Last week, an Anglican Use conference was held in Scranton, and there are a few reports from around St. Blog’s:

It seems to me, from a cursory reading, that aside from the more theological and pastoral discussions, the major "issue" was – is there a future for any sort separate, permanent, Anglican-type "rite" within the Roman Catholic Church. One is tempted to say "uniate," but then we are reminded that the term is a perjorative used by the Orthodox. But you know what we mean. The other possibility bandied about is a "personal prelature" similar to Opus Dei.

Al Kimel reports here. In the comments of this post are various interesting opinions on those options, and discussion of comments by Rev. William Stetsen, the priest who co-ordinates the application of the Pastoral Provision in the US (the Pastoral Provision is the process/structure by which (mostly) formerly Episcopal priests may be ordained in the RC church), who initially said that there was nothing doing about a separate Anglican rite for various reasons, but then was apparently corrected on some aspect of his statement, and that point I’m lost in the intricacies of the Anglican Communion. So, sorry I’m no help there.

(Just an aside – one notes, correctly, the existence of Anglican Use parishes  – here’s a webpage dedicated to the Anglican Use. Some are skeptical of them because they don’t have an assurance of permanence – they are dependent on the presence of an Anglican Use priest and a sympathetic bishop. You will also notice in the comments a thread of exasperation with some potential Tiber-Crossers who, in the opinion, of some, are holding out, waiting for Rome to meet them with their Anglican liturgy intact. "Get over yourselves" is the implied message, and one found in the comments on David Virtue’s article on the Conference. Those comments have a lot of give-and-take on Roman Catholicism, period, as well.)

Whapper Matthew also attended – here’s part one of his report

Eric Bergman then introduced himself, and gave us a few statistics. There were 20 Anglican or Episcopalian clergy in the pews that afternoon, 17 Catholic priests, including Our Lady of the Atonement pastor Christopher Philips, participants from over 17 U.S. states, a fellow from D.C. and a lone Canadian. I’d noticed down in the hall what a varied, and for that matter, rather singular group we were. There were the Catholics in uniform clerical blacks, and a whole kaleidoscope of Anglicans, both Canterbury and not. A few had quietly opted for jacket and tie rather than collar, the “Father” on their nameplates the only clue to their identity, while among the others there were Roman collars, Anglican collars, bishops in violet shirtfronts and pectoral crosses, earnest young fellows in round spectacles, a troop of Anglican Franciscans and a brown-habited nun with the extraordinary name of Sister Paraclete. I couldn’t help wondering what they made of all this—did the Tiber’s waters look spiritually inviting to them?

I was about to find out.

Part 2 covers Father Stetson’s talk and the subsequent discussion about the complexities brought on by the various Anglican bodies and the desire of some within for union with Rome:

So bishops are not wholly out of the question here. One simply has to see what Rome says. Even if they were, there are other ways to get around this. There is the example of the concept of the personal prelature which is still out there—let’s not forget that Fr. Stetson is in Opus Dei after all. I think the point of his initial comments was that Continuing Anglican churches are outside his mandate as the Pastoral Provision is designed just with American Episcopalians in mind. Also, it would be difficult to bring together these various groups under one umbrella, just as a matter of logistics—whoever was doing the gathering. His point was simply to ask Rome, and see what happens in each case. That is the only way to get the ball rolling rather than concluding the matter was a dead letter from the start. Benedict clearly wants something to happen here, and if some are to be believed, the problems have less to do with Rome than with the US bishops.

Let’s not forget that it’s not a matter of one-size-fits-all. Even in terms of liturgical praxis there’s a fairly wide spectrum here, and one size might not fit all. Likewise, having twenty different provisions might also prove awkward, and even self-defeating to the notion of a sui iuris rite. Readers of the New Liturgical Movement are doubtlessly aware that portions of the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC) uses the Knott Missal, effectively a Cranmerian English rendering of the Tridentine liturgy, and slightly removed from the Book of Divine Worship’s more exclusively Prayer Book-influenced text.

Matthew attended the conference in order to present a paper – on a design for an Anglican Use parish. He’s posted the talk, with images here.

In addition, Matthew, his Notre Dame architecture degree fresh and toasty, has moved to the Big Apple and is settling in . Stop by and say hello!

Another report from the conference here:

All the buzz surrounds the very explicit statement by Father William Stetson with reference to a rumored Anglican sui juris "uniat" Church. Fr Stetson related that it is nearly impossible to arrange Anglicans in an ecclesiastical structure akin to the Eastern Catholic sui juris Churches.

It essentially centers on a question of Catholic ecclesiology. The ancient metropolitan see of Canterbury and that of York were metropolitan sees established by Rome and governed by Rome. From the Roman point of view, these two sees fell into schism. It is therefore impossible to create a sui juris ecclesiastical body that exists at a greater canonical status than it possesed prior to schism. To put it briefly, Canterbury and York belonged to the Roman patriarchate and their descendents will continue to belong to that patriarchate as they return to full communion with Rome.