A Lament for Anglicanism

[nsper7]

If only…

The biggest problem with the Anglican Use is that it has thus far been (openly admitted) but a transitional stage for the congregation, a means to give Anglicans time to adjust to their new status as Latin Catholics. Once the original pastor retires or otherwise departs the parish changes over to the Latin liturgy.

The church does not presently recognize the Anglican form of liturgy as a Rite. It unfortunately has thus far treated it as a liturgical practice to be tolerated temporarily but not ultimately accepted. The liturgical form could potentially be given formal permanent acceptance, but it so far has not.

In the Byzantine tradition such variations in practice are not uncommon at all. The term used in those cases is a Recension. That might be a more appropriate way to look at the Anglican (sometimes called the Sarum) variation of the Latin liturgy.

Most Anglican parishes that have considered the Anglican Use in the past have sooner or later come to the realization that the agreement means the property goes to the local Latin bishop, and the liturgy will eventually be discarded. The nice books they have been using will then be set aside.

At that point the parish goes into the regular line up of Latin Catholic parishes under the bishop, and must be able to justify the resources being allocated to it like any other parish.

Why won’t the Anglican Use be accepted permanently? Also, the original Book of Common Prayer was based on the Sarum Rite.

 

[Hesychios]

Why won’t the Anglican Use be accepted permanently? Also, the original Book of Common Prayer was based on the Sarum Rite.

I really cannot answer that, but I can speculate.

I think that it is just a continuation of an old inherited policy (Rome is very slow to reverse itself). If the Church in England had not separated when it did, it is presumed that the liturgy in England would have evolved into the modern Latin practice. This is in fact what happened elsewhere in Europe. The local variations were almost all suppressed subsequent to the Council of Trent, I believe.

The Sarum rite could not be suppressed because it was in schism and beyond the reach of the Roman hierarchy at the time.

So basically I think (I speculate, rather) the reluctance on the part of Rome to grant a permanent place to the Sarum Rite is a holdover from the earlier Tridentine policy that there should be only one Rite in the church, or at least the Latin West, and there has been some reluctance all around to think differently after all this time.

It should be remembered that for a long time, uniformity of practice was a highly valued quality and it took on a lot of symbolic value. Organic variations in the liturgy were not appreciated as they are today.

In our day diversity has a symbolic value as well. Thus, modern Catholics take immense pride in the large variety of liturgical rites in the church. To many it symbolizes the universality and antiquity of the church and gives apologists bragging rights. Not very long ago we still had a completely different widespread attitude wherein uniformity of practice was a great strength, representing a homogeneous belief system, and the non-Roman rites were slowly and deliberately edged into conformity with the practices of the Roman church.

For example, the Ambrosian Rite (Milan) and the Mozarabic Rite (Toledo) are two examples of ancient separate communities in the west that still have representation, but they are not truly separate Rites today because of the many centuries of adapting to the Franco-Latin ritual practices. And they are also just about dissolved, having very very few priests and laity who worship in the tradition. Once hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people were familiar with these rites. The people who still today worship according to these rites are technically classified as Latins by the church.

[Likewise in many areas of Europe the Byzantine rite was practiced, having been introduced through the missionary activity of the Greek east, but in these particular areas (where the churches have been continually under Rome) the churches have mostly been converted to the Latin rite. The modern Byzantine Catholic rite in Europe survived because of years in schism from Rome, and therefore unreachable during that time to those who would change their practices.]

We just have to accept that uniformity of practice, as well as belief, was at one time held to be preferable, and the Latin rite was to be preferred. It’s not better or worse than what people think today, just different.

Anyway, the Sarum rite (or Usage ) survived through schism, and some people don’t like to be reminded of that. It can be particularly galling if the rite in question happens to evince a stronger emotional response from Catholics than what they will naturally give to their own church’s liturgical practice.

It is well known that the strongest opponents of the Anglican Use have been the Latin Catholic bishops of England, and the provision to allow the Anglican Use has never yet been applied there. In fact as I understand it (I might be off on this point), Pope John Paul II excluded England from the possibility of instituting the Anglican Use at their request.

 

[nsper7]

I really cannot answer that, but I can speculate.

I think that it is just a continuation of an old inherited policy (Rome is very slow to reverse itself). If the Church in England had not separated when it did, it is presumed that the liturgy in England would have evolved into the modern Latin practice. This is in fact what happened elsewhere in Europe. The local variations were almost all suppressed subsequent to the Council of Trent, I believe.

The Sarum rite could not be suppressed because it was in schism and beyond the reach of the Roman hierarchy at the time.

So basically I think (I speculate, rather) the reluctance on the part of Rome to grant a permanent place to the Sarum Rite is a holdover from the earlier Tridentine policy that there should be only one Rite in the church, or at least the Latin West, and there has been some reluctance all around to think differently after all this time.

It should be remembered that for a long time, uniformity of practice was a highly valued quality and it took on a lot of symbolic value. Organic variations in the liturgy were not appreciated as they are today.

In our day diversity has a symbolic value as well. Thus, modern Catholics take immense pride in the large variety of liturgical rites in the church. To many it symbolizes the universality and antiquity of the church and gives apologists bragging rights. Not very long ago we still had a completely different widespread attitude wherein uniformity of practice was a great strength, representing a homogeneous belief system, and the non-Roman rites were slowly and deliberately edged into conformity with the practices of the Roman church.

For example, the Ambrosian Rite (Milan) and the Mozarabic Rite (Toledo) are two examples of ancient separate communities in the west that still have representation, but they are not truly separate Rites today because of the many centuries of adapting to the Franco-Latin ritual practices. And they are also just about dissolved, having very very few priests and laity who worship in the tradition. Once hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people were familiar with these rites. The people who still today worship according to these rites are technically classified as Latins by the church.

[Likewise in many areas of Europe the Byzantine rite was practiced, having been introduced through the missionary activity of the Greek east, but in these particular areas (where the churches have been continually under Rome) the churches have mostly been converted to the Latin rite. The modern Byzantine Catholic rite in Europe survived because of years in schism from Rome, and therefore unreachable during that time to those who would change their practices.]

We just have to accept that uniformity of practice, as well as belief, was at one time held to be preferable, and the Latin rite was to be preferred. It’s not better or worse than what people think today, just different.

Anyway, the Sarum rite (or Usage ) survived through schism, and some people don’t like to be reminded of that. It can be particularly galling if the rite in question happens to evince a stronger emotional response from Catholics than what they will naturally give to their own church’s liturgical practice.

It is well known that the strongest opponents of the Anglican Use have been the Latin Catholic bishops of England, and the provision to allow the Anglican Use has never yet been applied there. In fact as I understand it (I might be off on this point), Pope John Paul II excluded England from the possibility of instituting the Anglican Use at their request.

Now, would the Eastern Orthodox be more open to an Anglican Use/Sarum Rite? If, instead of seeking full communion with Rome and rejoining the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion sought full communion with the Eastern Orthodox and joining the Eastern Rites, how would that play out?

 

[Dempsey1919]

We have the Real Presence and Apostolic Succession, we recite the Nicene Creed, yet many Anglicans seem to have lost their way. We have a long and proud history (what other church can trace its foundation to a Pope?), yet we seem to losing our future, at least in America and the ‘Western’ provinces of Anglicanism.

nsper,

I respect the fact that you are sincere in your faith, and I only hope that your faith in the Lord Jesus will continue to grow. You seem to have given your conversion a lot of thought and I am impressed with the fact that you have studied so thoroughly.

However, you need to be aware that the Anglican Church does not have valid Apostolic Succession; Anglican Orders are invalid, as declared by Pope Leo XIII in 1896:

Apostolicae Curae

1. Wherefore, strictly adhering, in this matter, to the decrees of the Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, and confirming them most fully, and, as it were, renewing them by Our authority, of Our own initiative and certain knowledge, We pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void

The reason that the Anglican Orders are invalid is because the original ordination rite was replaced by Cramner who held the original rite to be “utterly superstitious.” The Edwardian Ordinary (as Cramner’s ordination rite became known) was dropped for a period and then resurfaced under the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, and continues to be used to this day. As a result of this, the Anglican Church no longer has Apostolic Succession. Apostolic Succession was also made impossible when the Anglican Church began ordaining women to the priesthood.

The Anglicans do not have a valid Eucharist; there is no Real Presence because they do not have valid Priests. Also, the Anglican Communion does not have a unified doctrine concerning the Eucharist; some believe in consubstantiation, others believe in Transubstantiation, and others believe the Eucharist is entirely symbolic. This alone is reason to question the validity of the Anglican Eucharist.

(what other church can trace its foundation to a Pope?)

The Anglican Communion traces it’s foundation to King Henry VIII. The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, and as such, the Catholic Church is the only one who can trace it’s foundation to the Pope, or more correctly, to Christ himself. The Anglican Communion has it’s origins in an outright rejection of the Papacy.

Although you are Anglican, I want you to know that the Catholic Church will welcome you with open arms. I hope you will find your way home one day. All of the things you love in the Anglican Church have their origins in the Catholic Church. All of the things you are lamenting about are a result of the Protestantism which gave birth to the Anglican Church.

 

[thirdn6]

Now, would the Eastern Orthodox be more open to an Anglican Use/Sarum Rite? If, instead of seeking full communion with Rome and rejoining the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion sought full communion with the Eastern Orthodox and joining the Eastern Rites, how would that play out?

Sorry to interrupt…
I guess it would be like another attempt to “outsmart” the Holy Spirit.
Be sincere and humble …

 

[Hesychios]

Now, would the Eastern Orthodox be more open to an Anglican Use/Sarum Rite? If, instead of seeking full communion with Rome and rejoining the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion sought full communion with the Eastern Orthodox and joining the Eastern Rites, how would that play out?

Personally I feel that it would be even harder for the Anglican Communion to become Orthodox as a body. It is far too full of divergences.

Holy Orthodoxy has a very high bar, based entirely on the beliefs, not the ritual practices nor some higher overseeing clerical administration. Any Orthodox, bishops included, who does not agree completely with Orthodox theology excommunicates himself. There is no latitude, unity of belief defines Orthodoxy ( and likewise the liturgy must follow and support the orthodox beliefs without ambiguity).

From what I can tell nothing in the Anglican spiritual/theological tradition comes close to satisfying this requirement of the Orthodox. The 39 Articles of religion do not seem very Orthodox, the old respected Anglican Divines were not Orthodox leaning, the Oxford movement did not approach it.

However there actually is a western rite in Holy Orthodoxy, generally originating in a group of Episcopalians in North America, and a group of Old Catholics mostly in Europe.

The North Americans mostly follow the liturgy of Saint Tikhon, which essentially is the Anglican liturgy! The idea was first floated during the time Saint Tikhon was the leading bishop of the Russian Metropolia in North America (the predecessor of the OCA) and he suggested that the Anglican liturgy be modified for approval by the Holy Synod of the Russian church. Those were very hopeful times, when relations between the Orthodox and the Anglican Communion were much better, none of the later Anglican changes could have been foreseen at the time.

In any case, little to nothing came of the idea, but later the Patriarchate of Antioch received some Episcopal parishes under the condition that they adopt the liturgical modifications suggested by the Russian synod. The Western Rite vicariate was born. It is strictly Orthodox, with no tolerance for theological variation.

If Anselm’s theology, the Council of Orange, Aquinas, the Anglican Divines and all that other western thinking is important to you, I suggest that you stay far away from the Orthodox. Western Rite Orthodoxy is pure Orthodox, with a liturgy that is presumed to represent what the west could have had for itself if it were Orthodox too.

God be with you,
Michael

 

[peary]

**This past week, the Vatican said that the Anglican church has to make a decision - either it’s Catholic or it’s Protestant. **

 

[Peter_J]

The local variations were almost all suppressed subsequent to the Council of Trent, I believe.

Yes. Trent decided that the Roman Rite had to be used in all places except those which had been using a different rite for at least 200 years. Thus, even those rites which survived, such as the Ambrosian Rite, were greatly restricted after Trent.

(This was done in the 1570 Apostolic Constitution Quo Primum. Here’s what seems to be the most relevant passage:

This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.

All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.

)

 

[GKC]

nsper,

I respect the fact that you are sincere in your faith, and I only hope that your faith in the Lord Jesus will continue to grow. You seem to have given your conversion a lot of thought and I am impressed with the fact that you have studied so thoroughly.

However, you need to be aware that the Anglican Church does not have valid Apostolic Succession; Anglican Orders are invalid, as declared by Pope Leo XIII in 1896:

The reason that the Anglican Orders are invalid is because the original ordination rite was replaced by Cramner who held the original rite to be “utterly superstitious.” The Edwardian Ordinary (as Cramner’s ordination rite became known) was dropped for a period and then resurfaced under the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, and continues to be used to this day. As a result of this, the Anglican Church no longer has Apostolic Succession. Apostolic Succession was also made impossible when the Anglican Church began ordaining women to the priesthood.

The Anglicans do not have a valid Eucharist; there is no Real Presence because they do not have valid Priests. Also, the Anglican Communion does not have a unified doctrine concerning the Eucharist; some believe in consubstantiation, others believe in Transubstantiation, and others believe the Eucharist is entirely symbolic. This alone is reason to question the validity of the Anglican Eucharist.

The Anglican Communion traces it’s foundation to King Henry VIII. The Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, and as such, the Catholic Church is the only one who can trace it’s foundation to the Pope, or more correctly, to Christ himself. The Anglican Communion has it’s origins in an outright rejection of the Papacy.

Although you are Anglican, I want you to know that the Catholic Church will welcome you with open arms. I hope you will find your way home one day. All of the things you love in the Anglican Church have their origins in the Catholic Church. All of the things you are lamenting about are a result of the Protestantism which gave birth to the Anglican Church.

With respect to the RC position on Anglican orders, part of this is correct, part is not, historically.

The Edwardine Ordinal was judged, in Apostolicae Curae, to be defective in form, with respect to conveying orders, and this, when considered with the alleged defect of intention manifested in using the ordinal, was said (by Leo XIII, using Merry Del Val’s words) to result in an inablilty to validly convey valid orders. The intent and the form had to be considered together, since the form itself does not differ from a number of Rites which Rome does recognise as conveying valid orders. Though it is not explicit in the Bull, the usual reasoning is that the defect in intent (which must inhere in a particular person and action) was manifested at the consecration of Archbishop Parker, in 1559 (see Clark’s ANGLICAN ORDERS AND DEFECT OF INTENTION). Since +Parker is a bottleneck in the Anglican episcopacy, this represents the break in Apostolic succession claimed by Rome.

The Ordinal no longer possess the alleged defect, the form of conveying orders having been changed in 1662, for unrelated reasons.

*Apostolicae Curae *is a complicated and sad subject, and I rather think that nsper7 is aware of it and the consequences that follow, for anyone who accepts it. As all Roman Catholcis should, of course.

GKC

 

[Dempsey1919]

The Ordinal no longer possess the alleged defect, the form of conveying orders having been changed in 1662, for unrelated reasons.

Any ordinations carried out using the original Edwardine Ordinary were invalid; thereby rupturing the Apostolic Succession within the Anglican Communion.

I am aware of the existence of clergy within the Anglican Communion who were validly ordained, and these individuals held Apostolic Succession. This means that not all of the Orders within the Anglican Communion were invalid. It could be said that the Apostolic Succession within the Anglican Church was fragmented at this time.

However, modern developments such as the ordination of women has been a devastating blow to the remaining Apostolic Succession of the Anglican Communion. The Consecration of women Bishops will only compound this.

The issue of Apostolic Succession within the Anglican Communion is a difficult subject to aproach, but it seems reasonable to suspect that there is little Succession left in the Anglican Orders, and the situation will only get worse.

 

[Peter_J]

Now, would the Eastern Orthodox be more open to an Anglican Use/Sarum Rite? If, instead of seeking full communion with Rome and rejoining the Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Communion sought full communion with the Eastern Orthodox and joining the Eastern Rites, how would that play out?

Hi nsper,

On a wee tangent, are you familiar with the case of the Nordic Catholic Church? They’re a group that left the (Lutheran) Church of Norway and entered into full communion with the PNCC (Polish National Catholic Church).

Even though we were not looking for the lowest common denominator, we had to take into consideration that not all our people were moving at the same speed, and some probably were not going to move either to Constantinople or to Rome. Therefore, those of us who had responsibility wanted to find some sort of structure that could take us as a flock. So we made contact with the PNCC in 1996. They were very generous to us and proposed a period of convergence into the new system.

(Quotation taken from Out on a Limb in Norway)

 

[GKC]

Any ordinations carried out using the original Edwardine Ordinary were invalid; thereby rupturing the Apostolic Succession within the Anglican Communion.

I am aware of the existence of clergy within the Anglican Communion who were validly ordained, and these individuals held Apostolic Succession. This means that not all of the Orders within the Anglican Communion were invalid. It could be said that the Apostolic Succession within the Anglican Church was fragmented at this time.

However, modern developments such as the ordination of women has been a devastating blow to the remaining Apostolic Succession of the Anglican Communion. The Consecration of women Bishops will only compound this.

The issue of Apostolic Succession within the Anglican Communion is a difficult subject to aproach, but it seems reasonable to suspect that there is little Succession left in the Anglican Orders, and the situation will only get worse.

And the rupture point is usually taken to be the consecration of +Parker.

The placing of Anglican episcopal hands on hairspray (invalid matter) would not affect the validity of Anglican orders generally, assuming they were otherwise valid (which, as an Anglican, I do). It most certainly would mean that orders in that particular case were not validly conveyed. And certainly, the placing of mitres on females makes the case more dire, in that no valid orders will be conveyed, from such bishopettes. Sort of making *Apostolicae Curae * a prescient document, however accurate it might have been at the time.

In addition, there is the issue of the infusion of Old Catholic (back from the days when they knew what valid matter was) and PNCC lines in the general run of the Anglican episcopacy, starting in 1932.

It’s a complicated and sad story.

GKC

 

[elgar]

If only…

The biggest problem with the Anglican Use is that it has thus far been (openly admitted) but a transitional stage for the congregation, a means to give Anglicans time to adjust to their new status as Latin Catholics. Once the original pastor retires or otherwise departs the parish changes over to the Latin liturgy.

The church does not presently recognize the Anglican form of liturgy as a Rite. It unfortunately has thus far treated it as a liturgical practice to be tolerated temporarily but not ultimately accepted. The liturgical form could potentially be given formal permanent acceptance, but it so far has not.

In the Byzantine tradition such variations in practice are not uncommon at all. The term used in those cases is a Recension. That might be a more appropriate way to look at the Anglican (sometimes called the Sarum) variation of the Latin liturgy.

Most Anglican parishes that have considered the Anglican Use in the past have sooner or later come to the realization that the agreement means the property goes to the local Latin bishop, and the liturgy will eventually be discarded. The nice books they have been using will then be set aside.

At that point the parish goes into the regular line up of Latin Catholic parishes under the bishop, and must be able to justify the resources being allocated to it like any other parish.

For an update on what’s going on, go to:
atonementparish.blogspot.com/ and look at “Some Movement on the TAC question and It’s not Breaking News”. I will remain hopeful that Anglican Use Rites will be expanded because of Pope Benedict and a few US Bishops.

 

[nsper7]

I just found out my Chaplain is considering trying out using Pre-Reformation liturgies for Eucharist. That should be really interesting. After all, how often can one truly connect with that Early Church?

 

[Hesychios]

I just found out my Chaplain is considering trying out using Pre-Reformation liturgies for Eucharist. That should be really interesting.

I can see that must be a good thing.

After all, how often can one truly connect with that Early Church?

For Orthodox it is not much of a problem. There has been organic development, but exceedingly slow. Not too many direct interventions and the Orthodox did not go through the Scholastic era nor the Reformation.

Saint John Chrysostom is credited with revising the Antiochian liturgy and he applied his version to the use in the great cathedral at Constantinople, from where the liturgical form spread to what is now often referred to as the Byzantine churches. That would be the real biggie, yet the basic structure remains the one used in the older Antiochian liturgy (Liturgy of St James, essentially), the biggest change was in the prayers.

Then some of the action which early on took place outside of the temple at the beginning of the liturgy (processions in the street, the Rite of Preparation and bringing in the Holy Gifts) were brought into the temple building itself, which makes a lot of sense in colder climates and also in places where Orthodox are a persecuted minority.

Finally, the iconostasis developed (sometime after the last Ecumenical Council, the Triumph of Orthodoxy), which had the effect of making the Mysteries at the altar seem a bit more awesome and mysterious.

Read St John of Damascus to get a real flavor of the church in that era. It is still relevant to eastern Christians.

 

[chris_molter]

There has been organic development, but exceedingly slow.

Don’t tell that to some of the online hardcore Orthodox! You’ll be headless before you can blink, my friend!

Seriously, though, I agree with you. I think the Catholic/Orthodox dialogue would get farther, faster, if we’d both recognize the fact that development (in one form or another and in some fashion) DOES occur in both communions and it isn’t “adding” to the deposit of faith.

(sorry, slightly off the Anglican topic, but it IS somewhat related)

 

[nsper7]

I can see that must be a good thing.

Yeah, I was just making a general comment not really related to what I had been talking about earlier. I just thought it would be interesting to note.

 

[nsper7]

And the rupture point is usually taken to be the consecration of +Parker.

The placing of Anglican episcopal hands on hairspray (invalid matter) would not affect the validity of Anglican orders generally, assuming they were otherwise valid (which, as an Anglican, I do). It most certainly would mean that orders in that particular case were not validly conveyed. And certainly, the placing of mitres on females makes the case more dire, in that no valid orders will be conveyed, from such bishopettes. Sort of making *Apostolicae Curae * a prescient document, however accurate it might have been at the time.

In addition, there is the issue of the infusion of Old Catholic (back from the days when they knew what valid matter was) and PNCC lines in the general run of the Anglican episcopacy, starting in 1932.

It’s a complicated and sad story.

GKC

In regards to Apostolic Succession, even if we assume that women are invalid matter for ordnation (which I disagree with wholeheartedly…my Chaplain is female, but this is a different argument), would they necessarily be invalid for determining Apostolic lines?

Compare it to the idea of cognatic male primogeniture under a Salic inheritance system. A King has no son, but does have a daughter, who has sons. Although the daughter cannot inherit under Salic law, the line would continue through her and her son (the King’s grandson) would inherit.

Thus, for those who deny that woman are valid matter for certain ecclesiastical roles, are they invalid matter for consecrating Eucharist? If so, then then are they still invalid matter for receiving/conveying Apostolic Succession?

 

[GKC]

In regards to Apostolic Succession, even if we assume that women are invalid matter for ordnation (which I disagree with wholeheartedly…my Chaplain is female, but this is a different argument), would they necessarily be invalid for determining Apostolic lines?

Compare it to the idea of cognatic male primogeniture under a Salic inheritance system. A King has no son, but does have a daughter, who has sons. Although the daughter cannot inherit under Salic law, the line would continue through her and her son (the King’s grandson) would inherit.

Thus, for those who deny that woman are valid matter for certain ecclesiastical roles, are they invalid matter for consecrating Eucharist? If so, then then are they still invalid matter for receiving/conveying Apostolic Succession?

IAW the mind of the Church since the beginning, as explicated in Ordinatio sacerdotalis, for example, yes, and no, to the questions in your last para.

The proper question for 1 would be are they a valid minister. No. Since they cannot receive orders, being invalid matter with respect to that sacrament, which results in a “yes” answer to #2…

GKC

 

[Hesychios]

Don’t tell that to some of the online hardcore Orthodox! You’ll be headless before you can blink, my friend!

I don’t know why.

I am hard core Orthodox.

Seriously, though, I agree with you.

You must be mistaken

I think the Catholic/Orthodox dialogue would get farther, faster, if we’d both recognize the fact that development (in one form or another and in some fashion) DOES occur in both communions and it isn’t “adding” to the deposit of faith.

(sorry, slightly off the Anglican topic, but it IS somewhat related)

I guess you are mistaken…

I would never confuse organic liturgical development with theological innovation. Two entirely different things.

Michael