Oddly enough as an RC who profoundly believes in transubstantiation, I find the "cobbled" together statement of both the Catholic and Calvinist and admonitions by the priest in the BCP not to be offensive in the sense that If I truly believe the Eucharist to objectively be the Body and Blood of our Lord but stop there and do not feed upon Him with faith and thanksgiving in my heart then I frustrate the graces that accompany my reception of the Eucharist at the rail. Another observation is that the 1662 with its desire to be acceptable to all is in many ways exhibits the same weakness I find in the post VII Novus Ordo. While valid and perhaps not a vague as the 1662, the NO does leave a lot out for the very same "ecumenical/political reasons". This was one of the clearly stated goals of Annibale Bugnini who infamously gave us his committee creation that was imposed upon the RC church after the Council., replacing an historic liturgy whose organic roots go back to the early Church with a new rite. When all is said and done, Paul VI behaved no differently than Crammer, Luther or Zwingli in his support of liturgical reform. For many Catholics it is quite clear that what the Council wanted and what Paul imposed are not quite the same thing. Whether it be the 1662 or the NO the old saying that a camel is the outcome of an airplane designed by an appointed committee rings so true. Your reasons for using the 1549 are similar to the reasons many Catholics adhere to the TLM, much to the consternation of the present regime in Rome.
Fr, you mentioned your blog post, where is that located at? And do you have any recommendations on books about the BCP from an Anglican Catholic perspective?
The link is warwickensis.blogspot.com/2024/08/pre-reformation-anglicanism.html?m=0 As for books, I might suggest Archbishop Haverland's Anglican Catholic Faith and Practice but there isn't a text solely devoted to the BCP.
The history of the Book of Common Prayer goes hand in hand with the complexity of the Reformations in England. It's worth familiarising yourself with several histories. I would recommend reading Eamonn Duffy, Diarmaid Macullough and Peter Marshall to get a reasonably decent overview.
Given that Gardiner was more faithful in keeping the Catholic Faith, I would trust him more but, personally, I like to go ad fontes in terms of authority.
Will definitely pray for you father! I've also subscribed to your channel. I really love this kind of succinct video format! I'm wondering father if you could address (perhaps over the course of several short videos) some questions from a Catholic. First of course would be to address terms! I understand that the CoE is a Protestant church. I watched the coronation. I heard the archbishop and the king speak of their church being Protestant. But when I hear English priests speaking of "Anglican Catholicism" and "Anglo-Catholicism", I begin to wonder what they actually mean! I do have some awareness of the history of the Caroline Divines, the Tractarian Movement, the Oxford Movement and the more recent convergence between the Catholic Church and certain parties within Anglicanism that led to the formation of the Ordinariate. I also have an awareness of (and frankly a fondness for) the Branch Theory, though only in a temporary state until the great Churches can get their acts together and sort out their differences. (My own take on the Branch Theory is that there are real but non-divisive distinctions between the Great Churches; there should be one Lord, one Faith and one Baptism; but how we live and express the one Faith can (and should) be quite diverse indeed!) I also have some awareness of the concept of Anglicanism as a via media. The questions I'd really like to see addressed then are those of *what* and *how*. What is Anglo-Catholicism? What is Anglican Catholicism? (Are they even different? If so, how? If not, why two terms?) And then, are either of the A-Cs *Protestant* or are they *Catholic* or are they some kind of mixture? In other words, what does an Anglican Catholic mean by "Anglican" and by "Catholic"? What would an Anglican Catholic mean by "Protestant"? How Protestant is Anglo-Catholicism? Perhaps even how much Protestantism is too much Protestantism? Other key questions would revolve around the ecclesiastic nature of Anglicanism in general, but the A-Cs in particular: apostolic succession, validity of priestly orders, etc. Several years ago I was watching a video by an Anglican Anglican priest who was speaking about these things. He's a man who wears the clerical blacks, has the Roman collar, people call him father, on Sundays he goes up to the altar and does something that looks very much like a Catholic liturgy. Yet my heart was struck and I felt a great compassion for him when he uttered this question: am *I* really and truly a priest? I am aware that HM Henry VIII was a solid Catholic and that at least in a simplistic perspective, what he did in wresting control of the Church in England from Rome was politically motivated and that there were wider continental and church politics involved as well. (Wars of succession were a very real part of English history!) And that it wouldn't be until the reign of Edward VI that Protestantism took hold and that, at least from the traditional Catholic perspective, English Catholic priestly orders came to be nullified (replacing the Sarum rituals with the BoCP ritual). As famously pronounced by Pope Leo in the 19th century. Yet within a space of 60 or 70 years, various Lambeth Councils and Vatican II itself, plus apparently a whole lot of private talks between Catholics and Anglicans seems to have led to a situation where we (Catholics) might at the very least be open to the idea that Anglican orders are (and thus always were) valid; and perhaps at the best might just drop the issue, do a filioque, and accept that there wasn't even really an issue to begin with. These questions stem, of course, from the fact that we 100% accept Orthodox orders as valid (with the exception of any women deacons ordained) and that they have solid apostolic succession. We could thus end up in a place where the Branch Theory actually has (and perhaps actually had) a solid foundation (and, from my perspective, a better place for the Anglican and Catholic Churches to work on real unity, just as the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are working towards that goal.) I'd love to hear your thoughts about these things too! I don't know if I'm alone in this, but one reason for delving into these questions is a sort of "cultural disconnect" if you will that I experience in the side of the Church that has for 2000 years been Latin speaking and Latin thinking. There is a similar disconnect with the side of the Church that has for 2000 years been Greek speaking and Greek thinking. There is, for me, something very compelling about Anglicanism --- not for its Protestantism, but rather for its English genius. Having heard about the various English Rites (like Sarum), having heard a lot about the BoCP and now having access to the Catholic version, the Book of Divine Worship, and this whole concept of worship in an immediately understandable and undeniably beautiful tongue, English, this is leading me to wonder what it is we in the English speaking Catholic world have been missing out on for the last 500 years. It also leads me to questions about our Anglican bretheren, whether they be Anglican Anglicans, Anglican Catholics or Anglo-Catholics!
@@padraicbrown6718 thank you very much. I have covered some of the issues you speak of on this channel, including the difference between Anglo-Catholic and Anglican Catholic, so do have a look around.
@@Warwickensis I would like to talk with you then. I was part of the exodus from the episcopal church in 1976. I was a member of st Mary’s episcopal church in Denver where fr mote was rector. I was very close to him. We all went through a lot together. However we did not use the 2549 bcp but continued to use the 1928 USA bcp and the Anglican missal. But I do agree with your stance on the 1549 as opposed to the 1552 and 1562 versions. The present c of e alternative services is a trainwreck in so many ways.
@@Warwickensis It doesn’t really matter. It’s just that it was a significant part of my life that I am still in tune with for some reason. Most people do not get to live through such a really shall I say traumatic event of social impact and importance.
I can imagine it was deeply troubling. I've listened to the tapes of the Congress of St Louis and what they achieved was quite remarkable. I know the splits were unfortunate but it seems that we are undoing some of those splits in our G3 movement. Do you still attend an ACC parish?
The Anglican Office Book has received official endorsements from Bishop Ray Sutton of the Reformed Episcopal Church, Archbishop Mark Haverland of the Anglican Catholic Church, and Bishop Keith Ackerman of the Anglican Church in North America. Your Archbishop seemed to like it
Oddly enough as an RC who profoundly believes in transubstantiation, I find the "cobbled" together statement of both the Catholic and Calvinist and admonitions by the priest in the BCP not to be offensive in the sense that If I truly believe the Eucharist to objectively be the Body and Blood of our Lord but stop there and do not feed upon Him with faith and thanksgiving in my heart then I frustrate the graces that accompany my reception of the Eucharist at the rail. Another observation is that the 1662 with its desire to be acceptable to all is in many ways exhibits the same weakness I find in the post VII Novus Ordo. While valid and perhaps not a vague as the 1662, the NO does leave a lot out for the very same "ecumenical/political reasons". This was one of the clearly stated goals of Annibale Bugnini who infamously gave us his committee creation that was imposed upon the RC church after the Council., replacing an historic liturgy whose organic roots go back to the early Church with a new rite. When all is said and done, Paul VI behaved no differently than Crammer, Luther or Zwingli in his support of liturgical reform. For many Catholics it is quite clear that what the Council wanted and what Paul imposed are not quite the same thing. Whether it be the 1662 or the NO the old saying that a camel is the outcome of an airplane designed by an appointed committee rings so true. Your reasons for using the 1549 are similar to the reasons many Catholics adhere to the TLM, much to the consternation of the present regime in Rome.
After the Bible itself this Book of Common Prayer is the key to world peace. Every Christian should have one in their possession ☦️
Fr, you mentioned your blog post, where is that located at? And do you have any recommendations on books about the BCP from an Anglican Catholic perspective?
The link is
warwickensis.blogspot.com/2024/08/pre-reformation-anglicanism.html?m=0
As for books, I might suggest Archbishop Haverland's Anglican Catholic Faith and Practice but there isn't a text solely devoted to the BCP.
Thank you Father.
Thankyou Father, "the whole knotted rope", those words have lingered long in my mind.
What are the various differences between the many different types of Book of Common Prayer?
The history of the Book of Common Prayer goes hand in hand with the complexity of the Reformations in England. It's worth familiarising yourself with several histories. I would recommend reading Eamonn Duffy, Diarmaid Macullough and Peter Marshall to get a reasonably decent overview.
Do you view Stephen Gardiner as more of an authoritative figure for Anglican Catholics than Cranmer?
Given that Gardiner was more faithful in keeping the Catholic Faith, I would trust him more but, personally, I like to go ad fontes in terms of authority.
Will definitely pray for you father! I've also subscribed to your channel.
I really love this kind of succinct video format! I'm wondering father if you could address (perhaps over the course of several short videos) some questions from a Catholic. First of course would be to address terms! I understand that the CoE is a Protestant church. I watched the coronation. I heard the archbishop and the king speak of their church being Protestant. But when I hear English priests speaking of "Anglican Catholicism" and "Anglo-Catholicism", I begin to wonder what they actually mean! I do have some awareness of the history of the Caroline Divines, the Tractarian Movement, the Oxford Movement and the more recent convergence between the Catholic Church and certain parties within Anglicanism that led to the formation of the Ordinariate. I also have an awareness of (and frankly a fondness for) the Branch Theory, though only in a temporary state until the great Churches can get their acts together and sort out their differences. (My own take on the Branch Theory is that there are real but non-divisive distinctions between the Great Churches; there should be one Lord, one Faith and one Baptism; but how we live and express the one Faith can (and should) be quite diverse indeed!) I also have some awareness of the concept of Anglicanism as a via media.
The questions I'd really like to see addressed then are those of *what* and *how*. What is Anglo-Catholicism? What is Anglican Catholicism? (Are they even different? If so, how? If not, why two terms?) And then, are either of the A-Cs *Protestant* or are they *Catholic* or are they some kind of mixture? In other words, what does an Anglican Catholic mean by "Anglican" and by "Catholic"? What would an Anglican Catholic mean by "Protestant"? How Protestant is Anglo-Catholicism? Perhaps even how much Protestantism is too much Protestantism?
Other key questions would revolve around the ecclesiastic nature of Anglicanism in general, but the A-Cs in particular: apostolic succession, validity of priestly orders, etc. Several years ago I was watching a video by an Anglican Anglican priest who was speaking about these things. He's a man who wears the clerical blacks, has the Roman collar, people call him father, on Sundays he goes up to the altar and does something that looks very much like a Catholic liturgy. Yet my heart was struck and I felt a great compassion for him when he uttered this question: am *I* really and truly a priest? I am aware that HM Henry VIII was a solid Catholic and that at least in a simplistic perspective, what he did in wresting control of the Church in England from Rome was politically motivated and that there were wider continental and church politics involved as well. (Wars of succession were a very real part of English history!) And that it wouldn't be until the reign of Edward VI that Protestantism took hold and that, at least from the traditional Catholic perspective, English Catholic priestly orders came to be nullified (replacing the Sarum rituals with the BoCP ritual). As famously pronounced by Pope Leo in the 19th century. Yet within a space of 60 or 70 years, various Lambeth Councils and Vatican II itself, plus apparently a whole lot of private talks between Catholics and Anglicans seems to have led to a situation where we (Catholics) might at the very least be open to the idea that Anglican orders are (and thus always were) valid; and perhaps at the best might just drop the issue, do a filioque, and accept that there wasn't even really an issue to begin with. These questions stem, of course, from the fact that we 100% accept Orthodox orders as valid (with the exception of any women deacons ordained) and that they have solid apostolic succession. We could thus end up in a place where the Branch Theory actually has (and perhaps actually had) a solid foundation (and, from my perspective, a better place for the Anglican and Catholic Churches to work on real unity, just as the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are working towards that goal.) I'd love to hear your thoughts about these things too!
I don't know if I'm alone in this, but one reason for delving into these questions is a sort of "cultural disconnect" if you will that I experience in the side of the Church that has for 2000 years been Latin speaking and Latin thinking. There is a similar disconnect with the side of the Church that has for 2000 years been Greek speaking and Greek thinking. There is, for me, something very compelling about Anglicanism --- not for its Protestantism, but rather for its English genius. Having heard about the various English Rites (like Sarum), having heard a lot about the BoCP and now having access to the Catholic version, the Book of Divine Worship, and this whole concept of worship in an immediately understandable and undeniably beautiful tongue, English, this is leading me to wonder what it is we in the English speaking Catholic world have been missing out on for the last 500 years. It also leads me to questions about our Anglican bretheren, whether they be Anglican Anglicans, Anglican Catholics or Anglo-Catholics!
@@padraicbrown6718 thank you very much. I have covered some of the issues you speak of on this channel, including the difference between Anglo-Catholic and Anglican Catholic, so do have a look around.
@@Warwickensis --- I will! Thank you! I look forward to the rest!
What is TLM?
Traditional Latin Mass? Or Traditional Liturgical Movement?
Are you part of the Anglican Catholic Church in which bishop James O Mote was a founder?
@@davidstahl5707 yes, that's right.
@@Warwickensis I would like to talk with you then. I was part of the exodus from the episcopal church in 1976. I was a member of st Mary’s episcopal church in Denver where fr mote was rector. I was very close to him. We all went through a lot together. However we did not use the 2549 bcp but continued to use the 1928 USA bcp and the Anglican missal. But I do agree with your stance on the 1549 as opposed to the 1552 and 1562 versions. The present c of e alternative services is a trainwreck in so many ways.
Is it specifically me you'd like to talk to, or would you like me to put you in touch with someone closer to you?
@@Warwickensis It doesn’t really matter. It’s just that it was a significant part of my life that I am still in tune with for some reason. Most people do not get to live through such a really shall I say traumatic event of social impact and importance.
I can imagine it was deeply troubling. I've listened to the tapes of the Congress of St Louis and what they achieved was quite remarkable. I know the splits were unfortunate but it seems that we are undoing some of those splits in our G3 movement.
Do you still attend an ACC parish?
Thank you Father For this, very helpful. Question Do you guys use the Anglican Office?
Not officially. I don't think we have had formal approval. I'd be interested to see if the College of Bishops gives a formal opinion on it.
@Warwickensis I would interested on your view to be honest 👍
The Anglican Office Book has received official endorsements from Bishop Ray Sutton of the Reformed Episcopal Church, Archbishop Mark Haverland of the Anglican Catholic Church, and Bishop Keith Ackerman of the Anglican Church in North America.
Your Archbishop seemed to like it
Well, if he liked it that's good enough for me.