A friend of mine who is in the clergy did his dissertation on this
subject and has kindly agreed to let me post his discussion with me on
the list. He says,
>"The Ritual of the Anglican Church has had its up and downs in terms of
>practice BUT legally the controversies really only occured after Cranmer's
>1549 Ornaments Rubric language (which was changed in 1552, only later to >
>resurface in Eliz. 1559 BCP!) - The problem became most evident only after an
>English liturgy was made Law under Edward VI and went through a few
>changes and resurrections - questions later arose as to whether old laws
>remained in place even though practice was discontinued under ritual changes
>in Elizabeth's 'Advertisements' ... a curious document that, as it turned out
>lacked her signature and authority.The Act of Conformity of Elizabeth is what
>caused the most confusion as it read, "provided always and be it enacted,
>such ornaments of the church shall be retained and be in use, as was in this
>Church of England, by authority of Parliament, in the second year of the
>of Edward VI (1547). Until such order shall therein be taken, by the
>of the Queen’s majesty, with the advice of her Commissioners appointed and
>authorized under the great seal of England for causes ecclesiastical, or the
>Metropolitan of this realm. (1558. 1 Eliz.) –
> Here you have a SERIOUS matter of contention, and almost word for word.
>I could take it apart with arguments from BOTH sides (anglo-catholic and
>Protestant) – I know the arguments inside and out. I favor the more catholic
>interpretation though I hasten to add that the courts under Queen Vic were >
>ecclesiastically illiterate and judged against the more literal and I believe
>facts of this act of conformity.
>The study of this subject begins with Edward VI act of
>conformity, the 1549 Prayer book which had His majesty's legal authority by
>the same act (which makes the BCP rubrics also legal) and then the
>controversy occurs with the 1552 BCP revisions changing the rubrics, ONLY
>to be thrown back years later when Eliz. seemed to go behind 1552 and
>endorse the 1549 laws (2nd year of Ed. VI) and rubrics, by the authority of
>Eliz.'s Act of Conformity!
>The question then became did she overturn it by the Advertisements
>the answer is, No, unless one assumes the Advertisements had her majesty's >
>authority WHICH IT DID NOT (she never signed it, though she authorized it!).
>SO, years later when Charles II goes back to Eliz.'s Act of Conformity it all
>starts all over again with the same arguments!
>Furthermore, the 1662 BCP maintains Eliz. Language in the ornaments rubric
>yet the rubric has long been ignored! . In any case it
>appeared that Charles II only re-issued the Prayer Book with the >
>historical rubric though the practice of vestments, altar linens, etc. , as
>given by Elizabeth. Later Queen Victoria had problems with high
>churchmen appealing to laws imbedded in prayer book rubrics
>while she argued for it as crime based on the lack of continuity in
>practice and the Advertisements of Elizabeth. "
Well, here you have it from the horse's mouth. Apparently not as smooth
or sudden, or complete a transition as I had once thought - and this in
itself would suggest we can view other aspects of migration/invasion of a
new force in a similar way where few things are black and white, turning
out to be several shades of grey.
Hope this is of interest,