A few words in an earlier blog about the language of worship, and a great trail of comments followed. Now I know that many Anglicans (of every colour) in the USA are very concerned about Prayer Books, and the more Catholic they are, the more they want to hold on to ancient forms of prayer. I do understand. It has become for them the touchstone of orthodoxy, especially since many bishops refused to permit its use. Conversely in England the 1662 Prayer Book is defended by law, so it has been less important to us – a symbol of the Erastian State Church, even. Yet it is what I grew up with. Before Vatican II affected us all we were obliged in England to use the Book of Common Prayer – or something related to it. At any rate, whether English Missal or Interim Rite or 1927 (often referred to as 1928) or a compilation of the Vicar's devising, the language was sort-of Cranmerian. After Vatican II, liturgy went in diverse directions in the Church of England. There were series 1, 2, and 3 and once parishes had been equipped with all those books they were rapidly declared illegal and instead we had what is naughtily referred to as Comic Worship (more properly 'Common Worship'). But it was not Common, in the sense that the Book of Common Prayer intended the word. Common Prayer meant something shared by all. Common Worship had so many variants that you could not find it celebrated in the same manner in any two churches. So Catholics in the CofE increasingly turned to the Roman Catholic books. Whereas in an earlier generation it was only the extreme ultra-montanes who dared use the Missal, it became more and more THE touchstone of Catholicisim in the latter part of the 20th Century. When I toured my patch as a 'Flying Bishop' it was generally the Roman Missal that the Priest opened for me on the Altar. Sometimes he would apologise and say that for the Canon we had to use something from Common Worship because the Diocesan required it, but that was not generally the case. And just now and again, more in country parishes than in town ones, I would be asked to use one of the older Prayer Book variants.
Since the announcement of the Ordinariate, one of the more frequent questions I have had to answer is "Will we have to use Prayer Book Language?" – generally with the rider that if we did, you could forget it so far as THAT priest was concerned. So I have tried to explain that the Apostolic Constitution makes it clear that any of the Masses of the Roman Rite may be used, as well as whatever is provided in "Anglican" form – which we suppose will be something like the Book of Divine Worship of the Anglican Use Catholics in the USA.
Then if we do not cling to the Prayer Book, what do we have to bring to the party? Some suppose that the BCP and the King James Bible are all that we have, and without these we might as well simply become Roman Catholic Converts without the Ordinariate.
I believe that is a profound misunderstanding both of what the Holy Father wants from us and what we have to offer. In England, at least, our Pastoral Rule is more important than the words we use in public worship. It derives from fifteen centuries during which the parish clergy have known that they have a responsibility for the entire Community, whether or not they declare themselves 'Church of England'. At an induction the priest is given the cure of souls by the Bishop. That attitude pervades the whole of our pastoral ministry. We visit the sick when we know about them, though they may never darken the doors of our church. We pray for them, we call on newcomers to the parish, and we train our lay people to do the same. We seek out candidates for Baptism and Confirmation. We marry all comers, and we bury all goers. Although our parishes are vastly bigger than his, and the knowledge of our people will be far less thorough, many of us still believe that the sort of model that George Herbert set before us is one worth striving for. It also describes the sort of care that people expect from us – and it comes not just from the Caroline Divines or the Tractarians, but from as far back as the Pastoral Rule of St Gregory, taught by St Augustine of Canterbury and reinforced by King Alfred.
More, too, than the mere WORDS of worship, there is the style of worship which matters. Visiting diverse parishes on Sundays, it is usually the Roman Missal put before me. I still celebrate a version of the Prayer Book Rite from time to time. I did this morning, and so I do most Thursdays in my local Parish Church. Not everyone will find it easy to do. For us older ones the words are in our very being, we scarcely need a book at all. For those more recently ordained, they may have scarcely ever heard the words of the Prayer Book. Unless they were in a Cathedral Choir, they are unlikely to have met solemn high Mattins. Most of the Ordinands who came to St Stephen's House in my time simply did not know the Prayer Book forms of the Holy Communion, nor of Benedictus or Te Deum. They may have to become familiar with some of these things in the Ordinariate. What matters though, whichever Rite we use and in whichever direction we face when celebrating, is that we have our focus on God, and that our personal idiosyncrasies are replaced with a stillness and focus which help a congregation to worship. But I am sure this applies to every priest, Anglican or Roman Catholic.
I think there is a difference of style which means that we stay after Mass to meet people and socialise. It is a luxury which in this country most Priests of the Roman Communion do not have, since they must rush off to another Mass. But whether this really is part of our Patrimony, or simply our good fortune, remains to be seen. Similarly I think that we spend more time with penitents – because we have fewer of them; but that also might be a myth to be dispelled by experience. I fancy we take preaching more seriously than others – but I might be wrong about this. I believe our hymn-singing is more varied and full throated – but that might simply be a prejudice on my part.
Above all, we cannot know what our Patrimony comprises except when others experience it. If it includes pomposity and a sense of superiority, then these must go. But the Holy Father, who knows Anglicans well, seems to think we DO have gifts to bring into the greater Church. I am very excited at the prospect: and even more at the prospect of exercising a priesthood which is rooted and grounded in the faith of the Apostles.
Related posts:
Dear Bishop, I am trying to get your meaning so that I don't react irrationally or without due courtesy and respect for your status as a Bishop. On behalf of many of us and myself, I would like for the time-being to put to you one single question.
Do you want the Roman authorities to impose a single modern-language liturgy in the English Ordinariate, to which all must conform?
At his induction, an incumbent is indeed given cure of souls; but it is *joint* cure of souls with his bishop: 'Accept this charge, which is mine and thine'.
In Canada at least, the bishop also presents the inductee with the Bible and the BCP (or the modern-language BAS) and says 'Receive these Books; and let them be the rule of thy conduct in dispensing God's holy Word … *in administering the Sacraments of Christ*, and in exercising the discipline of the Church'.
When a bishop ordains a priest, he asks him 'Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the doctrine and sacraments, and the discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, *and as this Church hath received the same* …? The ordinand answers 'I will so do, by the help of God'. (Substantially similar forms are found in the BAS).
For my part, I have never understood how any Anglican priest who, in celebrating the mass, substituted Roman forms for the ones authorized by his own bishop could suppose that he was faithfully fulfilling either his ordination vows or the promises he made at his induction.
As I understand it, within the Roman Catholic Church, a priest is ordained to follow a particular rite, and any priest who, in celebrating the mass, mixed rites, or used a rite to which he was not ordained without proper permission, would be liable to discipline.
Lawlessness has always been the curse of Anglo-Catholicism, and especially of Anglo-Papalism. Anglo-Catholic clergy who sign on to the Ordinariate(s) are going to have to get used to a very different attitude to authority in matters liturgical.
"I have never understood how any Anglican priest who, in celebrating the mass, substituted Roman forms for the ones authorized by his own bishop."
Well, if you can't, you can't.
Bishop,
I believe that the book you are referring to in the USA is "The Book of Divine Worship" and not "The Book of Common Worship."
Charles, thank you, yes of course you are right; it is as you say.
Anthony, I think what I want is beside the point; as I understand it there is likely to be one rite specifically for the Ordinariate, probably in 'Cranmerian' language and in modern English, after the manner of the Anglican Use book. How we use it will be for the Ordinary to direct; but we shall certainly also be allowed to use whatever forms of words are permitted in the Roman Missal, and also I guess the EF (Latin) form.
William, I shall be happy to obey lawful authority – it will come as a relief after all the varieties of use put in front of me with the words "Just the usual thing, Bishop". In England there are those who claim obedience by recalling that marvellous catch-all in the induction service "using only such forms as are (lawful) or allowed by Canon". Fortunately it is not specified WHOSE canons they refer to. Most of those who use the Roman Canon say that it is part of the Anglican heritage since it is lawful in the Anglican Church in (I think) Papua New Guinea and so available to us all. Interesting to hear how obedient Candians are in view of
the reported decimation of the Anglican Church there.
Jeremy, as you guessed, I can. Thanks for all the comments. +E
I am not sure how the little Stars and Stripes appears at the top of my comments, but I daresay Christian will put it right sometime.
Bishop Edwin,
Thank you. As always, an enlightening and incisive post.
As for the little Stars and Stripes that appear, it may be that you are using AOL as your ISP, as Fr Michale Gollop does, and it registers as coming from the USA.
Of course, I am not in the upper echelon of the clergy or those "in-the-know" about the details of the Ordinariate(s). But as far as I know NOTHING has been decided about liturgical forms to be used in the upcoming Ordinariates. Thus I fear all this talk (Roman Missal, Anglican Missal, Sarum, BCP, Novus Ordo, etc.) is mere supposition and is only serving the purpose of raising people's hackles and causing fear and trepidation (and may I say anger) among those who need to be pulling together in faith, hope AND charity.
Let's get the bloody things started first and then go to war over forms and language, etc. I fear the evil one is using one of the Church's greatest weapons for good – the Liturgy – to drive a wedge between us before we're even united.
My two cents (pence) worth.
RFS+
Yes, I know some people would bog down the whole process of the Ordinariates, as the "devil is in the details". Yes, we should get the Ordinariates up and running and then either negotiate for the right liturgical forms, or see if those to be imposed by authority are acceptable.
Thank you, Bishop, this sounds most reasonable, and similar to my conjecture in another thread yesterday. Rome has to keep control over the liturgy, but allow sufficient diversity so as not to send large numbers of priests and laity away bitterly disappointed. Yes, I see the Book of Divine Worship as the model, but using material from the Anglican Missal rather than the modern Roman rite. Already, Rome is appearing to be allowing three rites: the two forms of the Roman rite and the successor of the BDW. It may not be necessary to have a modern English version of the "new" BDW, as there is the modern Roman rite as presently used in the English parishes. This will certainly represent sufficient diversity to include all.
My Lord!
As a life-long Roman who partially owes his retention of the Catholic Faith to his experience with St. Mary of the Angels, Hollywood, I can tell you that a lot of your suppositions, etc. are spot on. Apart from solemnity of worship, etc., the social and, um, catechetical elements to which you referred are very much a part of what you have to bring us.
Due to various unpleasant historical episodes, the communal side of English-speaking Catholicism — especially in the States — is often very poor; a problem we do not share woth our non-English-speaking brethren. Beyond that, at St. Mary's pamphlet rack I found innumberable reasoned and logical defences of every aspect of Catholic Faith and practice — the like of which I never saw in one of our churches, or heard in my career as a Catholic school boy.
It is no shock that most of the best Catholic apologists in English have been converts from Anglicanism.
The experience of the Latin Rite in the past 50 years has been that if you wreck the liturgy, the whole superstructure of Catholic life suffers; the lesson of Anglo-Catholicism is that, the liturgy being in order, that superstructure has an importance and a value of its own. This, I suspect, is a lesson the Holy Father wants all all to learn.
"Yes, we should get the Ordinariates up and running and then either negotiate for the right liturgical forms, or see if those to be imposed by authority are acceptable." "Rome has to keep control over the liturgy, but allow sufficient diversity so as not to send large numbers of priests and laity away bitterly disappointed." Would we refrain from entering Holy Mother Church for the reasons above stated? Would this be but another rejection of obedience? I am far from being a liturgist and do have my preference as far as worship is concerned, but I have decided to place entry into the Ordinariate as my first priority trusting Mother Church will provide all things necessary, including the liturgical form/s, so as to live therein.
Since the process of equipping priests to serve in the Ordinariate will take time, it is right to start on the process in trust. Also, liturgies quickly drawn up (or in this case modified to meet Catholic standards) are likely to give problems later. It is not for priests to invent liturgies, but to serve their congregations as they are. There has been in England a ludicrous diversity of rite, and we need stability. But all that said, it is right humbly to advise that if the (unfortunately) diverse needs of the People of God are not met, then many priests will "look pretty silly without the laity" (I quote Newman from memory) and at worst will not be celebrating at all (at least within the Ordinariate) for want of a congregation! So I hope the authorities will take considerable care to find out what is happening in the parishes and will exercise the right balance between diversity and harmonisation.
Of course, for some British Anglo-Catholics do see the BCP as an essential part of their heritage – especially, if like me, a certain componant of your background was one of those parishes where various books whose titles contained the word "English" were part of the mix – English Missal, English Office, English Ritual. I do not recall much modern language at St Stephen's, Sculcoats, where I used to hide from the depredations of the modern liturgies. However, I don't think it is going to end up being an issue given that the Book of Divine Worship contains both a modern language and a traditional language rite, so, with mods, it should be acceptable to all whoin good consience accept the Pastoral Provision.