Does Anglican patrimony include fiddleback chasubles? If this question means nothing, do not despair, for it is the ecclesiastical equivalent of an interest that rivet-counters or gricers take in the wheel arrangement of locomotives (2-4-0, and so on).
Anglican patrimony is a thing that the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham is supposed to express within the Roman Catholic Church in England. It is exemplified by Coverdale’s translation of the Psalms, which is used at Evensong in Ordinariate churches.
The Ordinariate does not yet have its own Communion service (Eucharistic liturgy) or Missal. For this purpose work is being done to revise the Book of Divine Worship. That book is used by Roman Catholics in America who follow the Anglican use; it is based on the American Book of Common Prayer. These waters are complicated, like the Thames at Oxford, with backwaters and hidden streams.
And while we ponder the role of Anglican patrimony within the Ordinariates, Fr. Anthony Chadwick as an interesting post pondering Anglican patrimony for Continuing Anglicanism and how touched by the Reformation it can or should be.
If conciliar Catholicism were better known, conciliar as in the reforming Council of Constance placing the Episcopate over the Pope acting alone, this would be far more healthy than being hidebound to Reformation formularies. With a conciliar Catholic approach, we can have the Bible and the liturgy in the vernacular, keep popular religion and the taste for miracles and wonders in check, keep the clergy from becoming corrupt, get the laity to learn their catechism and develop an interest for more advanced doctrinal, historical, spiritual and liturgical study, and so forth. The problem with Protestant Augustinianism is that is is too narrow, like asking a great French chef to cook a fabulous meal with only one saucepan, a pound of potatoes and water. I prefer people like the Methodists with their high church theology and low church services to having to be narrow in one’s theological vision and then “playing at religion” by doing high services without any underlying justification. Did not some of the Reformers lament abominations of popish masses?
Another objection to Protestantism is that it was a reaction against a very specific situation in history. Since the sixteenth century and up to our own times, there have been changes. In Roman Catholicism, the issues involving corruption and superstition were addressed by the Council of Trent and the Counter Reformation. There was the dispute between Jesuits and Jansenists which cleared many of the difficulties surrounding Augustinian theology. Then, from the nineteenth century, there is a whole movement in theology, ecclesiology, church history and historical criticism leading to the Ressourcement, the appeal to the Fathers of the Church. With exposure to that kind of theology, who wants to return to sixteenth-century pseudo-scholastic polemics which were as narrow and asinine from the Roman point of view as from the Reformers? One who has seen sunlight will not return to live in the cave and see only shadows and imaginations. What we would like to continue is colour, beauty, diversity and joy.
All very interesting.
Meanwhile, last night I attended a lecture by David Lyle Jeffrey on the reliability of modern Scriptural translations. The event was put on by the new Ottawa Theological College, a school that seems to be largely the efforts of evangelical Anglicans who broke away more recently from the Canterbury Communion over the authority of Scripture (the real issue behind the gay marriage/actively gay clergy debate which is the tip of the iceberg of the authority problem).
It was good to be with these people last night and David Lyle Jeffrey’s lecture was superb —and in some ways I am much more comfortable with a Bible-believing, evangelical Anglican who tries to the best of his or her conscience to submit to God’s teachings therein than I am with my more liberal Catholic brothers and sisters who are steeped in modernism and secularism perhaps without even realizing how much so they are.