I'm sure you do - there is a certain Anglican-ness that is indelible. Same the other way round - our parish priest swam the Thames while in Rome, if you see what I mean. You couldn't get Rome out of him with a mangle. It is soaked into every fibre of his being.
Edited for clarity - I had omitted the key information.
It would depend what you mean by churches. When you have cases of churches with Sunday attendance of over 100 and a part time vicar only with a hinter land of multiple churches in vacancy...
Well, several of the A-C churches in this Diocese use the Roman rite for every service. Without wishing to go off on a tangent, I can only assume that they do this *because if it's Roman Catholic, it must be Right!*
Not really, some have Parish priests who were at a critical stage of formation when Common worship came out. They felt their liturgical concerns were ignored by the process. and when the Pope offered them the freedom to use the Roman Rite they adopted it. Quite often they will also use BCP, 1928, and English Missal to some extent but you could be forgiven for not deducing this by attending a normal sunday service. They are technically Common worship refusers, not really Roman Rite adopters. What it gave them was a modern coherent "authorised" rite that they felt they could use with there theological understanding. There personal reasons for doing so differ. Priests outside of that particular set within the the Society of St Wilfrid and St Hild both junior and senior hold a much broader liturgical practice including the selective use of Common Worship with additional material e.g. Marian devotions.
"authorised" - I am not clear what this means but it has been a major concern of some of them. I suspect that it has to do with their feeling that the process that by which Common Worship was authorised was lacking in some aspect but I do not know the niceties.
When did the Pope give Anglicans permission to use the Roman Rite? Where is the documentation? The Pope has no authority over the clergy of a different church.
When did the Pope give Anglicans permission to use the Roman Rite? Where is the documentation? The Pope has no authority over the clergy of a different church.
Yeah would be interested in this as well, as far as I know this only covered the various ordinates
When did the Pope give Anglicans permission to use the Roman Rite? Where is the documentation? The Pope has no authority over the clergy of a different church.
Yeah would be interested in this as well, as far as I know this only covered the various ordinates
That is the premise of the Ordinariate, which is why it really only works for American Anglo-Catholics, who prize their Book of Common Prayer as a precious jewel - as I understand it.
This is relevant to Welby because it shows what sort of a world the Archbishop of Canterbury lives in, and is supposed to be running without really having the power to direct most things. Influence, yes, but power? Relatively little, as I see it.
Rachel Treweek, the Bishop of Gloucester, has said the same: ""You know, this is a very, very difficult job - stepping into the structures that do need to change ... One of the things that this report and subsequent events has thrown up again is the very clunky governance we have within the Church of England". She apparently ruled herself out of the running.
Well, one did wonder if that might be the case ... at least, that she might want the job provided she will be allowed to dig into the CofE's structures and make changes. Problem is, the ABC isn't a Pope and doesn't have their authority.
Well, one did wonder if that might be the case ... at least, that she might want the job provided she will be allowed to dig into the CofE's structures and make changes. Problem is, the ABC isn't a Pope and doesn't have their authority.
That comparison is usually made with respect to the Anglican Communion rather than the CofE. The ABC has considerable authority within the CofE, especially within the province of Canterbury. They also have considerable control over General Synod agendas and timings.
When did the Pope give Anglicans permission to use the Roman Rite? Where is the documentation? The Pope has no authority over the clergy of a different church.
I do not know when the Pope said this, remember this is the mid 2000s prior to the Ordinariate. However, I see it as no more than the URC saying as it would "You are free to use our liturgy" to any clerics of other denominations who asked if they could. That does not authorise it within the CofE in my opinion but then I do not know what does anymore.
You see the URC does not have authorised liturgy, though basic requirement for a celebration of the Lord's supper are nearly always adhered to (gathering of the people, proclamation of the Word, words of institution, sharing of bread and wine). I understand how the BCP is Authorised by parliament and the Crown. I understand that 1928 revision failed to get through parliament. Everything since then has been handled so as to avoid a similar situation. This gives wiggle room for those of any colour and it has been used by all shades of Anglican. What has de facto come about is very much a similar situation to the URC in my opinion, where Common Worship can best be seen as an exemplar of what worship should be like. As time goes on and more initiatives such as cafe church and forest church take hold this will become more and more the case. It is not the either the Evangelicals with their preaching services nor the Anglo-Catholics who use the Roman rites, those are just the geeky odds and sods, I do not a mass take up of Roman rite nor of full scale evangelical preaching services about to come about. No what has stopped there being authorised liturgy is the behaviour of the middle of the road, average congregation and the way the Common Worship has been hacked to serve their situations and necessities.
You cannot move from one Anglican Church to another and expect to get the same liturgy. It is not like Rome where the Mass is the Mass is the Mass. You are more likely to get something similar if you flit between Nonconformist chapels with the Freedom of Worship, where you will get a structured hymn sandwich and monthly communion led by someone they judge to be a basically competent worship leader.
In other words, while I do not think that Roman Rite is authorised in the Church of England. I think the adherence to an authorised form in the Church of England is purely lip service now by all. There may be some prayer book Anglican Parishes but they are more eccentricities than the Evanglelical Preaching Services Parishes and the Roman Rite Anglo-Catholic ones.
In other words, while I do not think that Roman Rite is authorised in the Church of England. I think the adherence to an authorised form in the Church of England is purely lip service now by all. There may be some prayer book Anglican Parishes but they are more eccentricities than the Evanglelical Preaching Services Parishes and the Roman Rite Anglo-Catholic ones.
I think this is a massive exaggeration. The vast bulk of parish churches where a priest is available have Common Worship order 1 as their main service. Loophole hunting to do whatever you feel like is very much a minority sport.
When did the Pope give Anglicans permission to use the Roman Rite? Where is the documentation? The Pope has no authority over the clergy of a different church.
Yeah would be interested in this as well, as far as I know this only covered the various ordinates
And they don't use the Roman Missal.
I was under the impression that they could if they wanted, aka:
"At present the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham may make use of the liturgical books proper to the Roman Rite and those texts authorised and allowed by the Holy See, proper to the Anglican tradition."
In other words, while I do not think that Roman Rite is authorised in the Church of England. I think the adherence to an authorised form in the Church of England is purely lip service now by all. There may be some prayer book Anglican Parishes but they are more eccentricities than the Evanglelical Preaching Services Parishes and the Roman Rite Anglo-Catholic ones.
I don't think this is accurate at all - you have to try really hard to find a church that isn't using at least Common Worship, it's just that the high profile offenders are, er, high profile...
I also think that if anything certainly in the rural church we're seeing a resurgence in Authorised worship to cover the shortage of priests. I lead one service a month with no training whatsoever, and know of others doing the same. Unifying factor? Use of 1662 precisely because it *is* Authorised, so we can do it.
the question ( of the tangent) was not so much whether the Roman rite was authorised within the CofE but more whether,when and if the pope had authorised the use of the Roman rite within the CofE.
As Alan 29 has indicated the pope has no jurisdiction over the CofE and therefore could not or would not make any authorisation for Anglican clergy to use any particular rite.
On the other hand anyone, but anyone , can buy a Roman Missal and read it or use it for any purpose whatsoever including celebrating a Communion liturgy.
I have only once seen an'English Missal' but I understood that it was a translation into Tudor English of the Tridentine form of the Roman Missal.
There is also secret option C, which comes down to the fact that the Pope authorised the Roman rite.
It's got nothing to do with being Authorised to use in the CofE (except insofar as the remaining adherents to Branch theory would say it's the same church anyway...) but speaks to a particular subset of Anglican catholics who would contend that the only properly authorised liturgies (in the Western Church) are Roman (and the authorised liturgies of the wider RC family) and 1662 - the former because the Pope said so; and the latter because, unlike anything else that has followed it - it has at least gone through the full authorisation process of the 'regrettably' temporarily separated Church in England.
That's how I read it, but then as a sometime Forward in Faith Anglo Catholic I know that the people who think as per the above are absolutely out there. 'Either Missal or 1662, anything else is suspect or at worst defective' as a (CofE) priest who will remain nameless once said to me.
The current position in the CofE is that there are now only two authorised forms of worship, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and Common Worship + anything that has been authorised under the rules governing it (see below). None of the previous experimental forms, Series 2, 3 or the ASB remain authorised unless texts from them have been absorbed into Common Worship. Some sections of the ASB did remain authorised temporarily but I think that those have all now expired. 1928 was never authorised.
The difference between the two is that 1662 is what it says, whereas Common Worship contains a lot of flexibility and a lot of alternative options.
If a person takes the trouble to read through and understand Common Worship and the complete suite of volumes that constitute it, there is so much excellent material in them that it is very difficult to work out why on earth anyone should now claim that their pet obsessions excuse them from using Common Worship and justify their using either the Roman rite (definitely not authorised in the CofE) or any other quirks, foibles or weirdnesses of their own. Even forms of service from other parts of the Anglican communion, such as Wales are not authorised in England, however well constructed they may be, any more than English services are authorised there, unless their bishops have authorised them.
Something quite a lot of people do not understand, even people who should, is that there is a key difference between the Eucharist, where clergy must use one of the authorised prayers of consecration, a Service of Morning or Evening Prayer, where there are prescribed forms available, or a Service of the Word, which in practice gives clergy and readers wide flexibility provided they comply with certain key ingredients, e.g. (far too widely ignored) including a psalm or canticle if the Service of the Word is that church's principal service of worship on a Sunday.
Many Services of the Word draw heavily on the forms of Morning or Evening Prayer, even if that is not strictly what they are.
There are other options have been authorised since 2000 (see above). Examples include prayers for special occasions, services especially suitable for children, and a less wordy baptism service. That, by the way, does not change the key ingredient, i.e. the form of words used to administer the sacrament of baptism itself.
I am not aware that either of the present Pope or any previous one has ever authorised CofE clergy to use Roman services. This seems inherently so improbable that I would not take that seriously unless somebody could prove it to me.
None of the previous experimental forms, Series 2, 3 or the ASB remain authorised unless texts from them have been absorbed into Common Worship. Some sections of the ASB did remain authorised temporarily but I think that those have all now expired. 1928 was never authorised.
Alternative Services Series 1 lives on as a marriage ceremony option - IIRC not included in Common Worship.
Just to muddy the waters even further ASS1 marriage is essentially 1928!
I don't think the Pope 'authorised' it as such, but certainly made welcoming noises and provision to cross the Tiber on planks rather than with a wet cassock.
I'm not that au fait with the stratospheric end of the Anglo-Catholic spectrum but was always under the impression that those who used the Roman Missal were doing so in defiance of Anglican canon law.
Some Anglo-Catholic parishes can be very pick'n'mix though. I attended a service in Wales a while back where the priest (a former RC) prayed for the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of Wales, his own diocesan bishop and the Ecumenical Patriarch, but not the Pope.
When I asked him why he'd prayed for Patriarch Bartholomew and not Pope Francis as well, he told me that if he wasn't Anglo-Catholic he'd be Orthodox.
It was an interesting service and bore little relation to Anglicanism as I understand it. A kind of Anglo-Orthodox hybrid with a slight nod to charismatic stuff, although nothing overt, just an undertone or whiff. Fascinating but bizarre in my view. An odd mix of palpable holiness and 'we are going to do our own thing and no-one is going to stop us'-ness.
Just on changing texts, I just recalled I was struck my a change my Anglican priest made in the Eucharistic prayer, at least I think he did.
"...looking for his coming again..." was "...longing for his coming again..." I know one should be very careful when changing approved liturgical texts, but my hypocrisy is on display in many aspects.
If you are going to pr ay for those outside your Communion that means everyone surely? And I hope your priest GG prayed also for the Porvoo Communion. We are members of that in full pulpit and altar fellowship with the Scandinavian and Baltic churches..... Which raises and interesting quest4ion. If you are looking for a caretaker ABC then perhaps someone from Porvoo can help out......How's your Icelandic people?....-;)
He wasn't 'my' priest, I was a visitor. And no, he didn't pray for the Porvoo end of the spectrum. Neither did he pray for the Free Churches, or the Copts, Armenians, Ethiopians...
The point I was making was if he was going to pray for the Ecumenical Patriarch alongside Anglican primates, then surely out of consistency he should have prayed for the Pope too. It's not as if the Ecumenical Patriarch has any more jurisdiction over the Anglican communion than the Pope. Why include Patriarch Bartholomew as the token non-Anglican on the prayer list and not the Moderator of the Church of Scotland or ...
As far as choosing the next Archbishop of Canterbury from outside of these islands, I heard that suggested by an evangelical Anglican interviewed alongside other non-evangelical Anglicans on BBC Radio 4's Sunday programme yesterday.
She didn't say who she had in mind or where they might come from, Gafcon, Porvoo, North America, Australasia...
Incidentally, Channel 4 have broadcast an interview with PJ Smyth, it's available in an abridged form on their youtube channel (obviously trauma warnings).
If you are going to pr ay for those outside your Communion that means everyone surely? And I hope your priest GG prayed also for the Porvoo Communion. We are members of that in full pulpit and altar fellowship with the Scandinavian and Baltic churches..... Which raises and interesting quest4ion. If you are looking for a caretaker ABC then perhaps someone from Porvoo can help out......How's your Icelandic people?....-;)
Yes and no. They’d need to be a British citizen (because without changing all the legislation then it even temporarily it would come with a seat in the Lords).
. . . and not the Moderator of the Church of Scotland or . . . .
That would be Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
/nit-picking
Well yes, that's who I meant.
Meanwhile, is it just me, but am I the only one who thinks that Porvoo sounds vaguely Gilbert & Sullivan - and that GAFCON sounds like some kind of corporation?
We'll have RomCor next for Rome or OrthoPlex for the Orthodox, and CoptCom, BaptInc, MethDom, PenteCo ...
Incidentally, Channel 4 have broadcast an interview with PJ Smyth, it's available in an abridged form on their youtube channel (obviously trauma warnings).
Yes. Also via their website - John Smyth's son "PJ" describes the effect his abusive father has had on his life from the age of 7 up to the present day.
If you are going to pr ay for those outside your Communion that means everyone surely? And I hope your priest GG prayed also for the Porvoo Communion. We are members of that in full pulpit and altar fellowship with the Scandinavian and Baltic churches..... Which raises and interesting quest4ion. If you are looking for a caretaker ABC then perhaps someone from Porvoo can help out......How's your Icelandic people?....-;)
Yes and no. They’d need to be a British citizen (because without changing all the legislation then it even temporarily it would come with a seat in the Lords).
Does legislation on citizenship for membership of the Lords apply to the Lords Spiritual or only the Lords Temporal? I went looking for the legislation but couldn't find it.
This document on the HoL https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/lords-information-office/lords-briefing-papers/15595HoLBriefing-membership.pdf
contains this statement about becoming a member as Life Peer "Any British, Irish and Commonwealth citizen who is a UK resident and taxpayer over the age of 21 is eligible to be nominated or can apply to become a Member, via the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission."
Presumably the same would apply to an ABC, or citizenship could be granted to someone who was outside those categories.
On changing liturgical texts, we had a priest who in the prayer just before communion used to change "Lord I am not worthy to receive you...." to "Lord I AM worthy ....." I spent ten years in the wilderness because of his arrogance.
Was ABC Welby a personal adherent of “muscular Christianity”? I’m not sure I’ve read anything from him to suggest that he was.
On the contrary, for example, I think he and his wife were very supportive of Vicky Beeching when she came out as gay and was vilified as a result.
I think he did fail in his duty re John Smyth and was right to resign over that failure. I’ve no idea where he goes next. I’m inclined to agree with the voices declaring “who would want the ABC job”. You can’t be all things to all people.
I guess some time for quiet reflection may be his immediate priority, but he'll still be a bishop, and may well be able to exercise a priestly and/or episcopal ministry in the future.
The CofE has a number of retired bishops, who are often still active at parish level (and very welcome some of them are, too).
Graham Tomlin, formerly Bishop of Kensington (HTB's patch, and appointed while Richard Chartres was Bishop of London), before which he was principal of St Paul's Theological Centre at HTB, and then St Mellitus College (of which SPTC is a member), is now heading up the Centre for Cultural Witness, currently located in Lambeth Palace Library. He's also a collaborator with the McDonald Centre in Oxford University's Faculty of Theology and Religion. St Mellitus, CCW and The McDonald Centre all benefit from funding from The McDonald Agape Foundation.
We aim to develop the public voice of existing and emerging leaders, offering two leadership programmes:
Stream 1: Emerging Leaders in Cultural Witness
Some of the most influential Christian communicators in the past century have emerged from the UK, including the likes of G.K. Chesterton, Dorothy Sayers, C.S. Lewis, Rowan Williams and N.T. Wright. We’re delighted to offer the Emerging Leaders Cultural Witness Programme aimed at developing the public voices of young emerging contributors and theologians, helping them become gifted communicators who can speak and write articulately and imaginatively to our contemporary culture.
Stream 2: Public Influencers in Cultural Witness
There is a broad range of Christians who have a public voice because of their role in society, however, often feel inhibited about speaking about and out of their faith because they do not have theological training or time to do the reading to give their contributions depth. Similarly, Christian figures often feel anxious about being called out, or caught out for speaking about faith when it is often disdained in secular contexts. We are partnering with others to offer training resources for Christian public influencers who seek to deepen and amplify their voice in public.
The McDonald Centre fosters conversation both between Christian theology and other disciplines, and between academia and those who shape public deliberation and policy.
[And if you follow the link to "About us"]
Rooted in Christian traditions of moral and political theology and practice, the Centre not only examines current ideas about human flourishing and their outworking in public life, but also reframes the issues and asks different questions in pursuit of wise and imaginative responses to the complex crises and existential questions facing humanity.
...
If on the one hand, there are moves towards the dissolution of humanity as a thinkable moral and political entity, there is, on the other hand, an ever-greater need for a conception of humanity and affirmation of the intrinsic worth of each person as made in the image of God.
Purpose: We hope to leave a small footprint for Christ in influential places of learning with leading teachers who attain both the highest levels of scholarship and represent models of spiritual knowledge and faith...
Role: ...Our role is only one of collaboration in support of scholars and leaders who are envisioning, initiating and leading major, distinguished efforts that are consistent with our Foundation's aims...
They list as Distinguished Lecturers (which I take to mean they have funded) a significant number of people associated with St Mellitus and Lambeth Palace/Community of St. Anselm.
Graham Tomlin, formerly Bishop of Kensington (HTB's patch, and appointed while Richard Chartres was Bishop of London), before which he was principal of St Paul's Theological Centre at HTB, and then St Mellitus College (of which SPTC is a member), is now heading up the Centre for Cultural Witness, currently located in Lambeth Palace Library.
Although the Palace Library has a separate management and more or less permanent management structure does it not? So I'm not sure to what extent the current Archbishop sets direction and so on.
The list of Distinguished Lecturers is somewhat hard to understand because they seem to be listing associations of quite different depth with no distinctions.
It shows how far the influence of HTB reaches into the church of England. Personally I find it chilling how all roads lead this way. It also underlines the need to treat the latest scandal as a theological challenge and not just an action.
Was ABC Welby a personal adherent of “muscular Christianity”? I’m not sure I’ve read anything from him to suggest that he was.
On the contrary, for example, I think he and his wife were very supportive of Vicky Beeching when she came out as gay and was vilified as a result.
I think he did fail in his duty re John Smyth and was right to resign over that failure. I’ve no idea where he goes next. I’m inclined to agree with the voices declaring “who would want the ABC job”. You can’t be all things to all people.
He was certainly raised in that sort of tradition but appears to have become rather broader and more nuanced.
My 'spies' tell me that there is a 'political' element to his downfall to some extent as various evangelical factions who saw him as 'their' man turned against him when he stopped dancing to their tune.
I'm not sure it's simple as that and it seems very apparent that calls for his resignation came from various directions. I think it's right for him to step down but there are wider issues than his own performance in the role.
Was ABC Welby a personal adherent of “muscular Christianity”? I’m not sure I’ve read anything from him to suggest that he was.
On the contrary, for example, I think he and his wife were very supportive of Vicky Beeching when she came out as gay and was vilified as a result.
I think he did fail in his duty re John Smyth and was right to resign over that failure. I’ve no idea where he goes next. I’m inclined to agree with the voices declaring “who would want the ABC job”. You can’t be all things to all people.
He was certainly raised in that sort of tradition but appears to have become rather broader and more nuanced.
My 'spies' tell me that there is a 'political' element to his downfall to some extent as various evangelical factions who saw him as 'their' man turned against him when he stopped dancing to their tune.
I'm not sure it's simple as that and it seems very apparent that calls for his resignation came from various directions. I think it's right for him to step down but there are wider issues than his own performance in the role.
Ian Paul's fingerprints all over the resignation petition certainly give reason to suspect ulterior motives. The histrionics from Paul and his fellow travellers over LLF have been quite absurd.
Comments
Edited for clarity - I had omitted the key information.
Not really, some have Parish priests who were at a critical stage of formation when Common worship came out. They felt their liturgical concerns were ignored by the process. and when the Pope offered them the freedom to use the Roman Rite they adopted it. Quite often they will also use BCP, 1928, and English Missal to some extent but you could be forgiven for not deducing this by attending a normal sunday service. They are technically Common worship refusers, not really Roman Rite adopters. What it gave them was a modern coherent "authorised" rite that they felt they could use with there theological understanding. There personal reasons for doing so differ. Priests outside of that particular set within the the Society of St Wilfrid and St Hild both junior and senior hold a much broader liturgical practice including the selective use of Common Worship with additional material e.g. Marian devotions.
"authorised" - I am not clear what this means but it has been a major concern of some of them. I suspect that it has to do with their feeling that the process that by which Common Worship was authorised was lacking in some aspect but I do not know the niceties.
Yeah would be interested in this as well, as far as I know this only covered the various ordinates
And they don't use the Roman Missal.
Translation: She really wants the job
That comparison is usually made with respect to the Anglican Communion rather than the CofE. The ABC has considerable authority within the CofE, especially within the province of Canterbury. They also have considerable control over General Synod agendas and timings.
I do not know when the Pope said this, remember this is the mid 2000s prior to the Ordinariate. However, I see it as no more than the URC saying as it would "You are free to use our liturgy" to any clerics of other denominations who asked if they could. That does not authorise it within the CofE in my opinion but then I do not know what does anymore.
You see the URC does not have authorised liturgy, though basic requirement for a celebration of the Lord's supper are nearly always adhered to (gathering of the people, proclamation of the Word, words of institution, sharing of bread and wine). I understand how the BCP is Authorised by parliament and the Crown. I understand that 1928 revision failed to get through parliament. Everything since then has been handled so as to avoid a similar situation. This gives wiggle room for those of any colour and it has been used by all shades of Anglican. What has de facto come about is very much a similar situation to the URC in my opinion, where Common Worship can best be seen as an exemplar of what worship should be like. As time goes on and more initiatives such as cafe church and forest church take hold this will become more and more the case. It is not the either the Evangelicals with their preaching services nor the Anglo-Catholics who use the Roman rites, those are just the geeky odds and sods, I do not a mass take up of Roman rite nor of full scale evangelical preaching services about to come about. No what has stopped there being authorised liturgy is the behaviour of the middle of the road, average congregation and the way the Common Worship has been hacked to serve their situations and necessities.
You cannot move from one Anglican Church to another and expect to get the same liturgy. It is not like Rome where the Mass is the Mass is the Mass. You are more likely to get something similar if you flit between Nonconformist chapels with the Freedom of Worship, where you will get a structured hymn sandwich and monthly communion led by someone they judge to be a basically competent worship leader.
In other words, while I do not think that Roman Rite is authorised in the Church of England. I think the adherence to an authorised form in the Church of England is purely lip service now by all. There may be some prayer book Anglican Parishes but they are more eccentricities than the Evanglelical Preaching Services Parishes and the Roman Rite Anglo-Catholic ones.
I think this is a massive exaggeration. The vast bulk of parish churches where a priest is available have Common Worship order 1 as their main service. Loophole hunting to do whatever you feel like is very much a minority sport.
I was under the impression that they could if they wanted, aka:
https://www.ordinariate.org.uk/about/faq.php
"At present the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham may make use of the liturgical books proper to the Roman Rite and those texts authorised and allowed by the Holy See, proper to the Anglican tradition."
I don't think this is accurate at all - you have to try really hard to find a church that isn't using at least Common Worship, it's just that the high profile offenders are, er, high profile...
I also think that if anything certainly in the rural church we're seeing a resurgence in Authorised worship to cover the shortage of priests. I lead one service a month with no training whatsoever, and know of others doing the same. Unifying factor? Use of 1662 precisely because it *is* Authorised, so we can do it.
As Alan 29 has indicated the pope has no jurisdiction over the CofE and therefore could not or would not make any authorisation for Anglican clergy to use any particular rite.
On the other hand anyone, but anyone , can buy a Roman Missal and read it or use it for any purpose whatsoever including celebrating a Communion liturgy.
I have only once seen an'English Missal' but I understood that it was a translation into Tudor English of the Tridentine form of the Roman Missal.
It's got nothing to do with being Authorised to use in the CofE (except insofar as the remaining adherents to Branch theory would say it's the same church anyway...) but speaks to a particular subset of Anglican catholics who would contend that the only properly authorised liturgies (in the Western Church) are Roman (and the authorised liturgies of the wider RC family) and 1662 - the former because the Pope said so; and the latter because, unlike anything else that has followed it - it has at least gone through the full authorisation process of the 'regrettably' temporarily separated Church in England.
That's how I read it, but then as a sometime Forward in Faith Anglo Catholic I know that the people who think as per the above are absolutely out there. 'Either Missal or 1662, anything else is suspect or at worst defective' as a (CofE) priest who will remain nameless once said to me.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/18/c-of-e-may-need-to-rethink-archbishop-of-canterbury-role-senior-cleric-says
The current position in the CofE is that there are now only two authorised forms of worship, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and Common Worship + anything that has been authorised under the rules governing it (see below). None of the previous experimental forms, Series 2, 3 or the ASB remain authorised unless texts from them have been absorbed into Common Worship. Some sections of the ASB did remain authorised temporarily but I think that those have all now expired. 1928 was never authorised.
The difference between the two is that 1662 is what it says, whereas Common Worship contains a lot of flexibility and a lot of alternative options.
If a person takes the trouble to read through and understand Common Worship and the complete suite of volumes that constitute it, there is so much excellent material in them that it is very difficult to work out why on earth anyone should now claim that their pet obsessions excuse them from using Common Worship and justify their using either the Roman rite (definitely not authorised in the CofE) or any other quirks, foibles or weirdnesses of their own. Even forms of service from other parts of the Anglican communion, such as Wales are not authorised in England, however well constructed they may be, any more than English services are authorised there, unless their bishops have authorised them.
Something quite a lot of people do not understand, even people who should, is that there is a key difference between the Eucharist, where clergy must use one of the authorised prayers of consecration, a Service of Morning or Evening Prayer, where there are prescribed forms available, or a Service of the Word, which in practice gives clergy and readers wide flexibility provided they comply with certain key ingredients, e.g. (far too widely ignored) including a psalm or canticle if the Service of the Word is that church's principal service of worship on a Sunday.
Many Services of the Word draw heavily on the forms of Morning or Evening Prayer, even if that is not strictly what they are.
There are other options have been authorised since 2000 (see above). Examples include prayers for special occasions, services especially suitable for children, and a less wordy baptism service. That, by the way, does not change the key ingredient, i.e. the form of words used to administer the sacrament of baptism itself.
I am not aware that either of the present Pope or any previous one has ever authorised CofE clergy to use Roman services. This seems inherently so improbable that I would not take that seriously unless somebody could prove it to me.
Alternative Services Series 1 lives on as a marriage ceremony option - IIRC not included in Common Worship.
Just to muddy the waters even further ASS1 marriage is essentially 1928!
My thoughts and prayers are with the CofE and wider Anglican Communion at this time particularly.
I'm not that au fait with the stratospheric end of the Anglo-Catholic spectrum but was always under the impression that those who used the Roman Missal were doing so in defiance of Anglican canon law.
Some Anglo-Catholic parishes can be very pick'n'mix though. I attended a service in Wales a while back where the priest (a former RC) prayed for the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of Wales, his own diocesan bishop and the Ecumenical Patriarch, but not the Pope.
When I asked him why he'd prayed for Patriarch Bartholomew and not Pope Francis as well, he told me that if he wasn't Anglo-Catholic he'd be Orthodox.
It was an interesting service and bore little relation to Anglicanism as I understand it. A kind of Anglo-Orthodox hybrid with a slight nod to charismatic stuff, although nothing overt, just an undertone or whiff. Fascinating but bizarre in my view. An odd mix of palpable holiness and 'we are going to do our own thing and no-one is going to stop us'-ness.
"...looking for his coming again..." was "...longing for his coming again..." I know one should be very careful when changing approved liturgical texts, but my hypocrisy is on display in many aspects.
The point I was making was if he was going to pray for the Ecumenical Patriarch alongside Anglican primates, then surely out of consistency he should have prayed for the Pope too. It's not as if the Ecumenical Patriarch has any more jurisdiction over the Anglican communion than the Pope. Why include Patriarch Bartholomew as the token non-Anglican on the prayer list and not the Moderator of the Church of Scotland or ...
As far as choosing the next Archbishop of Canterbury from outside of these islands, I heard that suggested by an evangelical Anglican interviewed alongside other non-evangelical Anglicans on BBC Radio 4's Sunday programme yesterday.
She didn't say who she had in mind or where they might come from, Gafcon, Porvoo, North America, Australasia...
/nit-picking
Yes and no. They’d need to be a British citizen (because without changing all the legislation then it even temporarily it would come with a seat in the Lords).
Well yes, that's who I meant.
Meanwhile, is it just me, but am I the only one who thinks that Porvoo sounds vaguely Gilbert & Sullivan - and that GAFCON sounds like some kind of corporation?
We'll have RomCor next for Rome or OrthoPlex for the Orthodox, and CoptCom, BaptInc, MethDom, PenteCo ...
Does legislation on citizenship for membership of the Lords apply to the Lords Spiritual or only the Lords Temporal? I went looking for the legislation but couldn't find it.
https://www.parliament.uk/globalassets/documents/lords-information-office/lords-briefing-papers/15595HoLBriefing-membership.pdf
contains this statement about becoming a member as Life Peer "Any British, Irish and Commonwealth citizen who is a UK resident and taxpayer over the age of 21 is eligible to be nominated or can apply to become a Member, via the independent House of Lords Appointments Commission."
Presumably the same would apply to an ABC, or citizenship could be granted to someone who was outside those categories.
On changing liturgical texts, we had a priest who in the prayer just before communion used to change "Lord I am not worthy to receive you...." to "Lord I AM worthy ....." I spent ten years in the wilderness because of his arrogance.
On the contrary, for example, I think he and his wife were very supportive of Vicky Beeching when she came out as gay and was vilified as a result.
I think he did fail in his duty re John Smyth and was right to resign over that failure. I’ve no idea where he goes next. I’m inclined to agree with the voices declaring “who would want the ABC job”. You can’t be all things to all people.
The CofE has a number of retired bishops, who are often still active at parish level (and very welcome some of them are, too).
I'm not sure its automatic that the terms applying to life peers (who are, after all, a very recent innovation) would apply to the Lords Spiritual.
Graham Tomlin, formerly Bishop of Kensington (HTB's patch, and appointed while Richard Chartres was Bishop of London), before which he was principal of St Paul's Theological Centre at HTB, and then St Mellitus College (of which SPTC is a member), is now heading up the Centre for Cultural Witness, currently located in Lambeth Palace Library. He's also a collaborator with the McDonald Centre in Oxford University's Faculty of Theology and Religion. St Mellitus, CCW and The McDonald Centre all benefit from funding from The McDonald Agape Foundation.
Part of the CCW's remit:
The McDonald Centre
The McDonald Agape Foundation: They list as Distinguished Lecturers (which I take to mean they have funded) a significant number of people associated with St Mellitus and Lambeth Palace/Community of St. Anselm.
Although the Palace Library has a separate management and more or less permanent management structure does it not? So I'm not sure to what extent the current Archbishop sets direction and so on.
The list of Distinguished Lecturers is somewhat hard to understand because they seem to be listing associations of quite different depth with no distinctions.
He was certainly raised in that sort of tradition but appears to have become rather broader and more nuanced.
My 'spies' tell me that there is a 'political' element to his downfall to some extent as various evangelical factions who saw him as 'their' man turned against him when he stopped dancing to their tune.
I'm not sure it's simple as that and it seems very apparent that calls for his resignation came from various directions. I think it's right for him to step down but there are wider issues than his own performance in the role.
Ian Paul's fingerprints all over the resignation petition certainly give reason to suspect ulterior motives. The histrionics from Paul and his fellow travellers over LLF have been quite absurd.