i>

Thursday, August 03, 2006

Should we dsicard Dix? Why? Why not?

Dr. Dan Dunlap over at 3rd Mil Catholic writes three reasons why we should discard Dix' Shape of the Liturgy. Here they are:

Three Reasons to Discard Your Copy of Dix's Shape of the Liturgy
This entry comes from the comment section of my last entry. I thought I'd open this up for more discussion, if anyone is game.

Three reasons why you should discard your copy of Dom Gregory Dix's The Shape of the Liturgy, if you haven't already:

1. Dix's whole 4-fold shape of the liturgy thesis is contrived on his own speculation, with absolutely no historical verification or support (read none). As a result, those contemporary rites that are based on Dix's thesis are built around an artificial construct.

2. Anything of actual historical significance in the book can be obtained from better and more up to date works. So STL is utterly obsolete as an authority in liturgical studies, despite the opinions of a number of antiquarians and liturgical wannabes who still treat the book as if it were the most important liturgical resource ever written.

3. Dix never understood Cranmer's theology, but presented himself authoritatively as if he did. The resulting damage done to Cranmer studies and studies on the Anglican liturgy will take generations to undo (if ever).

Those are three reasons off the top of my head.

4 Comments:

Blogger Jeff said...

I realise Cranmer uses some language that could place him more in a Virtualist position than a full Zwinglian camp concerning his Eucharistic theology. But, there is something within Cranmer's position of Sacrament that clouds my head and does not allow me to fully dismiss a stong Zwinglian tone in Cranmers theology.

Here is why:
1)Canmer does not believe in any sort of presence within the elements but within the person. There is no miraculous working in the bread, but those who receive.

2) The above gives little reason for a consecration at all of the elements and we see this being denied in many Reformed theologians.

3) The real and spiritual exhibition is to the receivers of the sacrament, and not to the bread and wine. (Cranmer Answer 201).

This is a real problem for me when I consider the warnings of 1 Cor. 11. It also nullifies Cranmer's earlier points about those in the OT partaking of Christ when he references 1 Cor. 10.1-4. When one reads on in the passage, we see that though they partook of Christ, God was not pleased with all of them. Paul doesn't qualify it and say those who were not repentant didn't really receive. This aspect of Cranmer's theology is troubling for the rest of his theology of Sacramental grace and it is why I find him so confusing and difficult to figure out. For Cranmer the elements are only holy in their reception. How this does not put the effectualness of sacramental grace in the hands of the recpient is beyond me.

8:33 am  
Blogger Jeff said...

This Response is from Dr. Bill Tighe:

There are a number of items on which it is generally accepted that Dix was mistaken in *The Shape of the Liturgy.* These include (leaving aside textual and technical matters):

1. Dix's assumption that the celebrant of the Eucharist in the Early Church faced the congregation over the altar. (In fact, the celebrant faced Eastwards, which in most circumstances, as archaeological research has confirmed, was to face away from the congregation.)

2. Dix's belief that the ultimate origins of the Eucharistic Prayer ("Prayer of Consecration" in Anglican usage) lay in the second paragraph only of the Birkat ha-Mazon, the Jewish formal prayer, or grace, after the conclusion of a meal, a paragraph which begins "We give thanks ..". (Contemporary scholars either, like Thomas Talley, see the Eucharistic prayer as arising out of all three paragraphs of that prayer, whose themes are, respectively, Praise, Thanksgiving and Supplication; or else, like Enrico Mazza, see its Jewish roots as diverse and less specific, stemming from a variety of sources.) Related to this is Dix's belief that the verbs eulogein (to praise) and eucharistein (to give thanks) are essentially synonymous in a New Testament and liturgical context -- a belief that Talley would emphatically contradict.

3. Dix's assumption that the one surviving version of The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, a Latin translation in a manuscript (the Verona palimpset) dating from the early Fifth Century, accurately reproduces the various prayers as Hippolytus would have composed or compiled them ca. 215, two centuries earlier, is widely contested today. (Some scholars still defend it, but others insist that such manuscripts would not have been copied, much less translated, for antiquarian purposes, but for actual use; and that in such case they prayers would most likely have been adapted and updated.) In any event, many scholars would argue that Dix put too much emphasis on Hippolytus as a secure source for the practice of the Roman Church around the year 200.

4. Dix's understanding of the 15th-Century Reformational teaching of "justification by faith alone" is generally held to be an unsympathetic caricature, or, at best, a view informed more by 19th-Century Evangelical and Revivalistic notions, than by those of the Reformers.

All that said, however,

1. Dix's analysis of the Eucharistic Rite into a "four-action shape" is analytical tool, not an assertion that the rite was designed with four actions in mind. (Dix presents a "seven-action analysis" of the Last Supper, which was reduced to four when the taking, blessing, breaking and distributing of the bread before the meal was combined with the taking, blessing and distributing of the cup after it when the meal itself was removed.) As such, it still seems to me as good an analysis as any other, and indeed better than any I have seen.

2. Dix's characterization of Cranmer's eucharistic views as "Zwinglian" still seems to me cogent and accutate. The problem with this whole subject is that there was far more diversity among Reformed views of the Eucharist than among Lutherans. Calvin's "virtualism" (or whatever you want to call it) was, and is, a minority view among the Reformed, and even, perhaps, among self-styled "Calvinists" -- among whom perhaps only his colleague Peter Martyr Vermigli held it in as robust a fashion as he did (and I think that Calvin's view is more Catholic, or at least "higher" as regards the Real Presence, than that of Richard Hooker and his "receptionism"). Zwinglianism seems, in fact, to be the "default position" of Reformed Christianity (including Anglican Protestant "Reformed Catholicism") -- unless those scholars (such as Bruce Gerrish and Paul Rorem and Cranmer's biographer Diarmaid MacCulloch) who postulate a difference of substance, or at least of emphasis, between Zwingli and his successor in Zurich Heinrich Bullinger are correct; in which case, as MacCulloch insists, Cranmer's views seem more or less identical to those of Bullinger. But it is an open question whether Zwingli and Bullinger differ in substance, or only in emphasis; see Paul Rorem's *Calvin and Bullinger on the Lord's Supper* (1988) on this point. In any event, Cyril Richardson's conclusion, in his *Zwingli and Cranmer on the Eucharist* (1949), that Cranmer was an "inconsistent Zwinglian", seems never to my knowledge to have been rebutted.

3. Dix, even in his life-time, and certainly afterwards, was a man that Anglican Evangelicals loved to hate, as someone that effectively smuggled "popish notions" about liturgy and sacraments into the consciousness of the Church of England, and Anglicanism generally. My *Touchstone* article contains the story of what happened when I chanced (well, perhaps "chanced" isn't the best word in this context) to mention Dix's name to a now-deceased but well-known Irish Evangelical Anglican Bishop: suffice it here to say that his response was vehement (and, as it turned out erroneous). Allen Guelzo (once a REC priest and now in ECUSA) once told me of a similar vehement response to Dix and of his "baneful influence" that he had from Roger Beckwith. Eric Mascall's memoirs, *Saraband,* has a chapter (Chapter 7 "Four Outstanding Priests") largely devoted to Dix, and it shows, among other things, the exasperation that he could arouse among those who disagreed with him (and often came away the worse for the encounter). About a year ago Dix happened to be mentioned in a thread at Titusonenine, and it was amazing to see how self-styled "Protestant Anglicans" emerged from the woodwork and began to bloviate about the worthlessness of reading Dix because "they had been told" that Dix had forged his references, invented non-existent sources and was generally dishonest and prejudiced. I fear that unless he can substantiate his criticisms better than he has done to date Dr. Dunlap runs the risk of being numbered, if only inadvertently, among this group of Dixian phobiacs who condemn the man's scholarship but seem to be motivated primarily by odium theologicum.

10:07 pm  
Blogger Death Bredon said...

Ditch Dix!!!!!

first, Dix almost destroyed Prayer-Book Catholicism with his tendenious and half-baked baloney about the catholic "deficiencies" in the BCP. This is a more blot on his copy book.

Second, whatever Cranmer's personal eucharistic beliefs were as he was immolated or even when he scribed drafts of the BCP are absolutely irrelevant. The issue is what did the English Church teach and understand and express in the BCP Communion Rite(s). So, most of Dix's Anglican relevant work is based on a red herring.

Third, Dix's contention that any edition of the BCP somehow objectively denies the Real Presense is precious and based on special pleading. His polemic, and that what it is, is a carnard.

* * * *

Having vented, we Catholic Anglicans shall break out our prayerbooks and leave Dixianite brethen to their Rosaries.

6:27 am  
Blogger Fr. Robert Hart said...

Most Catholic Anglicans are very ready to learn from Dix. Dix and Mascall are especially revered. That does not mean that I accept everything ever said by Dix about the Prayer Book, because I don't.

6:47 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

Links

  • 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
  • ESBVM
  • 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