Thursday, September 29, 2005

Andrewes and impanation cont.

*** This is in response to a request for a definition of impanation: Here it is.

The term ‘impanation’ does not appear until the controversy of Berengarius of Tours at the end of the eleventh century. Impanation teaches that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, but rejects the idea of Transubstantiation. Rather there is a presence by a kind of impanation (Christum quodammodo impanari). It is akin to Consubstantiation but focuses more on a sort of ‘hypostatic’ union of the bread and wine with the Body and Blood of Christ. Impanation teaches that in the Eucharist, Christ, through his human body is substantially united with the substances of bread and wine, and thus really present as God, made bread: Deus panis factus. Impanation is a word that was coined to imitate the language of the Incarnation. There is an ‘interchange’ that takes place between the Son of God and the substance of bread, though only through the mediation of the body of Christ.

Let me begin by stating that I am merely putting these quotations out for discussion more so than my being convinced that Andrewes could be classified as one who held to impanation. It is a term that is used negatively by Roman Catholics and Reformers alike to deny the manner of presence of Christ in the Eucharistic elements of bread and wine. Impanation is defined to be a view that is akin to consubstantiation and it is a presence by a kind of Christum quodammodo impanari. It focuses more on a sort of 'hypostatic' union of the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ. This view describes an interchange that takes place between the Son of God and the substance of bread, though only through the mediation of the body of Christ. It is argued that Luther denied the hypostatic union of the unchanged substance of bread but did teach that the body of Christ penetrated it. Below are some quotations with periodic interactions.

Please feel free to leave some thoughts:

I particularly found what could be some evidence of impanation in Andrewes’ Nativity sermon on Ephesians 1.10 preached in 1623. This sermon, like many others of Andrewes’, often speaks of the Eucharist as the means by which we pre-eminently partake of the Incarnation. So a reference to the ‘hypostatic’ union would not be too surprising of a theme within that context. The sermon is devoted to making sure that the hearer understands that all things are to be summed up in the heavenlies and on earth in Christ. Throughout the sermon Andrewes is keen to focus on the two realities of heaven and earth being united in Christ. After focusing on this Christological doctrine in the Incarnation he turns that doctrine into an opportunity to discuss the Eucharist. He unites it to the Church’s celebration of this recapitulation of Christmas Day and Andrewes develops his thought by showing how the elements of bread and wine are brought together in Heaven where he says, “Both these issuing out of this day’s recapitulation, both in corpus autem aptasti Mihi of this day.” He related the coming together of these two realities (heaven and earth) as a sort of hypostatical union of the elements and what is actually received in the elements; namely the body and blood of Christ. He stated that, “And the gathering or vintage of these two in the blessed Eucharist, is as I may say a kind of hypostatical union of the sign and the thing signified, so united together as are the two natures of Christ.” He went on to defend his sacramental theology of union of signs and things signified from the Fathers. Particularly he uses Irenaeus, Theodoret from the East and Gelasius from the West. This position was used against Eutyches. From the writings of Irenaeus, Andrewes claims he is gleaning these insights. He echoes this quotation from Book IV. 18 adv. heres. It reads,
But our opinion is in accordance with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn establishes our opinion. For we offer to Him His own, announcing consistently the fellowship and union of the flesh and Spirit. For as the bread, which is produced from the earth, when it receives the invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two realities, earthly and heavenly; so also our bodies, when they receive the Eucharist, are no longer corruptible, having the hope of the resurrection to eternity.
. He echoes Theodoret at this point who writes:
For even after the consecration the mystic symbols are not deprived of their own nature; they remain in their former substance figure and form; they are visible and tangible as they were before. But they are regarded as what they are become, and believed so to be, and are worshipped as being what they are believed to be. Compare then the image with the archetype, and you will see the likeness, for the type must be like the reality. For that body preserves its former form, figure, and limitation and in a word the substance of the body; but after the resurrection it has become immortal and superior to corruption; it has become worthy of a seat on the righthand; it is adored by every creature as being called the natural body of the Lord.
It was in the following remarks that we acquire a grasp on Andrewes’ theology of Eucharistic presence and his view of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. He said,
That even as in the Eucharist neither part is evacuate or turned into the other, but abide each still in his former nature and substance, no more is either of Christ’s natures annulled, or one of the converted into the other, as Eutyches held, but each nature remaineth still full and whole in his own kind. And backwards; as the two natures in Christ, so the signum and signatum in the Sacrament, e converse. And this latter device, of the substance of the bread and wine to be flown away and gone, and in the room of it a remainder of nothing else but accidents to stay behind, was to them not known, and had it been true, had made for Eutyches and against them. And this for the likeness of union in both.
Andrewes rejected this opinion as an issue de fide but did not see it as a heresy. He did not take the Eucharistic celebration to be a transformation of the elements so much, though he clearly held to a sacramental presence via a sacramental change; rather he saw the Eucharist as the meal of recapitulation and as the principal gathering of the Church. His focal point was on the Synaxis rather than trying to figure out how we receive the body and blood in bread and wine. He merely accepted the reality that we do. He illustrated this by referring to the Eucharist as its name in antiquity and described the purpose of it.
Now for the word “gathering together in one.” It is well known the holy Eucharist itself is called Synaxis, by no name more usual in all antiquity, that is, a ‘collection or gathering.’ For so it is in itself; for at the celebration of it, though we gather to prayer and to preaching, yet that is the principal gathering the Church hath, which is itself called a “collection” too by the same name from the chief; for “where the body is there the eagles will be gathered,” and so one Synaxis begets another.

Andrewes quite pointedly focused on the relationship of our union with the Person Jesus and His being offered to us in participation of the Sacrament.
For there we do not gather to Christ or of Christ, but we gather Christ Himself; and gathering Him we shall gather the tree and fruit and all upon it. For as there is a recapitulation of all in Heaven and earth in Christ, so there is a recapitulation of all in Christ in the holy Sacrament. You may see it clearly: there is in Christ the Word eternal for things in Heaven; there is also flesh for things on earth. Semblably, the Sacrament consisteth of a Heavenly and of a terrene part, (it is Irenaeus’ own words); the Heavenly—there the word too, the abstract of the other; the earthly—the element.
I found similar statements from Andrewes in a few other sermons on the Nativity. For example he writes,
Now the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body, of the flesh, of Jesus Christ? It is surely, and by it and by nothing more are we made partakers of this most blessed union…Because He [Christ] hath so done, taken ours of us, and that, to no other end, but that he might make the receiving of it by us a means whereby He might dwell in us and we in him; he taking our flesh and we receiving his Spirit, by his flesh which he took of us receiving his Spirit which he imparteth to us; that, as he is by ours became consors humanae naturae, so we by his might become consortes divinae naturae “partakers of the divine nature.” Verily, it is the most straight and perfect ‘taking hold’ that is. No union so knitteth as it. Not consanguinity; brethren fall out. Not marriage; man and wife are severed. But that which is nourished and the nourishment wherewith--they never are, never can be severed, but remain one forever. With this act then of mutual 'taking' taking of his flesh as he hath taken ours, let us seal our duty to him this day, for taking not Angels but the seed of Abraham.
It was a day that Andrewes believed that what we celebrate in the Eucharist unites us to all that the Incarnation offers and we receive the fullness of it in the Sacrament. Andrewes rhetorically asks,
How is that? How shall we receive Him? Who shall give Him us? That shall One That will say unto us within a while, Accipite, “Take, this is My Body,” “by the offering whereof ye are sanctified [Matt. 26.26, 28].” “Take, this is My Blood;” by the shedding whereof ye are saved.” Both in the holy mysteries ordained by God as pledges to assure us, and as conduit pipes to convey into us this and all other the benefits that come by this our Saviour. Verily, upon His memorable days, of which this is the first, we are bound to do something in memory, or remembrance of Him. What is that? Will ye know what it is? Hoc facite, “Do this in remembrance of Me.”
In his Isaiah 7.14 sermon He speaks of God’s special way of being cum ‘with’ us in prayer and praises etc. These are all well, says Andrewes, but they are not all the ways God is with us.
That hath a special Cum of itself, peculiar to it. Namely, that we be so with Him, as He this day was ‘with us;’ that was in flesh, not in spirit only. That flesh that was conceived and this day born, (Corpus aptasti Mihi,) that body that was this day fitted to Him. And if we be not with Him thus, if this His flesh be not “with us,” if we partake it not, which was soever else we be with Him, we come short of the Im of this day. Im otherwise it may be, but not that way which is proper to this feast. This, as it is most proper, so it is the most straight and near that can be—the surest being withall that can be. Nihil tam nobiscum, tam nostrum, quam alimentum nostrum, ‘nothing so with us, so ours, as that we eat and drink down,’ which goeth, and growth one with us. For alimentum et alitum do coalescere in unum, ‘grow into an union;’ that union is inseperable ever after.
The doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is communicated in the shadows of the Incarnation of what it means for God to be with us in this rite.
This then I commend to you, even the being with Him in the Sacrament of His Body—that Body that was conceived and born, as for other ends so for this specially, to be “with you;” and this day, as for other intents, so even for this, for the Holy Eucharist. This, as the kindliest for the time, as the surest for the manner of being with.
This sign is how we find Him and it is this same sign of humility in us when we are found by Him. Therefore in the Sacrament of the Eucharist we find the Christ-child. As the cratch carried the Christ-child who humbled himself in that state to give of Himself to us, so He is also humbling Himself in His being given to us in the cradle of Bread and Wine the glorified Christ who was praised by the Host of Angels at the cratch in the manger.
You say well, for that we have heard we may, but not for any sign we. Yes, for that too. The Sacrament we shall have besides, and of the Sacrament we may well say, Hoc erit signum. For a sign it is, and by it invenietis Puerum, ‘ye shall find this Child.’ For finding His flesh and blood, ye cannot miss but find Him too. And a sign, not so much from this here. For Christ in the Sacrament is not altogether unlike Christ in the cratch. To the cratch we may well liken the husk or outward symbols of it. Outwardly it seems little worth but it is rich of contents, as was the crib this day with Christ in it. For what are they, but infirma et egena elementa, “weak and poor elements” of themselves? Yet in them we find Christ. Even as they did this day in præsepi jumentorum panem Angelorum, ‘in the beasts’ crib the food of Angels;’ which very food our signs both represent, and present to us.

Andrewes did not use the word ‘impanation’ to describe his position of Eucharistic presence and why would he since Rome declared it a heresy? (I must say that it is true that Andrewes did all he could to make clear that he did not pretend to know how Christ was present in the Eucharist and did not probe too far into the mystery of it.) Not only would Andrewes refrain from using Osiander’s name for his view against Rome neither would he use it since other Reformers on the Continent had their turn with Osiander as well, including Calvin. Actually, the word ‘impanation’ does not come up until later in Church history and is used negatively to refute any sort of Consubstantationist position of presence. But the doctrine that the word sets forth to describe a view of how Christ is present in the Eucharist surely seems quite close to Andrewes’ own position on Eucharistic presence. If Andrewes is not holding to a view of impanation via a hypostatical union of the elements (bread and wine) ‘earthly’ and (Christ) ‘heavenly’ then it becomes painstakingly obvious that he comes very close to this opinion. It is questioned whether or not Berengarius held to this position of the hypostatic union of Jesus’ flesh and the elements. It is argued that what Berengarius held to was more of a Lutheran view of in, cum et sub pane. If impanation is not Andrewes’ unqualified position, there at least seems to be some sort of an amalgamation of the doctrine of impanation within the use of Christological language that seems to shape Andrewes’ theology of Eucharistic presence. But, I may be wrong and it's something mysteriously Patristic!


Blogger Pontificator said...

Jeff, could you provide a precise definition of impanation and differentiate it from consubstantiation. Like you, I have run across the term frequently but it has always been used fairly loosely.

I'm also curious about Osiander. If possible, I'd love to see some citations from him where he describes his view of the Real Presence.

Clearly Andrewes was seeking to expound a very strong identification of the bread and wine with the Body and Blood. It is not surprising that he, like many others before him and since, have invoked the analogy of the hypostatic union. Yet the problems inherent to the analogy have persuaded most that the transformation of the elements is more accurately described in other terms. Preachers and poets may well describe the risen Christ as becoming bread and wine for us, just as the eternal Son became man for us; but it is best not to push the analogy too far.

Assuming the impanation theory, in what sense is it proper to speak of the consecrated elements as our Lord's Body and Blood. Does Christ now have two bodies---his glorified body and his sacramental body? Impanation may sound less problematic than transubstantiation; but I doubt it really is.

8:37 pm  
Blogger Jeff said...

Al you say...Assuming the impanation theory, in what sense is it proper to speak of the consecrated elements as our Lord's Body and Blood. Does Christ now have two bodies---his glorified body and his sacramental body? Impanation may sound less problematic than transubstantiation; but I doubt it really is.

I think that was Andrewes' point about Eutyches. He would answer no. The same way the hypostatic union functions in Christology without destroying either nature of Christ or forming two persons, so the Eucharistic presence. Each holds its nature without confusion yet the union between the two still communicate the one Christ in the Sacrament. That is how I would guess. I am no expert here and still trying to get my head around it philosophically and theologically as I try to understand myself. One problem that many would have naturally had of this view it seems is the adoring of Christ in the Sacrament. Interestingly, Andrewes confirmed that to Perron.

In conclusion of this section of Andrewes' answer to Perron I wrote the following:

Andrewes’s stance against divine adoration of the Sacrament is tied to his denial of transubstantiation. Having gone to examine Theodoret Dialogue II for myself, I too find that it is strange that Perron would use this passage that speaks against what he is seeking to argue for. Contextually, Andrewes is correct to argue that the sense in which Theodoret is using proskunei/tai is with reference to giving reverence and welcoming respectfully. In that sense, Andrewes agrees with the custom of bowing and venerating (venerationem) the Sacrament as a symbol of God’s divine presence and worshipping the Christ of the Sacrament.

9:36 pm  
Anonymous William Tighe said...

I am not sure that I understand the precise nature of your distinction -- or perhaps Andrewes' distinction -- as described in the last paragraph of your immediately preceding comment, between "divine adoration of the Sacrament" (a bad thing) and "worshipping the Christ of the Sacrament" (a good thing). Try as I might, I can't get over the impression that this is a distinction without a difference (unless the meaning of the latter term is to worship Christ at the Sacrament, in thanksgiving for the gift that he conveys through it). Oh, and by the way, I wonder whether Andrewes' description of the Sacrament as a "conduit" agrees with an impanationist view.

Btw, did Andrewes (like Hooker) ever criticize (however glancingly) Lutheran views on the Eucharist? As I recall, Hooker in one or two places strongly criticized what he took to be the Lutheran view of the Presence, although I don't remember whether he ever characterized it as "consubstantiation."

4:29 pm  
Blogger Jeff said...

Professor Tighe

I do not recall seeing Andrewes criticise Lutheran views. I have seen him strongly criticise Zwinglian views or receptionists views. His instrumentalism would be one of the clues that makes me think again about this impanation position. On addoration, I'll just quote what he says to du Perron. Forgive the Greek words that won't come through. I'm posting it in haste.

I. Belief of Christ in the Sacrament sub species.
Arguing against Zwingli to Perron Andrewes confirms that Zwingli “To avoid Est in the Church of Rome’s sense, he fell to be all for Significat, and nothing for Est at all. And whatsoever went further than significant he took to savour of the carnal presence. For which, if the Cardinal mislike him, so do we. And so he doth not well (against his own knowledge) to charge his opinion upon us.”

II. The external Adoration of the Sacrament.
This second is an act says Andrewes avec gestes et adorations externs. Arguing from how Cyril taught concerning how the Church is to receive the Cup Andrewes explains that they too adore Christ in the gesture of bowing. Touching on how Perron would have the Church receive the Eucharist Andrewes says, “for he would have the party that receiveth it, ku,ptein, that is, to bow himself, and cast his eyes to the ground; that is, in humble and reverent manner to do it. And so do we. And tro,pw proskunh,sewj, after the manner of adoring, amounteth not to adoring: for after the manner, or as men use to do, that adore, is a term qualified, and restrained to the outward manner. In which manner our Church enjoineth it to be received…And we (by the grace of God) hold the Sacrament to be venerable, and with all due respect to be handled and received.” Having corrected Perron’s citation of Augustine from the XCVIth Psalm to the XCVIIIth he writes, “But upon the 98 Psalm these words are, which (I dare say) he means:, No one sets out to eateth that flesh, unless he hath first worshiped, which I trust, no Christian man will ever refuse to do; that is, to adore the flesh of Christ.” He goes on to remind Perron that “for Saint Augustine presently is careful to warn his auditors, that the word manducat there is to be spiritually understood, and he bringeth in Christ thus speaking. Andrewes was agreeing that there is a proper veneration of the physical Sacrament but not a worshipping of it with divine qualities. Andrewes goes on to turn Perron’s own use of Theodoret against him showing that the Sacramental Symbols, after the consecration, go not from their own nature, but abide in their former substance, shape, and kind. Andrewes concludes his answer saying,

And he gains nothing by it; for proskunei/tai in the Cardinal’s sense, may be taken pour venerer, (that is, to honour and reverence;) and is to be taken in that sense, and cannot, here, be taken in any other. For the Symbols so abiding, it is easily known no divine adoration can be used to them, nor any other than hath been said.

Andrewes’s stance against divine adoration of the Sacrament is tied to his denial of transubstantiation. Having gone to examine Theodoret Dialogue II for myself, I too find that it is strange that Perron would use this passage that speaks against what he is seeking to argue for. Contextually, Andrewes is correct to argue that the sense in which Theodoret is using proskunei/tai is with reference to giving reverence and welcoming respectfully. In that sense, Andrewes agrees with the custom of bowing and venerating (venerationem) the Sacrament as a symbol of God’s divine presence and worshipping the Christ of the Sacrament.

III. Reservation of the Sacrament

Andrewes does not so much as argue against reservation as a theological problem but sees it as a practical issue developed from the unstable times in the early Church when it was not for certain when and where they would be able to receive it again. Arguing from the Council of Saragossa, Can. III in the year 381 and of the Council of Toledo, Can. XIV. in the year 405, those who continue the practice of taking the Sacrament home for their own use are to be corrected upon pains of being cast out of the Church as sacrilegious persons. For the sick, Andrewes argues, the Sacrament ought to be taken to them and is reserved for that purpose but what the original intention of sacramental reservation was for is not needed in his day as there is much opportunity to come to Church to receive the Blessed Sacrament.

IV. Communion under one kind
Not much interaction, but see his sermons. He understands it to be a novel practice.

V. The Eucharist a Sacrifice
According to the Roman teaching of the Mass, the Eucharist serves two purposes: that of a sacrifice and a sacrament. Andrewes did not have a theological problem with the sacrifice of the Mass but actually embraced it with strong Catholic leanings save the doctrine of transubstantiation. He agrees that the Eucharist has a two-fold purpose of that of sacrifice and sacrament. He says that it is a fulfilment of the Old Testament sacrifices and that it was available for the whole Church both living and the dead.

The Eucharist ever was, and by us is considered, both as a Sacrament, and as a Sacrifice. A Sacrifice is proper and applicable only to divine worship. The Sacrifice of Christ’s death did succeed to the Sacrifices of the Old Testament. The Sacrifice of Christ’s death is available for present, absent, living, dead, (yea, for them that are yet unborn.) When we say the dead, we mean it is available for the Apostles, Martyrs, and Confessors, and all (because we are all members of one body:) these no man will deny. In a word we hold with Saint Augustine in the very same chapter which the Cardinal citeth, as far as this Sacrifice of the flesh and blood, before Christ’s coming, by means of the likeness of the repayment that was promised; according to the suffering of Christ, by means of the true sacrifice of himself being handed over; after Christ’s coming [ascension], by means of the memorial celebrated in the Sacrament.

VI. Altars
Andrewes moves from his discussion of Sacrifice to Altars. His point is that since there is little to no difference on Sacrifice, there will be no difference about the Altar. Andrewes writes,

The holy Eucharist being considered as a Sacrifice, (in the representation of the breaking of bread, and the pouring forth the cup,) the same is fitly called an Altar; which again is as fitly called a Table, the Eucharist being considered as a Sacrament, which is nothing else but a distribution and an application of the Sacrifice to the several receivers…So that the matter of Altars, makes no difference in the face of our Church.

Andrewes’s position of Altar stems from his understanding of sacrifice in that the Eucharist is for a twofold purpose: Sacrifice and Sacrament. We offer Christ in the Sacrifice and have applied to us the One Sacrifice of Christ at Calvary. In the Sacrament we feed upon the Body and the Blood sacramentally and receive the forgiveness of sins and the comforts that come with being united to Christ. Hence there is no difference of Sacrifice in Andrewes’s theology from that of the Catholic Church except that for Him the notion of transubstantiation is an opinion of the Schoolmen and not of the essence of faith.

4:45 pm  
Blogger answer-man said...

Just dropped in to read your blog. We are reading what others have to say and are introducing ourselves as well. We are intoducing The new Holy Bibles King James Versions and New Living Translations and especially The New Children's Bibles on DVD and invite you to stop by and visit us at: **BibleMediaDvd.Com**

We hope you don't mind our comment on your site and do so repectfully.
Thank you and God Bless.

7:00 am  

Post a Comment

<< Home

    O God, most glorious, most bountiful, accept, we humbly beseech thee, our praises and thanksgivings for thy holy Catholic Church, the mother of us all who bear the name of Christ; for the faith which it hath conveyed in safety to our time, and the mercies by which it hath enlarged and comforted the souls of men; for the virtues which it hath established upon earth, and the holy lives by which it glorifieth both the world and thee; to whom, O blessed Trinity (+), be ascribed all honour, might, majesty and dominion, now and for ever. Amen.
    --Bishop Lancelot Andrewes

Societas Sanctae Crucis

About Me

My Profile


  • To the Theotokos
  • My Parish Church
  • Taking Jesus to the Streets
  • The Angelus
  • Steel Family News
  • Anglicans For Life
  • My PHD Supervisor
  • Diocese of Durham
  • N.T. Wright Bishop of Durham
  • Bishop of Beverley FiF PEV
  • Forward in Faith
  • Religious of orthodox Tradition
  • Our Lady of Walsingham
  • Church of England
  • Church Times
  • C of E News
  • New Directions
  • Anglican Comm News Service
  • CaNN Classical Anglican News
  • Anglican Mainstream
  • Catholic World News
  • Zenit News
  • First Things
  • University of Durham
  • St. John's College
  • Touchstone: Mere Comments
  • American Chesterton Society
  • G.K. Chesterton
  • The "Colossal Genius"
  • C.S. Lewis
  • Dr. Marianne Dorman
  • Bishop Lancelot Andrewes
  • Theologia
  • The Paul Page
  • Renaissance Music
  • Wodehouse
  • Project Canterbury
  • Rosemary Pugh Books
  • Pusey House Oxford
  • Comm of the Resurrection
  • Anglicanism
  • Alexander Schmemann
  • Traditional-Anglican
  • Trushare Great Links
  • Books and Books
  • Paedocommunion
  • Summa Theologica
  • Didache
  • N.A.Patristics Society
  • Visit Olde World Family Heritage
  • Cardinal Newman Writings
  • EWTN
  • Vatican Library
  • Tune in to Ancient Faith Radio
  • Anglo-Catholic Central
  • Women for Faith and Family
  • Catholic Culture
  • Being better Dads.org
  • Anglicana Ecclesia
  • Catholic Societies

  • Mary:Grace and Hope in Christ
  • SSC England and Scotland
  • King Charles the Martyr
  • Catholic League Unitas
  • Catholic Union
  • Conf of the Blessed Sacrament
  • Society of Mary
  • Priests for Life
  • Anglican Blogs

  • TitusOneNine
  • Anthropax
  • Sacristan
  • Curate Repose
  • Whitehall
  • Apostolicity
  • The Patristic Anglican
  • All Too Common
  • Prydain
  • Thinking Anglicans
  • Drell's Descants
  • A-C Ruminations
  • emergent like slime
  • Open Thou our Lips
  • Haligweorc
  • The Confessing Reader
  • Dr. Leander Harding
  • Tex Anglican
  • St. George the Martyr
  • The Oxford Movement
  • Continuing Anglican
  • Wyclif.net
  • Third Mill. Catholic
  • Anglican Eucharistic Theol
  • Fr. Brian Douglas
  • RatherNot Blog
  • Full Homely Divinity
  • St.Peters London Docks Blog
  • In Hoc Signo Vinces
  • Anglican Wanderings
  • Timotheos Prologizes
  • Global South Anglican
  • Deaconess
  • Liturgical Links

  • 1549 Book of Common Prayer
  • 1550 Merbecke
  • 1559 Book of Common Prayer
  • 1570 Roman Mass
  • 1637 Scottish Prayer Book
  • 1662 English Prayer Book
  • 1718 Nonjurors Communion
  • 1928 Book of Common Prayer
  • 1962 Roman Mass
  • 1962 Roman Propers
  • 1969 Roman Mass
  • 1987 Anglican Use Mass
  • Pearcy Dearmer Everyman's History of the Prayer Book
  • The Liturgy of St. James
  • The Liturgy of St. Chrysostom
  • The Liturgy of St. Basil
  • Lectionary Central
  • Catholic Calendar
  • Common Prayer Calendar
  • The Roman Breviary
  • Anglican Breviary
  • Cantica Nova
  • The Music Makers
  • Catholic Liturgy Site
  • Directorium Anglicanum
  • Catholic Blogs

  • Numerous British Catholic Blogs
  • Carpe canum
  • Ignatius Insights
  • Ancient and Future Catholics
  • Catholic Pontificator
  • Random Thoughts
  • Fr. Newman's Web page
  • fides et ardor
  • St Paul Centre for Theology
  • Canterbury Tales
  • The Shrine of Holy Whapping
  • Sacramentum Vitae
  • Cardinal Schonborn
  • Pertinacious Papist
  • Ratzinger Online
  • The New Liturgical Movement
  • Scripture and Tradition
  • Against the Grain
  • Mark Shea
  • ad limina apostolorum
  • Dappled Things
  • Amy Welborn Old Blog
  • Amy Welborn New Blog
  • Catholic Catechism
  • Benedict Blog
  • Mike Aquilina
  • Libertas et Memoria
  • Video melior
  • Orthodox Blogs

  • Energies of the Trinity
  • Orthodoxy Today
  • Monachos
  • Onion Dome
  • This Is Life
  • Orthodoxie
  • Chrysostom Web Page
  • Society of Chrysostom
  • Cathedra Unitatis
  • Our Life in Christ
  • Orthodox Way
  • Exploring Orthodoxy
  • Everything Orthodox
  • Parish Web Sites

  • Durham Cathedral
  • St. Peters London Docks
  • St. Silas London
  • St. Mary Mag Middlesex
  • St. Augustine London
  • St. John the Evanglelist Berks
  • St. Pancras London
  • St. James the Great Darlington
  • St. Mary Bletchingley
  • St. James Paddington London
  • St. George Hanworth
  • St. Helens Auckland
  • St. Mary Magdalene Sunderland
  • Archives