In our Missal, there are references to "where it is the custom". One, randomly chosen, such example is the use of black vestments on Good Friday.
"Custom" usually assumes usage over a considerable period. Although Canon 2 makes clear that the Code does not itself cover liturgical matters, it may be useful to consider what the 1983 Code does say about consuetudo, custom. [Furthermore, a useful discussion of the situation under the previous (1917) Code can be found in J O'Connell The Celebration of Mass (1940) Volume 1 pp 27ff..] Canon 26 states that a consuetudo vigenti iuri canonico contraria aut quae est praeter legem canonicam, vim legis obtinet tantum si legitime per annos triginta continuos et completos servata fuerit. Even if a canonical law explicitly prohibits future customs, praevalere potest consuetudo centenaria aut immemorabilis. But neither an Ordinariate considered as a whole, nor any particular Ordinariate Group, Mission, or Parish can, as such, be older than 2011. How, therefore, can "custom", in the legal sense, exist in an Ordinariate?
Only, surely, if one takes such corporate groups as being in corporate and lineal and juridical continuity with the groups which existed in the Anglican Communion before they entered into Full Communion with the See of S Peter.
It appears therefore that communities possessing such continuity are to be canonically considered as having been communitates legis saltem recipiendae capaces (Canon 25).
As far as concerns the whole Ordinariate of our Lady of Walsingham, it may be said that we came out from a community which had the following customary principle: "the minister who is to conduct the service may in his discretion make and use variations which are not of substantial importance" (C of E Canon B:5; but I am citing it not as law but as evidence of settled custom). This maxim was very generously applied, with collusion at every level.
I will add that this maxim constitutes an inherent part of the ethos and spirituality we have brought with us. Vide Dom Gregory Dix Shape of the Liturgy (1945) pp 716-718; 587-589. It has a more than centennial prescription since it goes back as far as the publication of the first edition of the English Missal in 1911; and, in a vaguer form, well beyond that. It can draw support from the writings of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict XVI, and ... Metropolitan Hilarion!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
24 comments:
Father,
Could you let us share the words of Hilarion of which you thought? I fear you waited for this request from your audience, eventhough you might have still had a little hope we would know the passage without asking you for informing it to us. I am sorry but not at all erudite enough to have even any idea to which words of Hilarion you are referring, but would be glad to know them. Even more interesting for me would be, however, to understand how your quoted principle of deliberate decisions of the celebrating priest in things of "not substancial importance" - whatever that cold be in the context of the mass where every little liturgical Detail is of so eminent importance - also fits with the liturgical traditions of Rome after Trient.
I think you are reading too much into this, father. Not least because you point out yourself that c.2 of the Code of Canon Law highlights the fact that Canon Law and Liturgical Law are not the same.
Moreover the non-recognition of Anglican orders and institutions by the Church (unlike those of the Eastern Churches which are recognized, but not in communion with the Church) mean that they cannot be recognized as authorities for legitimate liturgical customs as you suggest.
A far more obvious understanding of the term 'custom' as used in the Anglican Personal Ordinariates' Liturgical books is that this is a reference to liturgical customs within the Church, not in bodies outside the Church.
In other words it allows a priest involved in such a liturgy to follow a custom that has existed within the Roman Rite but not to make up one of his own. It seems to me that this is most likely to be necessary to act as a defence for Anglican Ordinariate priests where such customs diverge from the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite.
In practice this may accord with customs used whilst they were still Anglicans but that is because Anglicans of a particular hue, as you will attest, have been particularly scrupulous about following the customs of the Roman Rite within the context of Anglican liturgies.
This is an interesting area. Custom contra legem requires the express revocation by the law. Canon 5 §1 indicates that customs that are reprobated by the 1983 Code of Canon Law are suppressed and cannot be revived. But what, we might ask, is the status of those customs (contra legem, remember) which were preserved for 30+ years after the promulgation of the Code within Anglicanism? The Code does not apply to non-Catholics, and so the reprobation of Anglican customs did not take place until we became Catholics, by which stage they may (depending on their vintage) be considered centenary or immemorial.
It further seems to me that the legislation of Divine Worship (i.e., the Rubrical Directory and the rubrics themselves) permits the maintenance of those customs (even contra legume) until such time as it is deemed necessary that they are each individually and expressly revoked. All of this is to say nothing of custom praeter ius, which remains in force anyway.
I think, also, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal is important here. For example, regarding gestures and bodily posture, No. 42 states: "Attention must therefore be paid to what is determined by this General Instruction and by the traditional practice of the Roman Rite and to what serves the common spiritual good of the People of God, rather than private inclination or arbitrary choice." When this is held alongside the Rubrical Directory of Divine Worship, there is food for thought: "The rubrics of the Divine Worship Order of Mass aim to preserve traditional customs of Anglican Eucharistic worship with respect to orientation, postures, gestures, and manual acts, while also permitting the celebration of Mass in a manner similar to that of the Roman Missal, Third Typical Edition. This rubrical flexibility provides for the variety of liturgical traditions and experiences among the parishes and communities of the Personal Ordinariates."
Thank you for a thought-provoking post over my morning coffee!
One wonders what they refer to as far as Anglican worship goes. As we all know, many places were not really Anglican, but were following the Roman Rite, in some combination of text & ceremony.
Thank you indeed for this post, Fr, and also to Fr Bradley for his helpful observations. That said, there are a couple of points which currently prevent me from fully agreeing, I think.
To put it rather crudely, to which legem do they have to be contra? Those Anglicans making extensive use of Canon B5 were of course acting entirely within and according the law (juxta legem) of that Ecclesial Community. At the moment I'm unclear that the clock can run on them.
Even if it could (pace Fr Bradley) Canon B5 cannot be centennial or immemorial given the date of its promulgation (the CofE canons date from the 1960s and B5 has been amended at least twice since then).
Finally, if I were being particularly nit-picky, I would point out that the proviso at Canon B5(3) has been omitted from the post:
"All variations in forms of service and all forms of service used under this Canon shall be reverent and seemly and shall be neither contrary to, nor indicative of any departure from, the doctrine of the Church of England in any essential matter.".
I find it difficult to conclude that the Catholic Church has, by the juridical backdoor of custom, incorporated that into its (local) jurisprudence.
A few thoughts:
1) I do not believe the validity of a custom is tied to the validity of orders. I have never seen anything written that suggests that in order for a "custom," in the canonical sense, to arise, there must be a group of the faithful led by a cleric observing it.
2) That is not to say that the continuity question does not present points of interpretive interest. Or, it would if it were necessary here to have recourse to the canonical principle of custom contra leges and one needed to demonstrate the existence of a long continuity.
3) I suspect, though, that those principles are not implicated here. First, the "custom" referred to by the language Father quotes isn't "contra leges," because the legal text expressly incorporates and sanctions the customs in question. Second, a reference of that sort strikes me as a somewhat looser standard. But I think Father might be right: the "custom" there may well refer to the established preferences and practices that Anglican congregations brought with them into the Church. I don't think it reasonably incorporates an Anglican rubrical permissiveness, such that "custom" could really mean "whim of the celebrant," but rather reflects the reality that, because Anglicanism had a degree of such permissiveness, different groups now in the Ordinariates acquired slightly different practices and sensibilities, and there is no sense in squashing those solely for the sake of uniformity.
At least, that's my take. But it's not really my bailiwick.
Oh dear! Clarity is so difficult!! I did my best to make clear that I was not citing Anglican Canon Law as LAW but as an indication of CUSTOM. CUSTOM, NOT LAW!! Just CUSTOM!! NO NO NO ~~~ NOT LAW. No!! Really NOT Law!!
I will try harder in future.
This is a stimulating conversation. Thanks. Father Hunwicke has made it clear that he is not viewing Canon B5 as law, so I think that answers Matt's point. And even customs in the Church of England that predate Canon B5 would still have the force of law (at least according to the Catholic principle of custom) because the customs were not abrogated or revoked by the new laws (in this case, Canon B5). I cannot see that Catholics can have a problem with Anglicans following their own law, and being bound to it, inasmuch as the Church of England is recognizable as a defined society and ecclesial community, and (so far as the Church of England is concerned) it abides by laws which are in fact the law of the realm (thus, in a sense, civil).
To Surrey Highlander's points: Liturgical Law is Canon Law, it is simply not covered by the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Secondly, the invalidity of Anglican orders does not make a difference to its ability to create laws, in the sense (as mentioned above) that any society has the right to govern itself. Civil Law is acknowledged by Canon Law, and indeed (for example, with regard to temporal goods) it is to be followed so long as it does not contradict Canon Law (or, obviously, Divine or Natural Law).
I would broadly agree with Titus on Nos. 1, 2, and 3.
For the record, the "autocorrect" facility is responsible for the misnomer "contra legume." I have no issue with vegetables of any kind. It should, of course, read "contra legem."
Oh now, this does get interesting, Fr Bradley.
You state the Catholic principle of custom would hold that Canon B5's promulgation did not abrogate or revoke prior custom. I would agree, in and of itself.
But you later you speak of the CofE as a defined society and ecclesial community; the implication I take from that is that the Catholic respects and recognises its right to govern itself in accordance with its own laws, norms and principles.
IF I were to argue that CofE ecclesiastical law does impliedly abrogate and/or revoke prior custom when replacement laws are enacted, then isn't that, not Catholic Canon Law, the relevant yardstick for whether a custom is developing, and for how long? The Code does not apply to non-Catholics, after all.
(To be clear, I'd want to go into the depths of Halsbury and beyond before asserting that proposition too forcefully, but my Common lawyer's instinct is that it is correct).
In response to Fr Bradley,
1) You are quite correct about Liturgical Law being part of Canon Law, I should have been more precise. My point was rather that it doesn’t come under the 1983 code (or 1917 code) but I fear that this may be misleading rather than helpful in the present discussion, though worth bearing in mind.
2) I disagree with both you and Titus about the relevance of the ecclesial nature of the institutions forming the Anglican Communion. In the current instance we are debating whether a liturgical custom exists according to Roman Catholic Canon Law. From a Roman Catholic perspective Anglican ceremonies are not liturgical because there is no valid priest and the community is not (fully) part of the Church. I accept that in other canonical areas the validity of orders and nature of an ecclesial community might be irrelevant. This is one reason why I would not expect to find any canon law theorists discussing it. Similarly until the formation of the Anglican Ordinariates there was no occasion for such a discussion to arise as no Roman Catholic community used liturgical texts derived from a community whose ministers’ orders are not recognised as valid by the Roman Catholic Church (unlike the various Eastern Churches).
3) I am not claiming that Anglican institutions are unable, factually or morally, to make their own system of laws. Furthermore the law of Anglican institutions is irrelevant to the matter in hand (however I shall return to Fr Hunwicke’s point about Anglican Canon Law).
4) I agree with the first part of Titus’ third point. The use of “custom” in the liturgical books of the Anglican Ordinariates does not appear to be “contra leges” for the reason Titus gives. Moreover I agree that the, unfortunately imprecise, term ‘custom’ in these cases is probably to be understood in the sense a layman would use it in everyday speech, and thus as Titus says it should be understood as a ‘looser standard’ and is not meant to be understood in the same way as traditional Canon Law jurisprudence.
5) The second part of Titus’ third point also sounds plausible, in that it seems likely that the Anglicanæ traditiones commission, in their compilation of ‘Divine Worship’ intended to reflect the 19th and 20th century practice (and therefore potentially questionable as an essential characteristic of Anglican patrimony) where Anglican churches had a wide variety of liturgical styles. However this doesn’t have a direct bearing on Fr Hunwicke’s claim about the Anglican Ordinariates being able to claim liturgical custom from Anglican institutions. I fear that this might begin to enter the problematic area of what exactly might be “Anglican Patrimony” and what of such patrimony may be exercised by the Anglican Ordinariates.
The discussion of custom here is clearly fascinating. When I was in priestly formation, I remember our canon lawyer professor - who later taught me at university - telling me that custom is the most (or one of the most) difficult aspects of canon law. So, having not examined all the alleged or actual liturgical customs of the Ordinariate, nor the mention of customs in the rubrics of the Ordinariate's missal, nor the official documents promulgating these rubrics and liturgical book, I will say the following with great caution: it is not exhaustive.
Liturgical law is part of canon law, as Fr. Bradley says. Canon law is not confined to the codex. Therefore the rubrics of the ordinariate missal are part of 'canon law'. Therefore if there is explicit mention of the option of observing customs contrary to what is stipulated in the law ('rubrics') - contra legem - then these may be observed. Indeed in time - thirty years - they will have vis legis (the force of law) if allowed to continue. But you could perhaps argue that they already have vis legis by being mentioned in the law as an option, which appears to have retained them as a custom at that. However one needs to ascertain if any or them are immemorial or centennial. If this is the case, then they appear to have been tolerated, and may therefore be used. Other customs of this sort remain, at least for the moment (perhaps tolerated tacitly by the legislator).
Customs praeter ius is where the law says nothing about the specific matter which is regulated by these customs. I am not expert enough to give examples of this from the Ordinariate. All other universal and particular customs contrary to the code, which are not expressly reprobated by the codex (1993), nor centennial or immemorial, nor expressly excepted by the code, are suppressed and may not be lawfully observed, although are capable of being revived in the future. Other customs can also be formed in the future. Concerning the revocation of custom, a new law, explicitly or tacitly, can abrogate or derogate a custom, if it is contrary to it — the two are incompatible — with the exception of centennial and immemorial customs, and, in the case of universal law, particular customs, which must be expressly mentioned. A legal custom coming into being and observing the usual requirements for custom can revoke an older custom, if contrary to it, for example, by the contrary practice of not observing it. A particular legislator can revoke, for his particular jurisdiction, any custom within his competence that is contra, as well as praeter, to universal or particular law.
There are three propositions made by Father Hunwicke where I fear his conclusions are incorrect, although I am sympathetic to his line of thought.
1. Corporate continuity between Anglican and Catholic groups
The first point is that Father Hunwicke suggests that the groups of Catholics forming the Anglican Ordinariates should be seen as “corporate groups as being in corporate and lineal and juridical continuity with the groups which existed in the Anglican Communion before they entered into Full Communion with the See of S Peter.”
It is perfectly possible for an Anglican group to be received into the Roman Catholic Church under the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus and retain a continuity of membership, leadership, property, name etc. (though few, if any, have actually done so to date). It may be that an institution such as a religious order or diocese could do so and retain it’s particular law (although again, I don’t think this has happened so far, as instead new religious orders have been created, and no complete diocese has entered the Roman Catholic Church in this way).
However it is clear that the Roman Catholic institutions set up under Anglicanorum Coetibus are juridically new institutions. Moreover even were an institution such as a diocese to enter the Roman Catholic Church (and perhaps keep it’s particular law) then it would then be bound by the law of the Roman Catholic Church not that of the Anglican institution which it had left. So even in the latter scenario there would not be juridical continuity as the institution would have moved from an Anglican legal system to that of the Roman Catholic Church.
2. Communities capable of receiving law
The second point is that Father Hunwicke claims that Anglican communities are communities capable of receiving law as described in c.25 of the Code of Canon Law (“No custom obtains the force of law unless it has been observed with the intention of introducing a law by a community capable at least of receiving law.”). Yet, other than claiming that Anglican Ordinariate communities possess continuity with Anglican ones, a point which is debatable in itself and does not address the claim in question, Father Hunwicke has not provided any argument as to why the Anglican communities would come under canon 25.
Anglican institutions and communities are not, by their very nature, capable of receiving Roman Catholic Canon Law. It can hardly be in the mind of the legislator (the supreme pontiff) to legislate for such a community (although they might be affected by Roman Catholic Canon Law that pertains to the whole world, such as those canons which reflect divine law). Nor can an Anglican community understand themselves to be bound by such laws, otherwise the community would have put themselves under the jurisdiction of the supreme pontiff. I know that many individual Anglicans might say that they would consider themselves bound in such a way, but that does not mean that they are obliged by the law itself to act in that way.
3. Custom in the Anglican Ordinariates’ liturgical books
The third point is that Father Hunwicke claims that in the liturgical law of the Anglican Ordinariates references to custom can include (and perhaps must be limited to) the customs and practice of Anglican churches.
It is clear from his example that the liturgical books of the Anglican Ordinariates (approved by the Holy See under Article III of Anglicanorum Coetibus) give at some points a ‘normal’ liturgical discipline and a ‘variant’ option, the variant to be followed in places “where it is the custom.” I presume that the phrase is always followed by “may” or an equivalent and therefore does not have the consequence that it renders the optional variant obligatory in the place where the ‘custom’ existed.
Although he doesn’t say so explicitly Father Hunwicke appears to be arguing that this is an approval by the legislator of a pre-existing custom (as envisaged by c. 23 of the 1983 code). As Father Hunwicke suggests, the Roman Catholic canonical tradition understands custom as having affect after at least 30 years in some cases and 100 years in others. The oldest Anglican Ordinariate has existed for little more than 5 years so the custom referred to in the Anglican Ordinariate liturgical books cannot have developed in so short a time.
Father Hunwicke’s solution is to look to previous Anglican practice, which is logical given the very basis of the Anglican Ordinariates. However the lack of juridical continuity between the Catholic communities of the Anglican Ordinariates means that this cannot be what is intended by the liturgical books.
It seems inconceivable that an option would be included in a new liturgical book that was impossible to carry out (which would be the case if they could only apply where there was already 30 years of such practice). The conclusion must be that these references to ‘custom’ refer to practices of no more than five years duration.
If a custom can develop so easily then it seems unnecessary to include any restriction that it be required for the option to be adopted which leads one to wonder why the phrase was included in the first place. Presumably the ‘normal’ practice in “Divine Worship” is the same as that of the 1970 version of the Roman Rite so it was considered important to show that any deviation from that universal norm was limited? Perhaps the phrase was thought to possess a gravity commensurate with the traditional Anglican sacral language of the liturgical texts themselves? Perhaps it also belies a lack of familiarity with canonical tradition (or the possible confusion over the term would have been noted)?
Ultimately it is unfortunate that the Anglicanæ traditiones commission have chosen to use the phrase, “where it is the custom” in the Anglican Ordinariates’ liturgical books. Removing it (and ensuring it was clear that the option ‘may’ be adopted) would be preferable in giving certainty as to the law. Although (perhaps ironically) this might result in more diversity in practice this would seem uncontroversial given the number of other options available using “Divine Worship”.
Matt: I think I would say that the prevalence of Canon B5 doesn't make a difference to the customs of those who have entered the ordinariate. The customs are taken on their own merits, and their relationship to the Anglican canonical frames of reference, I would think, ceases when the communities who have adopted the customs enter the Catholic Church. The custom is, in that sense, not dependent on the law of the Church of England - it stands on its own merits. Canon B5 is a red herring in this discussion.
Surrey Highlander: you make a distinction between liturgical custom and custom in general that is not made by Canon Law. The validity of the action is not a consideration, I would argue, in the validity of the custom.
I think SH has in fact conceded that, given the data I cited, there is not an easy way of saying "Impossibile!" to my suggestion!
I have long wondered about whether the Roman Pontiff does have jurisdiction de iure over all the Baptised. It would be fun to have a view from someone competent in Canon Law! My own untutored instinct is that the Roman Pontiffs for obvious reasons (prudence; desire not to give offence; unwillingness to emit legislation which cannot be enforced) may never have asserted such a power, but that, given the Dominical Commission to S Peter to pastor the Lord's entire flock, theologically he cannot avoid having such a power.
Oh dear, that’s not quite what I intended, Fr H! What I meant is that my personal preference would be that the liturgical texts were clear. Given that the decision elsewhere in those texts has been to allow different options (and my speculation that this is also actually what was intended in these instances) I suggest the simplest change to the text would be the most sensible.
That doesn’t mean that I agree with your thesis about custom being derived from the practice of Anglican groups or even that such diversity is either desirable or appropriate.
Indeed I would question whether such diversity is genuinely “Anglican Patrimony.” From 1549 (apart from 1553-8 and 1645-1660) services of the ‘Church of England’ have legally been obliged to follow the form of the Book of Common Prayer (whichever version was in force at the time).
Although Tractarians/Anglo-Catholics/High-churchmen might have done something different in practice they were clearly doing so against the law, not within in (thus the Public Worship Regulation Act 1874, the ‘King’ case etc.). It was only in the 20th century that alternative forms have officially been allowed (arguably from either the 1929 Measure allowing use of the failed 1928 Prayer Book, the 1966 authorization of Series 1, or the introduction of the Alternative Service Book in 1980).
Clearly then the fundamental characteristic of ‘Church of England’ services is in fact uniformity of liturgy, not diversity, the latter being a modern aberration.
Furthermore the justification for Tractarians/Anglo-Catholics/High-churchmen to adopt practices that were at variance with the book of Common Prayer was in order to make their services conform to (or at least more similar to) the Roman Rite. Priests of the Anglican Ordinariate are able to use both the 1962 and 1970 versions of the Roman Rite as well as the “Divine Worship” version. Surely those who celebrated Anglican services in a similar manner to the traditional and current Roman Rite can simply use the 1962 or 1970 liturgical books (whether in Latin or vernacular).
Therefore there should be little or no need for divergent options in the “Divine Worship” liturgical texts, particularly if they are intended to reflect ‘Anglican Patrimony’.
We need an integrist view on this. Should we ask for a ruling from Mundabor?
I, too, must try to be clearer! What I meant was that SH can only evade the obvious conclusion I drew from what the Missal actually does say by arguing that it ought to be made to say something different.
Not sticking to what the Act of Parliament actually said goes back to well before 1662. In 1549, the Chapter of S Paul's 'adapted' the BCP to what they had been used to ('Communion of our Lady on Saturday' ...). The Puritans only observed the bits of the BCP they agreed with. Cosin rearranged the HC service so as to restore a 'shape' with a reintegrated Eucharistic Prayer, claimimg pre-Commonwealth episcopal precedent ... 'Usager' Non-Jurors ... the Tractarians/Ritualists defended themselves by saying that the Evangelicals and the Broad Church had been disregarding the Law of Public Worship for generations. The Royal Commission effectively admitted that everybody was ignoring the Law.
Anglicans, of whatever 'School', were NEVER fundamentalist sticklers for the Acts of Uniformity.
Fr. Hunwicke wrote "I have long wondered about whether the Roman Pontiff does have jurisdiction de iure over all the Baptised." I thought Boniface VIII long ago settled that question.
In fact, I would think that anyone validly baptized is, in fact, a member of the one Church. That some of these members are in rebellion (whether de facto or de jure) does not change the fact of their membership, because there is only one Christ into whom we are baptized, and one Church which is his body.
Surrey Highlander writes "From a Roman Catholic perspective Anglican ceremonies are not liturgical because there is no valid priest and the community is not (fully) part of the Church." I think that this formulation (which I have heard in other contexts as well) contains a problematic idea, that for a ritual to be "liturgy" there must be a priest or deacon involved. Were all the monks and nuns who prayed the office down the years not engaged in liturgy because they were laymen or laywomen. When I join the sisters at the convent down the street for Lauds or Vespers, are we just playing at things?
tinyurl.com/DWMissal
As father did not tell me what words of Metropolitan Hilarion he was referring to, I tried to research by myself - without success, unfortunately. But I found a very nice lecture about "(Orthodox) Worship as a School of Theology" which I like to share also with other readers of this blog. It does not really express any sympathy to liturgical anarchy based on a supposed "right" that "a minister who is to conduct the service may in his discretion make and use variations which are not of substantial importance". Quite opposite, Metropolitan Holarion is requesting to follow strictly the ancient liturgical traditions. But please see yourself:
http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/12/1.aspx
To the question as to the use of customs which developed in the Anglican period I suggest a parallel. I believe that certain French parachutists wear red berets and continue other traditions reflecting the formation of the unit within the British army during the second world war.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/1er_%C3%A9giment_de_parachutistes_d%27infanterie_de_marine
I note a comment above that claims that no Anglican liturgical custom can have the weight of custom in the Ordinariate because the Anglican rites were not valid as per Apostolicae curae. But this is all the harder to argue because prayers from the BCP were included in the Ordinariate's Missal, including prayers (e.g. Humble Access) which had no prior Catholic vintage, and whose sole usage and custom was within the Anglican liturgy of Holy Communion. The only option for those who wish to deny that these prayers have been included in the Ordinariate's Missal at least partly because of Anglican custom, is to say that the only reason for their inclusion in the Ordinariate's Missal is sheer papal legislative fiat... but this is hardly a sensible position to take given the tenor of the text of Anglicanorum coetibus and the obvious intention of the Pope Emeritus to include Anglican patrimony or tradition because of its consonance with Catholic faith. To do justice to the evidence one must (I think) accept that - whatever one's view of Apostolicae curae - prior Anglican liturgical traditions have already been given a degree of authority within the Ordinariate, and that if this is true even for purely Anglican prayers in the Eucharist, it must hold even more strongly for Anglican liturgical customs that have demonstrable roots in traditional Roman & Sarum liturgy.
Post a Comment