidence to continue to make bold and brash statements that draw attention to the Catholic inheritance of the Church of England be it at Walsingham or as part of an Assembly at the local non-Church School?

When the dust has settled I feel sure that some may feel that they have got what they wanted, but will those beyond the arguments and the aforementioned ecclesiastical communities still be getting at least some of what we used so eagerly to provide?

Hybald

Questions have been raised recently about the nature and efficiency of Anglican Orders in the wake of the re-ordinations of the former (and retired) PEVs. Letters to Church papers, official statements, homilies and various blogs have each put a different ‘spin’ on this issue, but the photos of former clergy wearing collars and ties from whom many have received Communion, absolution and even Ordination is bound to produce strong feelings .

The ever-watchful Bishop Colin Buchanan has raised the question of ‘how’ and ‘when’ those leaving the Priesthood within the Church of England effectively ‘laicised’ themselves and how ‘Sacramental  assurance’ can be argued for so passionately on the one hand only (and ultimately) to be denied by submitting to re-ordination.  He may have a point. The donning of the aforementioned collars and ties after final Anglican masses, the ‘laying up’ of Churchwarden’s staves and Bishop’s crosiers before statues is certainly romantic, but no one seems terribly willing or able to articulate the underlying truth that it inevitably conveys.

Yes, former ‘ministries’ have been acknowledged and commended but what it really boils down to is the question of whether an Anglican Priest is (or was) a validly ordained Priest? To that question there can only ever be one simple answer: ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. So which is it to be? Perhaps we should all have a little more sympathy for the way that Politicians often avoid giving straight answers to questions like these! Please don’t misunderstand me, I’m not deliberately knocking those who have made this decision but, should I ever go the same way, I would want to be honest about what I was (or wasn’t) doing and what the ramifications were for myself and for others.

St Hybald