The Book of Common Prayer should be our manifesto

11 September 2010

/article_images/articledir_12517/6258803/1_listing.jpg

Conservative Anglicans should resist the temptation to convert to Roman Catholicism, says Peter Hitchens. It is the Church of England that is best placed to challenge our secularist age

I would very much like to know which parts of the Adamus analysis are rejected by the English hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. If we knew, then it would be far easier for the radical enemies of Pope Benedict to grasp that the Roman Catholic Church is far from united behind the sort of conservatism embraced by the last two Popes. And that many liberal Roman Catholics would be far from broken-hearted if this visit were an embarrassing failure — a failure that would help to ensure that Benedict would be the last conservative Pope. Reformers who did not dare challenge the gigantic, unassailable John Paul II can see that their day is coming. Benedict’s apparent rock-like strength conceals a grave weakness.

If the next Pope returns to the liberalism of the days before John Paul II, conservative Christians in this country will no longer be able to seek asylum in Rome, where they would soon find exactly the thing they flee from.

Yet perhaps by reoccupying and recapturing the citadels of their own Church, rather than by defecting to another one, English-speaking Christian conservatives might discover that they have a surprisingly powerful weapon in their hands, one that has not ceased to exist just because it has fallen out of use.

They might consider that Thomas Cranmer’s Book of Common Prayer, despite all the assaults of fashion and cultural revolution, remains authorised by law for use in the Church of England, and remains its standard of belief and worship — though, astonishingly, many theological colleges do not even teach its use to their students. And they might note that its beautiful, neglected services — not only Evensong but many others including the Solemnisation of Matrimony — are the most eloquent and thoughtful repudiation of the spirit of 1968 in the English language. If the 68ers actually studied it, they would hate it far more than they hate the Pope, which seems to me to be a good reason for the rest of us to make it our revolutionary manifesto against the sick spirit of the age.

Peter Hitchens is a columnist for the Mail on Sunday and the author of The Rage Against God.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

More articles from: Peter Hitchens | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (5)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Tess

September 19th, 2010 11:07pm Report this comment

Beautifully said, Peter! Amen.

j.p.

September 22nd, 2010 4:34pm Report this comment

One cannot but concur with Peter Hitchen�s analysis of modern society and the "culture of death" (a term coined by Pope John Paul II) and the role of the "68ers" in it, as well as the real reason behind the hatred the Church faces from so much of published public opinion. This being said, I strongly doubt the Church of England is the answer to that problem, or ever could be. It is weak, divided and long since part of the problem, imho. There is but ONE rock Christ built His Church upon, and his name is Peter.

Stephen Gray

September 22nd, 2010 7:01pm Report this comment

I thought Hitchens was Jewish.

CharlieRay15

September 24th, 2010 5:25pm Report this comment

There is still a Church which practises Christianity as it was practised by the Apostles and the early Christians. It's called the Orthodox Church and it exists in Britain too.

Edwin Tait

September 24th, 2010 7:45pm Report this comment

What "liberalism of the days before John Paul II"? Certainly the pontificate of Paul VI (and much of JPII's pontificate as well) was marked by a high degree of toleration for liberalism throughout the RCC. But by what standards could Paul VI, or even John XXIII, have been said to be liberal? Not, I think, by standards that make much sense in an Anglican context. Is Humanae Vitae a liberal document by Anglican standards?

Anglicans flee to Rome for the simple reason that Anglicanism is not truly Catholic, and has not been since the sixteenth century. The BCP is glorious indeed, and is the reason I became an Anglican myself. But it isn't enough. Anglicanism broke not just with "foreign jurisdiction" but with historic Christianity in the sixteenth century, and we have been wandering in circles ever since.

Whether Rome or the East is the answer I honestly don't know. Perhaps neither of them is as currently constituted. But there's more going on than a desire for "conservatism." What converts (and perpetual almost-converts like myself) crave is Catholicity.

Post comment