Free Republic

"I read several paragraphs, and didn't see what the Use of Sarum was, what the benefits was, or what problem it would help."

When attempts to restore Sarum (pre-Reformation English rite) were made, it was generally the 19th century and the general mood was Romanticism and nostalgia for the medieval era.

I frankly see little point today of restoring Sarum, because first of all you need a minimum of "culture" around it, and it just won't wash with modernity or post-modernity, even among "fogeys". A good question to ask is whether our nostalgics of today would be prepared to go back to medieval penitential discipline and general conditions of life in the 15th century (fanatical inquisitors and all).

You also need the liturgical books and clergy who know the ceremonies. Everything is well documented, and "reconstructions" have been performed in various churches in England and Scotland. It has historical and aesthetic value.

What about the liturgy of the future in an Anglican context, or that of a part of Anglicanism in communion with Rome. I think the Anglican Use is on the right track, but it needs revision to remove the influence of the Novus Ordo - for example the Offertory prayers. The Sarum or Dominican prayers could go in the place of the Novus Ordo formulas. The three-year lectionary is a positive development and is widely used in the TAC to which I belong.

I have always felt that the Tridentine Rite is not really the thing for an Anglican context, and in the Roman Church it did need reform. The problem is that it didn't get the right kind of reform. The subject is too vast to expound upon here.

The real issue is that Christianity is in a critical situation. There are Christians who need to continue to sustain their faith with traditional liturgies. The Church also has the job of evangelising, and liturgies have little role to play there - not with the kind of people who haven't discounted belief in Christ, but who would never set foot in a church.

We have this vocation if all Catholic and Orthodox Christianity is not to go the way of Sarum.

Fr. Anthony Chadwick

Many thanks for re-posting my old article on the Use of Sarum. Many attempts have been made to restore it, but nothing has remained. Pity. Perhaps someone could consider publishing usable liturgical books in Latin.

We'll have to keep tuned in to the Reform of the Reform.

Fr. Anthony Chadwick

It sounds to me as if this guy needs to see a good spiritual director rather than flaunt his feelings to the world. I wonder if he has been influenced by the "gay lobby" and that they're making a mouthpiece of him. I too find it difficult to believe that he is going through puberty at 27, or he must have big problems!

Fr. Anthony

It's a problem of apologetics. You repeat "EENS" to the man in the street, until the cows come home, and he'll look at you as if you come from Mars. You don't start with arguments and polemics, but with the beauty of the Mass and having others see in your life the lives of the Saints - then one might get somewhere. But it's not for you to do this, but for your church to be open and put on something that will inspire people: Mass, Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, Vespers, etc. - just the things missing in blogs and forums.

God bless!

Fr. Anthony

Why not just become Catholics? Great idea! Why didn't everyone think of that? So simple!

The fact that many people don't become Catholics is because they think they have a good reason not to do so. Perhaps some do have a good reason. Who knows?

You could start by helping to make the Catholic Church more attractive... Give it a go, and others may follow.

Fr. Anthony

"Both are Continuing churches."

I wouldn't deny it.

Fr. Anthony

Archbishop John-Charles Vockler is the head of the "Anglican Catholic Church", which is an independent Continuing Anglican Church, and not part of the "Traditional Anglican Communion" (why not, I don't know). The "Anglican Catholic Church" is a large and respected organization in its own right.

There are other and smaller Continuing Anglican groups, some well established and stable, and other are more "doubtful".

Fr. Anthony

Here are some of my reflections about this article. I note the conflicting opinions such as "whether one agrees with the Orthodox or Catholic points in the theological divide, these observations about the nature of the divide itself and some of the very real problems in the Catholic Church are extremely insightful". Another critic said "This article is sheer balderdash. To portray the Western Church as chaotic and the Eastern Church as settled is to fly in the face of 2000 years of history". In the light of these criticisms, we begin to read a different "golden thread" into this article.

The real issue is what constitutes the unity of the Church. Let us leave the Eastern Orthodox to one side for the moment and consider the conflicts within Roman Catholicism. The "neo-conservative" would say, "Unity means primacy of Rome, period", meaning that if you are subject to a diocesan bishop in canonical union with the Pope, you are a Catholic. Otherwise you are outside the Church however orthodox you are in terms of your profession of faith. The traditionalist, however, would say that the bishops, patriarchs and the Pope can create the conditions in which faithful Catholics are legitimately forced to adopt an "independent" position in order to preserve the unity of the Faith and the Sacraments. The writer of the article clearly understands the issues of Tradition and Authority, but clouds this understanding with other and less appropriate terms. The purpose of authority in the Church is to uphold Tradition, and this is what Archbishop Lefebvre and others have said all along.

The author resumes everything in two words, unity and chaos, political conformity under a single authority or a kind of ecclesial anarchy. Is political conformity to institutional authority the only criterion of the unity of the Catholic Church, as some Orthodox would maintain? No, certainly not, because Catholics - at least those who have not embraced some heresy - remain as united in the doctrine of the faith and the Sacraments to the same degree as any Orthodox. Have the Orthodox patriarchs and bishops absolutely no authority or rules by which they govern their flocks? Orthodox priests are also disciplined by their bishops if they fall into heresy or fail in the disciplinary standards expected of them.

Thus, we cannot see this problem in a absolute and dualistic way. It is a question of degree. The Orthodox may seem less interested in organisation and authority, and the Roman Catholics (at least the "run-of-the-mill") may seem less interested in Tradition and the contemplative life. The article author maintains that the Orthodox see the Catholics as chaotic and vice versa. From the Orthodox point of view, "For them [the Catholics], the institution of the church is the main thing. If the church would enforce its teachings, some adherents say, there would be unity. The Orthodox respond: But faith must be organic. If you have to force people to it, you've already lost the battle; that wouldn't be unity at all". Do you have to be Eastern Orthodox to hold this conviction? The traditionalist phenomenon is evidence that a Roman Catholic's profession of faith is not conditioned by the degree of constraint to which he is submitted. We believe the Church's doctrine, not because anyone forces us to do so, but because we are convinced that it is true. I certainly need no constraint to force me to believe in the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, the Virgin Birth, the Seven Sacraments and so forth!

Much of this bickering between Orthodox and Roman Catholics is due to deep-seated prejudice on both sides, and not on account of real differences. Many traditional Catholics are forced to relativise the primacy of the Pope when something like the post-Vatican II crisis and the pontificates of Paul VI and John Paul II happens. In this, how are we different from the Eastern Orthodox, at least in practical terms, whilst assenting to the teaching of the Council of Trent and Vatican I?

The key to reconciliation between the Roman Catholic Church and the various Orthodox Churches of the East will be understanding within our own Churches the relationship between Tradition and Authority. If indeed the Pope is dispensed from his purpose of upholding orthodoxy and Tradition, then the Orthodox would be right, but this is not the case. The issue is therefore, not an issue of unity against chaos, but the relationship between authority and tradition that is present to differing degrees in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism. The fallacies must be stripped away so that the essential issues can be seen.

We have seen the mechanisms of divisions between Christians in our own ranks. Typically, a big unjustice is committed by an authority against a group that is differing on account of a refusal to change, and having good reasons for this refusal - Paul VI in regard to Archbishop Lefebvre, the Old Catholics refusing what they perceived to be a theological novelty - right the way back in history. For how long were Christians expected to tolerate corrupt Popes and bishops before they revolted, fell into heresy, and produced Protestantism in the sixteenth century? The Council of Trent closed the stable door after the horse had bolted. When these divisions occur, they usually have to be justified in theological terms. This happened with the Orthodox, the Protestants, the Old Catholics - and the traditionalists and sedevacantists are no exception. The same mechanism worked in exactly the same way.

For me, unity means admitting the real causes of divisions between Christians and firmy placing the authority of the Pope, patriarchs, archbishops and bishops in the service of upholding orthodoxy and Tradition. We have then to escape the stereotypes and prejudice, and look at these matters head-on. When we begin the perceive reality, and not the figments of our imaginations, then progress may be made.

Fr. Anthony

Correction: Having taken another look at this "position statement" concerning the Holy Father, it is clear that Novus Ordo Watch is not "close to sedevacantism" but clearly sedevacantist. I have no sympathy for their position.

Fr. Anthony

I said "close to sedevacantism" as an understatement, because I am not completely certain of the state of mind of the "Novus Ordo Watch" people (though I am very nearly sure). I totally disagree with them about their denial of the validity of the Novus Ordo Sacraments. It is my hope that Pope Benedict will restore the old rites for the Mass and the Sacraments - but I do believe the new rite to be valid.

Fr. Anthony

I have known about "Novus Ordo Watch" for a few years, and once found their comments such as "Jaw Drop" (reacting to some liturgical abuse) mildly amusing.

They now seem close to the sedevacantist position (those who say that there has been no valid Pope since the death of Pius XII in 1958). There are other sites even worse calling Pope Benedict XVI "Fr. Ratzinger" - expressing a "certitude" that the new rites of the Sacraments are invalid.

I am a "marginal" cleric myself, but I recognize Benedict XVI to be the Pope of the Catholic Church, and I have a considerable amount of esteem and respect for him. Many of the Novus Ordo Watch comments, and those of other organizations and site, are exaggerated, and often inaccurate, or simply quoted out of context.

Just my two cents...

Fr. Anthony

Hello,

Yes, I prefer to be honest about my own standing. I have not given all my details in my brief posting, nor do I think I should. That is why I said I am prepared to answer questions by private mail.

Concerning the person(s) to whom you make oblique allusions, I am left confused, since I am new to this forum. I only discovered its existence a couple of weeks ago because someone quoted an article from my website last May.

If you think I should know more about this "en clair", please write to me privately using the address you will find in my website (URL at the reference to my article followed by this string of replies).

Fr. Anthony

Here goes. I was in the Institute of Christ the King until 1995 and received the diaconate from Cardinal Palazzini. As the ICR is limited in being able to position the priests it ordained, some clerics are "deep frozen" and finally "deep sixed". I soldiered on for more than two years in a semi-Novus Ordo parish in France.

I decided to leave and join a Continuing Anglican group in England, and was thus sanctioned by CIC 1983 can. 694 - this I knew about only after I left the group and returned to my old superior as a "Prodigal Son".

Nothing was done for me despite my having accomplished a canonical penance, and I stayed with a traditional French parish priest for a couple of years. He advised me that the best course of action was to approach one of the "Thuc-line" bishops. I was ordained a priest in 1998.

I have been an "unchurched cleric" ever since, and dedicate my life to prayer, study, writing, earning my living and remaining faithful to my profession of faith and daily round of Mass and Office.

Perhaps I should have done things a different way, but like the man with one leg - I have had to learn to live with it. Perhaps one day, the Pope will grant me his forgiveness and allow me to serve the Lord's vineyard humbly - hope keeps us going.

Read my reflections on my site, and I think you will see that I avoid behaving like most of the "vagante" clergy. I have God's Judgement to face!

If you want more information, you can always write to me privately. I have nothing to hide.

Fr. Anthony

Many thanks for the explanation. Fr. John Chadwick is not related to my family, and I don't know him.

I have looked up some of your posts - you have a reasonable way of thinking, and you would be welcome to write to me by e-mail (you'll find the address on my website). I think I understand you better. I admire your fidelity to the Church, even if life isn't always simple.

You may be amused that I have renamed my "blog" "Ramblings of an Unchurched Cleric". I have known a few "vagantes" myself (English understatement :-)) - and they are not always very pleasant people!

I am a lot less sensitive about these things than I used to be. Being an "irregular" priest is like having a leg missing - you learn to live with it.

Regards,

Fr. Anthony

Many thanks for your welcome. You are welcome to find my e-mail address, and for us to get to know each other.

AJC

"I do know of a certain Fr. Chadwick who deserted his Parish last year in order to shack up with a woman without so much as a by your leave to his bishop - nobody knows where he is at the moment though!!!"

I want to be clear that I know nothing of this. I should also point out that "ad hominem" attacks, against myself or anyone else, are not admitted on this Forum according to its rules.

I am prepared to give explanations by private e-mail to show my good-will and sincerity.

AJC

I have not claimed to be a Catholic priest.

AJC

Not the same person. I have never been with a parish priest.

AJC

Yes, same person.

AJC

My http://romanliturgy.net site has been moved to http://perso.wanadoo.fr/civitas.dei/

Please update your browser bookmarks.

Fr. Anthony Chadwick