Pastorally and Progressively
It is tempting to look at the situation in the Catholic Church, and wonder why plans for improving the abysmal post-conciliar liturgical situation seem to be going so slowly. In Rome, the Holy Father has given the example, and we learn that many of the urban churches have followed the lead. Some are using the old liturgy, others celebrate Mass on the old altars or still others have the “Benedictine” symmetrical arrangement of candlesticks on the altar with a central crucifix facing the celebrant.
People are naturally conservative about liturgical matters, and not only when it is a matter of the old Latin Roman liturgy or our Anglican Prayer Books. I have seen people who have the same reflex with the Novus Ordo, which has been used in nearly all Catholic parish churches for forty years. Some people even call the new rite the “traditional rite”. Incredible as it may seem, this is the reality. This means that every Catholic below the age of 50 years grew up with the Bugnini / Paul VI rite. They have not known anything else.
This conservatism sometimes extends even to the horribly banal ICEL “lame duck” translations that are about to be changed for better ones. Many people still want to respond to The Lord be with you with And also with you. We would be tempted to say that those people need to see a psychiatrist, but they are not mentally ill – simply conservative.
Now, I am sure Pope Benedict XVI would love to begin a radical programme of liturgical reform in the direction of a restoration. Get rid of the “chopping block” altars facing the people. Burn the polyester chasuble-albs and trash all the books with the goofy songs people have been singing since the 1970’s? Will that teach people to sing Gregorian chant, to love Latin, to go back to the 1950’s? No it won’t. It will leave nothing but a vacuum. This is why the pastoral way is slow and progressive.
For those who want to go quicker, Summorum Pontificum of 2007 removed all the legal or pseudo-legal restrictions from the “extraordinary” use of the Roman rite, and the 1962 Missal is used in an increasing number of churches of the Latin rite. This is wonderful and much to be encouraged. But, only a minority of Catholics is interested.
So, for the incoming Anglicans from the three main groups I have mentioned (TAC, Forward in Faith, Anglican Use Catholics), I don’t see Rome making sudden changes and radical demands, any more than for ordinary Catholics in the parishes. The “odd man out” group in question is the TAC, because FiF for the most part uses the modern Roman rite and the AU uses the Book of Divine Worship formally approved by Rome in 1980. Rome has two options: bringing the TAC into line with the Novus Ordo and the Anglican Use, which some fear could lead to a broken deal, and the other option is either approving a new book and officially promulgating it up front, or simply allowing the present status quo for a length of time.
Certainly, in time, Rome would like a uniform liturgy for the Anglican-Catholic Ordinariates. Some will be asking for the 1928 American Prayer Book, others the 1921 British Anglican Missal, the 1912 English Missal, the American Anglican Missal, the Use of Sarum in the Pearson or Warren translations, the Scottish Prayer Book and many others. Whichever it will be, of a combination thereof, no believer of any rite is going to react well to abrupt change. How is a BCP congregation going to react when they’re told they have to ditch the Prayer Book for some new-fangled missal? It will be just like Latin rite Catholics accustomed to a happy-clappy get-together around the table with the girl altar servers tripping over the microphone wires. Progress can only be made slowly, by example and not by constraint.
We should, in The Anglo-Catholic, continue this dialogue in the hope of influencing the process in favour of the old Anglican Missal (which can incorporate just about all the variations of Anglo-Catholic worship). It looks unlikely that a uniform rite will be imposed up front, or even published by mid 2010, about the time the first Ordinariates may be canonically erected. A definitive Missal would take several years of work, and I would expect the Congregation of Divine Worship to ask several of us Anglicans to consult with them and not do all the work themselves.
Frankly, I don’t see why we can’t have liturgical diversity. It is already the de facto situation of parishes in the Latin Rite, where priests do what they want (perhaps less so now than in the brutalist 1970’s). Some say diversity confuses the faithful, but are the faithful little babies or children, unable to vote with their feet? Is diversity un-Catholic? There are many rites in the Catholic Church, oriental and western, and a certain diversity in the Latin rite. Many local rites were unfortunately swept away in the nineteenth century under the influence of Dom Guéranger and Ultramontanism. Some survived, even in France.
I really do find it ironic that some Catholic traditionalists [I’m not pointing a finger at PKTP because it is not his attitude] (their comments on other blogs) seem to want the old iron-rigid uniformity. I would be tempted to say – OK. You can have uniformity – the Novus Ordo. You asked for it!
Will Rome tolerate liturgical diversity in the Ordinariates formed from TAC groups? Speculation is usually presumptuous, but going by the pastoral attitudes already shown by the Holy See in regard to other disciplinary issues, this could be likely for a time, the time it takes to codify an official Anglican-Catholic rite. After all, Catholics using the 1928 American Prayer Book can hardly cause more scandal – less so – than some ways of celebrating the modern Roman rite?
about 1 month ago
Fr. Chadwick writes:
“For those who want to go quicker, Summorum Pontificum of 2007 removed all the legal or pseudo-legal restrictions from the “extraordinary” use of the Roman rite, and the 1962 Missal is used in an increasing number of churches of the Latin rite. This is wonderful and much to be encouraged. But, only a minority of Catholics is interested.”
The reason few such Masses are added is not a lack of interest but a lack of access. What has happened is that the liberal Roman ordinaries have discovered how to obstruct S.P. They don’t have to say a word to their priests. Everyone knows what happens to a priest who dares to offer the T.L.M. without a nod from his Bishop: he ends up as a hospice chaplain or a prison chaplain or incumbent in a dying parish. Tranfers and promotions: that’s what it’s all about.
The Pope, however, does have more plans in the works, I believe. Episcopal control over the T.L.M. has been weakened. Soon, it will be weakened considerably more. One way is to create jurisdictions similar to those being granted to the incoming Anglicans …
P.K.T.P.
about 1 month ago
I’m fully aware of this. Have I not been writing on the tragic situation of Thiberville and Bishop Nourrichard? That is why the idea of the Personal Ordinariate has been invented, to smack down the attempts of modernist diocesan bishops to maintain the 1970’s status quo.
I think it is likely that Pope Benedict XVI will institute a similar arrangement for the SSPX and other TLM groups in the Catholic Church until one of two things:
- he reforms at least some of the territorial dioceses and puts in good bishops,
- other territorial dioceses die out and personal ordinariates are superimposed onto the remaining metropolitan sees in countries like France – like the old English Vicars Apostolic in penal times.
Everything is possible. It’s just that we don’t like waiting and not knowing! But we have to be patient – no choice about it.
about 1 month ago
Fr. Chadwick asks what sort of diversity Rome is likely to tolerate in the new ordinariates. He points out quite correctly that there is enormous diversity in the N.O.M. However, much of the diversity in the N.O.M. is there simply because the incredibly lax rubrics of that Mass allow it; in other cases, the rubrics even encourage abuse. As one partisan of the New World Order said not so long ago: The Liturgy is a permanent workshop. I’ll never forget the day when I still attended the N.O. in which a Franciscan priest actually admitted that the canon he’d just used was invented by him right on the spot.
For a time, Rome lost control of the N.O. liturgy because the bishops as well as the priests simply refused to follow the law. On one occasion (and I could cite scores), Cardinal Medina Estevez, then-Prefect for Worship, insisted that chaplains at universites had to be priests. This was to stop women ‘chaplains’. One priest in Mass. responded by oganising a public burning of the Cardinal’s order in front of his church. It was made the centrepiece of a barbecue and party. The priest was never disciplined. Yawn!
The situation has changed over the years and the three options from Article III of A.C. do not give space for diversiy EXCEPT for departures from the N.O.M., which is, itself, innovation gone wild. Anyway, in the Roman Church, only liberals are allowed to break the law. If a conservatve or traditionalist breaks it, he loses his faculties and his livng. That is what will happen to ordinariate priests who disobey orders to stick to the rubrics of the B.D.W. It is what happened to priests who offered the T.L.M. against the orders of their bishops from 1971 to the present. Shall I cite examples?
I can’t imagine Bsp. Wilkinson, for example, not enforcing the liturgical laws if the C.D.W. demands this, which it will. They are not going to allow every priest in Canada to continue doing what they now do, which is to cobble up unique liturgies by assembling various sources. Rome is not like that. It is different in the Anglican tradition, where each rector can withhold funds from his bishop and there is more a spirit of decentralisation.
Again, there is a really SIMPLE solution to this: ask Rome to approve the 1921 Anglican Missal for interim use. Why would Rome refuse if the TAC Primate asked for this? It can’t hurt to ask. If Rome says no, TACers should start wondering why. But I don’t think the Pope, in particular, would say no to this, particularly if there is an interim agreement to use only the Roman Canon (since this will not require Rome to vet the other canons in the Anglican Missal before July). Easy. Simple.
P.K.T.P.
about 1 month ago
I think that Scotch Mist (who, bless his soul, is no longer with us) makes some excellent points but, again, the quickest *interim* solution would be approval of the 1921 Anglican Missal provided that only the Roman Canon be used in it. The C.D.W. will not approve B.C.P. canons without VERY serious consideration for reasons which are obvious (hint; questions of validity and of *appearances* of invalidity).
Apart from the issue of the Canon, the A.M. of 1921 has nothing in it which does not have a parallel in the 1983 B.D.W. Quick and easy solution. I like it. Once the deal is done, it can all be perfected.
Let’s get this show on the road. TACers have waited long enough.
P.K.T.P.
about 1 month ago
Well, I’m at the end of my tether with this one. I don’t have authority to answer this one, and nothing is presently forthcoming from either Rome or our own hierarchy. Perhaps the Apostolic Constitution was botched and is doomed to fail. Perhaps the first Ordinariate will see the day long after the death of Pope Benedict XVI, or the whole idea will be shelved by Cardinal Kasper having been elected as John Paul III, whose mandate will be to put a big unbreakable padlock on the door of every church in Europe! Even worse scenarios are possible.
And so, I’ll just write nice little articles that no one will contest. Liturgy is obviously too hot. Devotional and spiritual stuff usually goes by without comment. Perhaps we could try bee-keeping, the rules of golf or sailing…
If you want answers about the liturgy, perhaps our Archbishop and Bishops may give you some information if you ask them nicely. Perhaps Rome might volunteer a titbit or two, but they are usually somewhat discreet.
So we have to have that Anglican Missal approved up-front before anything budges an inch. Democracy upholds freedom of speech. One can stand on a soap-box at Speaker’s Corner in London and say what one likes, even Nazi hate-speech. Demonstrations in front of the CDF or CDW buildings in Rome are also possible if you get enough people interested.
Whatever, we’re just talking in a vacuum here. The ones who could give us answers are keeping their mouths shut.
This whole blog is about keeping discussion and reflections going as our hierarchy is gagged or has to keep silent for one good reason or another. Perhaps we have just proven that the TAC position is untenable and our “rivals” are ready to gather up the pickings!
We go on waiting, as there is nothing else to do other than pray. One thing is for sure: continuing with the “alphabet soup” is utterly futile. There are people who want the Prayer Book and nothing but the Prayer Book. Others want the Tridentine liturgy and the totalitarian Catholic state, the so-called “social reign of Christ the King”. Others will whittle down the criteria for Catholic orthodoxy to the extent of excluding all but themselves, and then they get sent to prison for child molesting or something like that. I have seen it all before.
In the end, choices will have to be made…. Let’s keep ourselves mainstream and sensible – and on track.
about 1 month ago
Why can’t they approve the liturgy already approved and in use in Anglican Use parishes in the United States to get the ordinariates up and running, with a commitment to develop a beautiful, Anglican liturgy that would be consistent and preserve the Prayer Book patrimony (minus the 39 Articles!).
And no altar girlz please! And I’m not crazy about women as cantors or readers of Scripture either though I see both all the time in Roman Catholic churches.
The ordinariates would also be able to use the new ICEL translation of the Eucharist and Extraordinary Form of the mass. That should allow for plenty of diversity, no?
I detest all little concessions to feminism and unisex. That said, I’m not for extreme interpretations of sexual complementarity that relegate women to childbearing and ironing the fair linens and that’s it. It’s rather sad to see documentaries about cardinals and the only women you see are nuns who are clearing off the tables or doing the menial work.
And while some women can proclaim Scripture beautifully and meaningfully, often the one’s that line up for the job do so to prove some kind of point and you hear it in their shrill tone.
Deborah
about 1 month ago
I think you are right. With all the intense and insistent material I have been reading, I am inclined to think we should build up from the BDW and, with the Anglican Use people, work towards its revision from Anglican Missal or Sarum sources in the future.
I would be happy if the Vatican would approve the 1921 Anglican Missal or Sarum within the next couple of months, but I don’t think that will happen. But again, I don’t have authority to pronounce on the subject.
Perhaps Mrs Gyapong will be our St Catherine of Siena. I’m serious, there’s nothing better than the prophetic sense of our womenfolk. Thank you.
about 1 month ago
I don’t want to use the phrase “Novus Ordo” since the Mass of Paul VI (MP6) of OF as we may have it,. is not new to me. Even as an Anglican, the Rite 2 we used is not much different from MP6. I was received back into the Catholic Church during a MP6 Mass with hymns “borrowed” from the 1928 PECUSA hymnal!
I have known MP6 Catholics who have attended EF Mass saying that the Tridentine Rite is “far out”. Now wasn’t something like that said by people who attended the first MP6 Masses 40 or more years ago?
Maybe that is the reason why the extremely sensible Pope Benedict XVI wants the EF and OF enrich each other. Unfortunately some EF proponents won’t have any of that. I am really worried that the Pope’s intentions will eventually come to grief. It is too early to say, and I will pray to the Blessed Virgin that that won’t happen.
But the Anglican aphorism is true in spirit with Benedict’s intentions. But here we are not referring to confession to a priest!
“All may, some should, none must”
but with regards to the EF and OF Mass. Some people have an authentic spirituality nurtured by the EF but the majority have too with the OF. I belong to the OF side and my reason is that I hear more of the Scripture in the OF than in the EF Mass. I have always believed that best venue to reflect on the Bible is during the Mass.
Of course EF proponents are more than welcome to introduce these Catholics to the EF Mass but bishops have to be pastorally sensitive and careful. It is no secret that some people attending EF Masses have adopted the views of some schismatic groups. Until the Rome and these groups come back into communion, then there is still pastoral concern.
But for those Catholic minded Anglicans about to take Benedict’s ferry boat across the Tiber, we should reflect on the Anglican aphorism and I believe Benedict XVI will be sensible enough to go on the progressive and continuous route .
about 1 month ago
Sorry that should be “ones.”
about 1 month ago
Before I may be misconstrued. WE ALL MUST GO TO MASS. But with regards to the “forms”, all may go to an EF or OF, some should assist in either “OF or EF and none must be forced to assist in one form or the other.
about 1 month ago
I’m not sure things are clear regarding Catholic liturgical practices. While I can only reflect on the US, I do believe my comments are relevant to other parts of the world. Please remember that I am not a liturgist, but have been taught the adage: where two liturgists gather, there will be three opinionsJ
First, my understanding is that the Novus Ordo of Paul VI is the standard liturgy used by all Catholic Churches around the globe. All translations have been done from the original Latin. The exceptions are obviously the Rite of Milan, Eastern Catholics, etc. The Latin Mass (I believe) is also now a standard liturgy, which is licit to celebrate and does not need the local bishop’s approval (though in practice, I’m sure most priests will inform their bishop). In my diocese there are only a handful of churches that celebrate the Latin Mass. As I’m no liturgist, please don’t nitpick, but keep the general principles in mind.
Second; that said; there is effectively no liturgical diversity because all people in the English-speaking world celebrate either the Novus Ordo or the Latin Mass. All Scripture readings are standardized. The theory to the practice is that the laity, at least in English speaking countries, can participate in the same Mass no matter which church they attend. While it is easy to find variations, these are typically done by a local priest or layperson with liturgical responsibilities, and probably do not have the blessing of the local bishop. Again, there is supposed to be liturgical unity.
Third, in Gaudium et spes and the Catechism (which TAC affirms, and all Catholics for that matter) the laity are a “royal priesthood” who have an active and participatory role in Mass. For good reason, a priest cannot say Mass without the presence of the People of God; it would not be a licit Mass. The whole idea of the priest facing the people is to include and enhance their participation. Again, not being a liturgist, their participation is changed when the priest faces away. Yes, I realize that in the Latin Mass the priest faces away, but this Mass is one of the options not to be denied the people. The Latin Mass is to be offered when asked; meaning, the Mass is for the people, not the people for the Mass. I am not arguing either for or against a particular Mass, I’m only trying to make the point regarding the participation of the royal priesthood of the People of God in the Mass.
Fourth, Episcopal, Anglican Use, TAC and FIF people will presumably make up the parishes of the Ordinariate. Additionally, since this group will likely be small in number we can probably expect only one or two parishes in any given metropolitan area. Initially there might be the sharing of a priest. Regardless, for those of us who are not fortunate to have an existing parish in place, we must build anew. I would argue that existing TAC, FIF or Anglican Use parishes will be doing the same. So ask yourself: are you building this Ordinariate to continue your particular practices and customs, or are you building something that can be inclusive of some of the other branches of Anglicanism? In other words, how much is your turf worth?
I will conclude by stating that everyone needs to think like an evangelist. Our job in the Ordinariate is to build up new churches and attract new members (the operative word is attract, not in a sideshow sense, but in a true Biblical sense). Perhaps we should aim to have schools as suggested by Fr. Phillips in order to insure the continuation of our patrimony (the first Catholic k-8 school in Virginia to be built in nearly 20 years occurred five years ago. All 425 spots are filled and there is a waiting list. Build it and they will come). We should ask: what liturgy will be true to our shared (TAC, FIF, Anglican Use and Episcopalian) patrimony, yet allow us to attract new members? With the exception of a few parishes most of the existing parishes are small and have not grown much. We have to think for building the future of the Ordinariate, not preserving a particular past. This is not patrimony, but pride. So again, I ask: what liturgy and other forms of Anglican Patrimony will allow us to corporately be true to our shared identity, yet enable us to build our future together? The Holy Father has offered us a way forward. We have to figure out how to incorporate various understandings of our shared patrimony. All of us will have to leave things behind to pursue that which is ahead. For what we sow today we can either reap a hundred-fold tomorrow, or leave it buried in the ground. In other words: how about listing what each of these groups has in common and that can be built upon, rather than proposing particular solutions and “talking in a vacuum” as Fr. Chadwick states.
Keep praying Phil 4:6,7.
Blessings
Clark
about 1 month ago
Ben Vellejo writes:
“Maybe that is the reason why the extremely sensible Pope Benedict XVI wants the EF and OF enrich each other. Unfortunately some EF proponents won’t have any of that.”
I can’t see what’s so sensible about such a suggestion. There is nothing in the N.O.M. that could possibly enrich the T.L.M., and trying to merge the two into a ‘classical liturgy’ (Msgr. Perl’s idea) is now a dead duck. It would only end any hope of reconciliation with the S.S.P.X. and cause more anguish for traditionalists.
Why this constant need to reach out and touch the ancient liturgy? The T.L.M. didn’t drive millions from the pews to their houses, never to return. And every time Rome decides to ‘alter’ the Mass of the Ages, it only causes traditionalists deep pain. That looks more like hatred to me than love.
As for altering the New Mass, well, its forms are so various and so ignored in actual practice that it’s hard to say what the N.O. is. It is indeed a permanent workshop. It has failed to inspire the faithful but has mostly bored them or sent them away, so the Pope wants to reform it for a fourth time in only forty years. How many editions will be needed to get it right?
As for reactions here about my earlier points on incomng Anglican Liturgy, I can only say: I give up. If all these ordinariates are coming for the sake of saddling these fine incomers wth the B.D.W. and the N.O.M., this has just been a colossal waste of time. These incomers are good people in my experience, and I love them, even if some of their ancestors persecuted some of mine! I’m trying to help them but prayer is now the only recourse left (plus a letter or two to their bishops, perhaps). They turn to the left and get the N.O. Offertory and N.O. Eucharistic Prayers. They look to the right and get the very same thing. This has to be a nightmare. If I could just wiggle my toe, I’d wake up and realise that it never happened.
P.K.T.P.
about 1 month ago
Dear Clark,
I’d love it if you could visit our TAC parish in Ottawa and see how lustily (hmmm) we participate in the liturgy but our priests face God as do we all.
I have NEVER attended a Roman Catholic service where the participation anywhere near resembled ours. Ours–with our often magnificent congregation singing in SATB– more closely resembles the participation you would see in an Eastern Catholic service.
As for someone else’s post about more Scripture in the NO, well, all good faithful Anglicans should be doing the daily offices for a constant exposure to Scripture. The old lectionary kept better the pattern of promise and fulfillment than the new. And please, please, please, not one of these horrible new translations of the Bible done by a committee with a tin ear for poetry.
Aaaaaaagggghhhhh!
Deborah
about 1 month ago
I don’t know Rome, but the sensible thing to do would be to grant interim authorization for use of two or three texts (e.g., the 1921 Anglican Missal, the BDW, and a Sarum translation), and stipulate that within five years’ time a uniform liturgy developed by the ordinariates is to be formally approved to supersede the above interim texts.
about 1 month ago
That really does sound sensible. Rome could grant provisional authorisation for these rites. I don’t see why Rome couldn’t “vet” the 1928 Prayer Book anaphora, make any corrections needed and allow it as one of the many Eucharistic prayers allowed in the Catholic Church. It could then be an alternative in the Anglican Missal with the Roman Canon.
Permission could be sought to use the BDW with a traditional or monastic offertory rite (cf. my article), and then there would be no “doing one’s own thing”. The rest can be revised in time.
Sarum will be more exceptional than the rule, but it would be good to have the Warren translation looked at by the CDW and allowed as an alternative.
But, as I have already said, I’m not “in the circuit” and don’t have the authority to give more than conjecture on these questions.
about 1 month ago
“Frankly, I don’t see why we can’t have liturgical diversity.” This was the most hopeful and balanced statement I have heard in all these latest discussions about the liturgy.
To suppose than any liturgical use is monolithic is simply fantasy. Even after Trent there were alternate uses that continued in certain communities.
Our ACA parish – very orthodox and very Catholic – uses the Anglican Missal in the main. But we also use the Sarum Rite (in Latin) on occasion and the Tridentine (1962 version) at one weekly Mass – at the request of several parishioners.
There’s a difference between a diversity consisting of solid, traditional rites and the “make it up as you go along” liturgical diversity so often seen in parishes of all stripes on all sides of the Tiber.
BTW – a small side trip. There is a tale, most likely apocryphal, that during the deliberations at Vatican II over translating the Mass into the vernacular, Cardinal Cushing of Boston brought out his well-beloved copy of the Anglican Missal and said, “why go to all that work – it’s already been done.” I suspect those in the know are already aware of the Anglican Missal and will have little hesitancy in approving it.
about 1 month ago
Postscript: someone needs to devise a few organizing principles to use in assimilating the various Anglican patrimonies (plural) into a coherent uniform liturgy. For example:
1. The structure should follow the Sarum use unless a good reason exists not to. As the common link between the competing Anglican traditions of Prayer Book and “English Tridentinism” (English/Anglican Missal), it has a gravitational pull on the others.
1a. The Sarum rubrics should be simplified so as to permit celebration of the Mass by a single cleric. The EF rubrics should be used as a guide to aid in doing this well.
1b. Antiquarianism for its own sake is to be avoided.
2. Hieratic English is to be preferred everywhere in the liturgy where it was usually used in Anglican tradition. Exceptions to this rule existed in Anglican tradition and may be expected to continue; the Kyrie in Greek is one such, and there may be a few similarly exceptional Latinisms, but they should be minimal. Duplicating the EF liturgy is not within the charter of the ordinariates; they are to be distinct.
3. The KJV suffers from translational difficulties and 500 years of linguistic drift which outweigh its importance to Anglicanism and the English language. Correcting it is too much work for the ordinariates to undertake, but Scriptural passages echoed within the liturgy may follow KJV text where appropriate. The RSV-CE is acceptable in its place, and should be the norm for readings. (Douay reads as if it were translated by non-native English speakers.)
4. The Prayer Book tradition of a single volume containing liturgy, daily office, personal prayers, and psalter is an essential part of the patrimony to be preserved.
4a. The volume should, regardless of the amount of BDW 1.0 content, be issued as a new version of the BDW.
4b. The book should have no Rite I/Rite II division; however, the BDW’s option to substitute certain italicized words (e.g. you/yours instead of thee/thine) should be kept even though hieratic English is the norm.
4c. The Coverdale Psalter should be preserved to the maximum possible extent, with any necessary corrections to follow the KJV or RSV-CE as appropriate. BDW 1.0’s contemporary psalter should be eliminated.
5. The Anglican tradition predates the OF, and should not be made to conform to it, with the possible exception of using the revised calendar (as the BDW already does). Good arguments exist on both sides of the calendar dispute.
6. Wherever a Prayer Book element agrees with Sarum, that element should be preserved. Wherever an Anglican Missal element agrees with Sarum, that element should be preserved.
7. Anglican prayers that do not conflict with Catholic faith ought not be discarded simply for varying from Latin Catholic practice (for example, adding the doxology at the end of the Lord’s Prayer).
I’m sure this list could be added to or corrected, but it’s a start at setting the boundaries for discussion.
about 1 month ago
How did my posts get reversed???