The question of the liturgy is dealt with in the Apostolic Constitution:
III. Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.
This is amazingly flexible and concerns both the present situation and a future situation. Presently, the rites presently permitted in the Roman Catholic Church’s Latin rite are the two uses, extraordinary and ordinary, of the Roman Rite, the Book of Divine Worship and other traditional liturgies that were covered by St Pius V’s Quo primum (at least 200 years older than 1570) and which would also be, by virtue of jurisprudence, be covered by Summorum Pontificium. The various Prayer Books and contemporary liturgical forms of the Anglican Communion are not presently covered.
Most of the Forward in Faith clergy in England are using the Novus Ordo “ordinary” Roman rite. They are probably doing so with much better taste than some Roman Catholic parishes! That would not change. Priests of Personal Ordinariates will be allowed to use either form of the Roman rite.
Now, there may be a revision of the Book of Divine Worship or a version of the Anglican Missal or English Missal approved by Rome. We have no idea. However, I do think that any specifically Anglican Use should be the Use of Sarum or a flexible liturgical “system” based on the said Sarum Use. Much as I respect and have esteem for baroque and some modern Roman aesthetic tendencies, I really do think we should be as English as possible.
I watched parts of the Anglican Use meeting yesterday and was highly interested in a question / comment from a TAC priest (see video # 3 from 19 minutes to 22 minutes 3 seconds) with a beard and a walking stick during the questions session. He said that he had heard about a working group under Roman auspices that had produced a "typical edition of the Sarum Use" as a replacement for the present BDW and to be adapted for various Anglican situations. This lovely and obviously warm-hearted priest was most tactful about the Anglican Use, and showed his joy that so much had been achieved by this rite (in spite of its datedness and imperfections). If this is true, this is exciting news.
It has always been my dream that one day, the Church would restore the Use of Sarum to its place of honour in the English Church and among Anglicans in other parts of the world. I could see the situation of the ancient Sarum Use being a kind of “normative” rite (or variation of the Roman rite) with the possibility of formulating pastoral variations and adaptions. One such adaptation could be the post-Reformation Prayer Books with corrections as may be required by Rome. The “standard” would be in Latin, and then there would be a Cranmer-style translation into English, possibly a modern style English translation and translations into other languages as needed by actual pastoral situations. Other variations (limited by the Roman authority) could include things like supplementing or replacing the priest’s private communion prayers with the familiar Prayer of Humble Access. Obviously, our Anglican Prayer Book Office (as already permitted in the Book of Divine Worship) is of such simple beauty that it should be kept and fostered – and perhaps also allowed in Latin as well as English and other vernacular languages.
This would be a "standard" that would be flexible in application, like the Novus Ordo was intended to be. Perhaps that flexibility could be carefully regulated by the Ordinary and the Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome in order to avoid the risk of abuses.
I am told some of the men in Rome read our blog. Please, Monsignor, pass these ideas onto the Congregation for Divine Worship. They might say “We’re working on it”. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to see the fulfilment of a dream of more than 150 years!
Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!
Fr. Chadwick,
Was it explicitly stated that the editio typica of the Sarum Missal being prepared was meant to replace the BODW?
I would add that I agree with the comments at yesterday's Information Day on Anglicanorum Coetibus that suggested that Rome would prefer a uniform Anglican Use liturgy. I have heard that this work is ongoing and based on the English Missal. I am also led to believe that Rome will approve (though perhaps with minor emendations) any of the liturgical books currently officially in use by Anglican jurisdictions. While my preference is for the Missal, and I can appreciate the desire for uniformity, I would hope that as many versions of the classical Book of Common Prayer as possible will receive approbation.
The Eucharistic prayers will be an important issue, I think. In the US, for example, there is a strong attachment to the 1928 BCP Canon. There is nothing in this prayer that does not admit of a Catholic interpretation and, with a strengthened epiclesis, it is already approved for use by the Western Rite Orthodox.
Please see video # 3 linked to from this blog. Go from 19 minutes to 22 minutes 3 seconds, and listen very attentively. I don't know this priest (the chairman of the meeting introduces him as a TAC priest), but he seems to be knowledgable and he is tactful. Listen attentively. If it is true that such a "standard" liturgy is coming from Rome, then it would be intended to replace the BDW.
I would like to see the American 1928 Prayer Book allowed as one "form" among others of the Sarum Use, including the Eucharistic Prayer. But that will be for the CDW in Rome to decide.
Fr. Anthony
I have incorporated the content of comment # 3 in a modification to my posting.
Fr. Anthony
The ACA/TAC priest in question is Lewis Berry of Texas. He is a fine gentleman, who has been a "continuer" since the days of St. Louis – a true feather in the TAC's cap.
Regarding Sarum: I will have, hopefully by next week, an "altar ready" Sarum Missal. I do not know anything more that that this is what it purports to be – altar ready. It is the life work of a Sarum enthusiast which has finally been brought to fruition. Along with the Missal he has prepared a Gradual which, I am told, has music for all of the Sequence Hymns. I will hopefully know more in a week's time.
Mr Campbell wrote:
"The Eucharistic prayers will be an important issue, I think. In the US, for example, there is a strong attachment to the 1928 BCP Canon. There is nothing in this prayer that does not admit of a Catholic interpretation and, with a strengthened epiclesis, it is already approved for use by the Western Rite Orthodox."
As a Catholic interested in this issue, I would like to raise two issues here.
1.
First, I find it difficult to understand how the 1928 US BCP Epiclesis or Invocation can be thought sufficiently correct, since it prays:
"AND we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood."
This seems to be saying that the bread and wine change not in their substances, but, remaining bread and wine, simply become capable of making those who eat and drink them receivers of the Body and Blood of Christ (receptionism).
Rome, just as the Orthodox, would require this Epiclesis to be strengthened.
So far as I know, only the Scottish Episcopalian liturgies of 1764, 1912, 1929 and 1970 have – among Anglican rites – a sufficiently strong Epiclesis, praying the elements "become… the Body and Blood".
Moreover, given what is known of the history of the post-Conciliar liturgical reform, Rome would not wish to allow a Western liturgy with a postconsecratory Epiclesis, so the Epiclesis would have to be moved back to its original 1549 position, where it has remained in all Anglican forms other than the Scottish and American Episcopalian uses.
2.
Secondly, compared to the Roman Canon and the other post-Conciliar Eucharistic Prayers, the US BCP's combination of Prayer of Consecration and Prayer of Oblation does not express the impetratory power of the Sacrifice at any length.
Looking at its text, I find only:
"AND we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness, mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant that, by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we, and all thy whole Church, may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion."
Certainly, by the Sacrifice of the Cross made present in the Sacrifice of the Mass (for the same Victim is offered up, bloodily in the first, once for all, bloodlessly in the second, daily on every altar, showing forth His One Sacrifice), "we and all thy whole Church" – all the clergy and the people, all the living and the dead, even the saints in heaven – "obtain… all… benefits of His passion".
But there is need for express mention of the sacrifice being offered up for all orders in the Church – a Catholic Eucharistic Prayer must, by decree, name the Pope – and for the naming of the dead for whom it is offered, and for the naming of the saints who are honoured thereby.
It is most important that the doctrine of the Eucharist as a sacrifice of impetration to obtain all benefits is upheld. So far as I know, only the Scottish Episcopalians (1764, 1912 and 1929), by inserting the Prayer for the Church directly afterward, fulfil this requirement.
From the wider Roman Rite perspective, the last thing wanted would be to admit a Canon that does not sufficiently emphasise the efficacy of offering up the Eucharistic Sacrifice for all intentions at a time when this doctrine is too often neglected among Catholics who should know better, and yet ever talk of the Eucharist as a "meal" (at least call it a feast!).
Can an Anglican Canon be devised? The Orthodox have done so by (a) strengthening the Epiclesis and (b) at least partially by inserting the Memento etiam and Nobis quoque from the Roman Canon: but I wonder if Roman liturgists would not find the latter an… inelegant solution, that does not also pray for the Church – perhaps In primis needs to be inserted also? But I am not sure that making a hybrid prayer is good liturgy.
Time will tell!
Speaking only for myself, while I think that the 1928/1789 BCP Prayer of Consecration is okay-ish (save for Cranmer's 1552 version of an epiclesis-NOT), the best post-Reformation Anglican Prayers of Consecration are Scottish: that of the 1764 Scottish Communion Office, and that of the 1929 Scottish BCP.
Anyone interested in these matters ought to purchase the scholarly and exhaustive study of the Scottish Communion Office written by John Dowden (1840-1910; Bishop of Edinburgh 1885-1910). There are two editions:
*The Annotated Scottish Communion Office …* (etc.) of 1884; and the posthumous
*The /Scottish Communion Office 1764* of 1922.
The letter is far more ample than the former. Both are rare; both were "reprinted" in rather unpleasant on-demand formats in 2009, which have the advantage of being relatively cheap. See:
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_0_6?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=dowden+communion+office&sprefix=dowden
and:
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=dowden&bi=0&bx=off&ds=30&recentlyadded=all&sortby=17&sts=t&tn=communion+office&x=52&y=18
If I were a rich man, however, I would buy this original copy of the 1922 edition listed at Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B0008752QM/ref=sr_1_olp_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260745928&sr=1-2&condition=used
but I am not. (I note, however, that in recent weeks its price has fallen from $699.00 to $299.00, so perhaps patience will bring its reward in the end.)
I would entirely agree.
Only the sequence Prayer of Consecration (with strengthened Epiclesis), Prayer of Oblation, and Prayer of Intercession seems fully adequate. It makes for a long Canon, however, and I wonder how Anglicans would take it…
Agree with Joshua and William Tighe – the 1928 BCP is certainly better than its English varients, but is not up to the Scottish standard.
I can, however, understand the strong attachment traditional Anglicans in the US have to the 1928 BCP.
There is going to have to be some sacrifice on all parts with any of this. As was mentioned at the recent conference: what is desired is an international rite. Catholic Anglicans (not discounting myself) will have to get used to a bit of Roman discipline for a change: no longer can such liturgical diversity exist under Rome as it does now. We are going to have to get used to this fact.
For my own part, the rumor that a typical edition of the Sarum is being prepared is good news indeed!
Pingback: The Liturgy Revisited « The Anglo-Catholic