[W]riting in 1962, a Fr Bertram Jones, Vicar of Wrawby (New Rites ... Right or Wrong?) acknowledged that "the desirability of revising the Roman Mass ... is evident, though haste should be, and probably will be, avoided. Eventually, it is almost certain, a revised Roman Mass will emerge, with the Latin Canon inviolate but much, if not all, of the audible part in the vernacular". He urged, for use within the Church of England, "the interim policy of treating the Roman Mass in Latin as the norm to be used whenever and wherever, all things relevant carefully considered, it is practicable to use it; the rite of 1662 and the vernacular for the audible parts as the only permissible deviations from it; and the Gregorian Canon, silent and in Latin (with the 1662 Prayer of Consecration permissibly interpolated), as of strict obligation in every Mass".Fr Hunwicke appears to be in general sympathy with these views: "Within five years, a raw policy of naked aggression against Tradition had put paid to everything which Anglo-Papalists such as Jones thought to be obvious." He goes on to say, "It was the authorisation of the Ordinariate Rite which restored the substance of the English Missal."
As best I can see, Fr Hunwicke seems generally aligned with Oxford Movement sympathizers who see a continuity between pre-Reformation Catholicism in England and the Church of England, so that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer represents a form of Catholic continuity in liturgy.
This is not a Catholic view. the English Cardinal Gasquet, one of the principal authors of Apostolicae curae, was certainly of the view that Anglican orders were invalid from the time of the 1552 ordinal due to defect of intention. Frederick Kinsman echoes Apostolicae curae and goes somewhat farther in pointing out the historical record, borne out by the contemporary work of Diarmaid MacCulloch, that the Tudor Church of England was consciously and deliberately Reformed Protestant. Any slight revisions in the 1662 prayer book would have been half-hearted and in any case not taken seriously.
As a result, as far as I can gather from interpolating this into Fr Hunwicke's posts, certain Anglo-Papalist clerics, holding Anglican orders, were choosing to insert certain elements of Roman liturgy into the Protestant Book of Common Prayer. They were presumably free to do this as a natural human right, but under the normal discipline of the Church of England (if it existed), they probably should not have, and in fact, many of their parishioners, being good Protestants, objected to this, as they should have, if anyone took the Thirty-nine Articles seriously. The problem there, as Kinsman had recognized by 1919, was that Anglicans didn't take anything in the prayer book seriously, not the words in the liturgy, not the Thirty-nine Articles, and not the Creeds.
As a result, according to Fr Hunwicke, the bishops, interested primarily in what was expedient, looked the other way, whatever their view of the Oxford Movement.
The UK Anglo-Papalist clergy, according to Fr Hunwicke, eventually threw up their hands in horror at the Novus Ordo liturgy. They were entitled to do this, and not being Catholic, they were as entitled to dislike it as they were entitled to dislike, say, a recent Steinbeck novel. Some UK Anglican parishes, however, according to my visitor's account, saw their duty as Anglo-Papalists in moving the altar, removing the communion rail, and going to the new liturgy. Since Anglicans tolerated pretty much everything anyhow, this was OK, although the same Vatican whose rites they liked also said their Anglican orders were invalid.
But now we have another contradiction. The account Fr Hunwicke gives of earlier conflicts suggests that parishes led by Anglo-Papalist (but definitely not Catholic) clergy objected to Roman insertions into the prayer book liturgy. But the current situation seems to be that the Ordinariate Rite, a restoration of the English Missal that the Protestant parishes hated, is now rejected by Ordinariate parishes in the UK, who prefer the fully Catholic Novus Ordo rite.
The more I read of Kinsman, the better I like him. Anglo-Papalism, on the other hand, strikes me as eccentric at best.
