I was ordained an Anglican priest in Adelaide, South Australia in 1970. I served as an Anglican priest in Australia and the UK for 17 years before being received into Full Communion with the Catholic Church. I know what it is to have celebrated the Anglican liturgy in its various forms. The official form, when I was ordained, was that of the Book of Common Prayer of 1662. As far as I know, almost nobody celebrated Holy Communion according to the text and rubrics of the Prayer Book.
The variations included something like the Prayer Book, the interim Rite (the Prayer Book service rearranged so that it expressed the Sacrifice of the Mass and so that it looked more like the Roman Rite), the English Missal (the Roman rite of the time, mostly in English), and the service from the 1928 Prayer Book. By and large these liturgies were celebrated with dignity and reverence.
In the 1970s new Eucharistic liturgies began to be used in the ‘experimental phase’ that went on for many years. These new liturgies were as protestant as the Book of Common Prayer, and accompanied by the usual liberal political correctness (eg so-called ‘inclusive’ language).
Many Anglo-Catholics were completely blind-sided by the advent of the Missal of Paul VI. It was not what they were expecting from Rome and challenged liturgical developments in Anglicanism which, since the late nineteenth century, they had fought hard to reclaim from England's Catholic past. Some celebrated the new Roman Rite, some stayed with the English Missal in one of its many possible variations, some stayed with the Prayer Book in one of its many variations, while others adapted to the new liturgies celebrating them using the rubrical directions of the new Roman Rite.
There was not, as far as I am aware, the same extent of liturgical madness as in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless one Anglican priest I knew had barbecue Masses, bikies’ Masses, animal Masses and so on.
The liturgical chaos in Anglicanism from the 1970s onwards was a problem. But the problem was more to do with the text of the liturgy and women priest celebrants than the way in which those liturgies were celebrated.
Anglicanism, with its rich tradition of hymnody and its deeply ingrained sense of dignified worship, continued to enjoy beautiful music in most places while Catholic liturgy in Australia was too often accompanied by hymns or songs which were musically inferior and whose words were often trite beyond measure. Even worse the music set to the Mass texts was trivial, superficial pop. The effect of this was a debasement, a desacrilisation of the Eucharistic liturgy in many if not most Catholic parishes in Australia. This in turn led to a lack of reverence at Mass with the emphasis more on people celebrating themselves as a community than the offering of the Sacrifice of the Mass as the actual liturgical texts clearly indicate. Reverence to the Blessed Sacrament waned, with the tabernacle often banished to far away corners of the Church building.
Given a (forced) choice between sound liturgical texts and better music, many Anglo-Catholics preferred style to substance, while others did their best to retain both. For some Anglicans it was a sad case of “salvation by good taste alone”! Yet protestantised liturgical texts are not corrected merely because the rite is beautifully celebrated.
The best of Anglicanism has been retained in the conservative Anglo-Catholic parishes where substance and style are both respected. The Ordinary Form is celebrated beautifully. So is the Extraordinary Form via the English Missal. A reconstituted Book of Common Prayer Mass (using the insights of the interim rite and perhaps also the Coverdale translation of the Roman Canon) has also been laudably retained and celebrated with dignity and beauty.
There is, though, nothing to be gained by Anglo-Catholics imagining a cultural superiority to Latin Rite Catholics. That Traditional Anglicans have much culturally, religiously, and spiritually that is distinctive and that ought to be retained in the new Ordinariates is clear and Rome has recognised that. But priests in the Ordinariates will also be able to celebrate both the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms. And who can doubt the beauty of the new translation of the Ordinary Form soon to be universally available for English speaking people.
My point is that we should all abandon the unfair generalisations that have often got in the way of mutual respect. Anglicans need a liturgy that is fully Catholic and fully Anglican. It is the first bit which has always been a problem for Anglicans as evidenced by the various Prayer Books of 1549, 1552, 1559 and 1662. Anglo-Catholics always knew they had to find ways to Catholicise their liturgy and it was to the Roman Use they typically looked. In the aftermath of the liturgical madness that gripped many priests and religious communities following the Second Vatican Council, many Catholics have looked back into their Old Tradition to find liturgical renewal. The Pope has encouraged this with his liberation of the Extraordinary Form. And the example of Traditional Anglicans in their liturgical celebrations should be appreciated and welcomed by all Catholics as the Ordinariates come into existence.
Now a Latin Rite priest I happily celebrate both the Ordinary form and the Extraordinary Form of the Mass. And if I were to be asked to celebrate whatever is decided to be the form of the Anglican Rite in the Ordinariate I would happily and proudly do that as well. And I certainly look forward to being reunited with my Anglican brothers and sisters at the altar of God and to once again experience the beauty and solemnity of Anglican Catholic worship.
Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!
Anglicans went from Latin to English with Cranmer in a generation or so. This wasn't that bad. Latin Catholics went from Latin to English with ICEL in just about two years and this was really bad!
Anglicans in the Catholic Church can help repair this by having the Missale Anglicanum or something similar and appropriate for the Ordinariate of the 21st century.
Not really Ben. After the short-lived `1552 Book, Elizabeth 1 Imposed her 1559 Book ruthlessly on the people. However I, for one, would like to see a return of the Sarum Missal in both Latin and 17th century English. The English Catholic bishops missed their chance of doing this in the nineteenth century and more's the pity. It might be possible to see the restoration of this beautiful pre-Reformation liturgy, one of the oldest liturgies the Western Church has. The Ordinariate is the only place I could see this happening.
My chapel is such a pre-Reformation haven.
I have been using the Sarum Use for more than two years now. Going by canonical jurisprudence, it is already an "extraordinary" use with legal standing in the Catholic Church – no special permission needed.
How beautiful!
The Sarum Use is of England and I too would like to assist at one. However does this represent all that of the Anglican patrimony Anglicanorum Coetibus guarantees to preserve? I think not. Even Anglicanism's Calvinist faith expressions by God's will, preserved Catholicism too,. We have to celebrate and conserve what in post Reformation Anglicanism preserved Catholicism. Here Anglican Catholics will have to discern with Rome what these are. The Sarum Use definitely is one that has to be conserved together with the timeless expression of the Prayer Book.
"There was not, as far as I am aware, the same extent of liturgical madness as in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. Nevertheless one Anglican priest I knew had barbecue Masses, bikies’ Masses, animal Masses and so on."
I think this is an important point. As an Anglican I witnessed priests tip the chalice down the sink and consecrate what seemed to be hot dog rolls. One priest once took us all into the sanctuary, had us all sit around the altar, and had us all hold out hosts individualy while he said something like the words of consecration. I've seen a priest consecrate wine in about 10 seconds after he had run out.
Of course, there are many horror stories in the Catholic Church, but I've never seen anything like what I saw in Anglicanism.
Mind you, I was an Evangelical Anglican … but is that an excuse? I remember when I first became an Anglican I used to attend an Evangelical parish that always celebrated very reverently. Nothing special, but there were two candles on the altar and the priest always wore a surplice and stole. He(!) even followed the modern AAPB faithfully (again, nothing special but it was still reverent), it was still prayer book — just.
Not long after, my parish got a new vicar (that dreaded phrase), and soon vestments went. Then he got a new curate who was as low as a snakes belly. Soon the chalice got tippied down the sink. Do I need to say anymore? Thank God I'm Catholic.
Robert
When you're dealing with the same kind of men – no empathy for other people, no faith in God, no understandable reason for continuing to work as priests – no Church is better than another, whether it is Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican or some vagante backstreet setup, whatever. I have seen good, bad and ugly Anglican and Catholic celebrations. No one can afford to be triumphalistic.
I think we've got to be positive and work towards the common goal we have of the Ordinariates. Leave the others behind. Leave the liturgical madness of the 1970's and 80's in the past. There's a lot of speculation. We don't know how it's all going to work out. For many of us, very little visibly and materially will change. Personally, I hope to offer help to the Archdiocese of Rouen if they will accept my doing reform-of-the-reform liturgies. Otherwise I'll work with traditionalist (in communion with Rome) priests in liturgical and cultural research and the "teaching ministry".
Things can still be bad in the Catholic Church, so it would seem best not to thank God for being Catholic, but for having the grace to live in the right place an have access to the kind of liturgy that isn't designed to depress the faith out of you!
Robert wrote:
"…I’ve seen a priest consecrate wine in about 10 seconds after he had run out…"
It should also be noted (particularly the American 1979 Prayer Book notwithstanding) that it is not possible to consecrate wine only.
ANY consecration, ie conversion of bread and wine into the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Blessed Lord, necessarily requires the consecration of BOTH species.
SWR
I suppose an even worse abuse is what I have seen in some places with, I suppose the best of intentions: adding water into the near empty chalice, purporting to stretch out the Precious Blood.
The result is, unfortunately that of causing what was the Precious Blood to become very diluted, watered down wine.
SWR
I have a question Father: what protocol do you think an Ordinariate priest should follow that has little experience with the OF (and little desire for experience) but may be asked to occasionally fill in at a local Roman parish that is OF-only? Should he learn to say the OF in as EF a manner as possible (i.e. in imitation of the Pope – crucifix, six candles, Eastward etc.) and tell them it’s either the OF ala EF (reform of the reform) or no OF at all or should he ape local "tradition" even though it be an abuse of his own conscience? I have a strong sense that this situation is going to arise for many of us what with so many overworked Roman priests, who when they need a day off, Mass simply doesn't get said in their parish. Do you have any suggestions?
Thanks
If you need to learn the modern Roman rite, consult the General Instruction and Bishop Peter Elliott's Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite. I think we should all become familiar with this rite however loath we are to use it. We would be doing so in a spirit of pastoral service, and it would be a part of our priestly sacrifice. We can think of those English slum priests of the 1860's using the 1662 Prayer Book as best they could!
I also agree there need to be limits: no abuses, "say the black, do the red", take your own vestments to the church if you don't like what they have. Use the "Benedictine arrangement" (a symmetrical arrangement of candlesticks and central altar cross on an altar facing the people). I'm sure with a lot of diplomacy (I'm not good at that
), a lot can be done.
Dear Father, sorry to be late in reply. Different time zone! I would answer your question this way. In the Catholic Church liturgical law is part of the law of the Church as is, for example, Canon law. Each of the two liturgies must be celebrated according to the liturgical norms of the Church. Where the OF is concerned there is a requirement to have candles "either on or around the altar … and not interfere with the faithful's clear view of what takes place at the altar or what is placed on it." (GIRM 307). The number of candles is not specified. There is requirement to have a crucifix and "it is to be placed either on the altar or near it." GIRM n 308). Nor is Mass ad orientem mandated by the Church (cf GIRM n 299). It is difficult to see what issue of "conscience" (rightly understood) could be violated by obeying the liturgical norms of the Catholic Church. A Catholic priest responds to th pastoral need of the people for the sacraments and does not impose his personal preferences in a Church in which he is not the Parish Priest. Mass can and should be said beautifully, reverently, rubrically. The "liturgical congregationalism" which has arisen in Anglicanism (and for very understandable reasons) will need to put aside when one enters into an Ordinariate which is in Full Communion with the Catholic Church and in which every priest promises to obey the law of the Church. And I believe, Father, you will find happiness in being subject to the law of the Church. "WVW' (what the Vicar wants) will have to give way to Catholic obedience.
Thank you, Father, for your observations. As I join an Ordinariate, I will very carefully ask the Ordinary what are the conditions that can be negotiated with local bishops, and whether diocesan parish ministry will be compulsory.
I have written more fully on this matter in another comment.
I would like to go into the matter with Archbishop Hepworth, and ask that the question be put to Cardinal Levada.
Dear Fr Anthony, I believe the terms of the Apostolic Constitution are clear enough on this point. Priests belonging to the Ordinariate are responsible only to their own Ordinary, not to any other Catholic Bishop. The matter of whether or not an Ordinariate priest offers supply outside of the Ordinariate would need to be by agreement with his own Ordinary.
Sorry, I forgot this very important related question: What should he do if the local parish uses girl-altar-boys and lay Eucharistic monsters? Would he be justified in saying "communion in one kind only" and in demanding only male attendants in the Chancel?
Girls serving at the altar are permitted in the OF in the Catholic Church. Holy Communion may be distributed, where there is a need, by Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. These may be either male or female. If you are the PP then you get to decide who will be altar servers and who will Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion. Given that the priest should meet the pastoral needs of the people by providing them with the Mass, he should accept local custom in any Parish where he is asked to say Mass, providing local custom is permitted by the GIRM. Again, demanding that things be done your way in a Church where you are asked to supply would be unfortunate. It would be even worse if you refused to say Mass.
Fr Fleming, I must respectfully disagree. Where "local custom" entails toleration of abuses, it should not be accepted.
Altar girls ended up being accepted widely as local abuse became tolerated at a general level. It could have been prevented but there was not the wit, wherewithal or courage to do so. As a phenomenon it is poison for vocations.
The same is true of EMs. They were called extraordinary for a reason – they were not to be used except in dire need. Now we have situations where the sanctuary is so crowded with laity one can barely discern who is the priest.
Fr L, as a cradle Roman Catholic let me advise you not to compromise yourself. That means if you are asked to fill in at a (non-trad) Roman parish:
1. Reform of the reform only
2. Male altar servers only
3. No EMs
If those conditions can't be met say tell them, tactfully of course, where to get off.
There is no liturgy called the "reform of the reform". It does not exist. "Reform of the reform" refers to a reform of the liturgical books which came into force in the 1970s. The emancipation of the EF allows that form of the Mass to influence any future reforms of the OF. One cannot insist on male altar servers as a visitor and nor should one refuse the assistance of EMs which are lawful.
You are right. This concept is usually well-explained by http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/ It is a question of allowing the modern Roman liturgy to be influenced by the older form in a similar way as Anglican Ritualists like Percy Dearmer followed the Prayer Book but with Sarum ceremonial. The 'reform of the reform' is therefore not a rite but a particular traditional-minded interpretation of the 'Novus Ordo' and a way of celebrating it in perfect respect of the texts and rubrics.
This spirit is to be found in many Benedictine monasteries, the Community of St Martin, the three English Oratories, doubtlessly the Legionaries of Christ and Opus Dei, the Oblates of Wisdom and Bishop Peter Elliot. It is promoted by the present Pope.
For example, Pope Benedict XVI recommends a symmetrical arrangement of candlesticks (perhaps just two will do) and a central crucifix, which doesn't have to be a very big one. It re-introduces 'verticality'. And, people can still see everything when that is what they are used to.
I agree that a priest helping in someone else's parish cannot do what he wants and has to follow the usage in place, including girl altar servers, all the trappings and whatever music they do. I think the best thing for us future Ordinariate priests is to avoid parish ministry. I don't think any bishop will want to force us. Then we can work as chaplains in movements and parallel communities: Scouts, Latin Mass groups, musicians, artists, schools, prisons and suchlike. That would allow much more scope for specifically Anglican forms and the development of the 'reform of the reform' way of celebrating the ordinary Roman liturgy, which I recognise as a valid rite, promulgated by a Pope and celebrated by the reigning Pope, and likely to be with us for some time.
Parish ministry will be possible when they have to be restarted from scratch, but that might take another ten years or so… Depends where you are.
True. It should be fair to say in this case without fear of reprisal: "You use them. I don't use them." In all justice, they have no more right to make me use them than I have to make them not use them. Si si, no no; there should be no cause for contention where brethren dwell together in unity. Yet, methinks I hear Voltaire whispering: “We’ll make our garden grow, in the best of all possible worlds.” Nay, it has been the traditionally minded clergy that have been being squashed these past 4+ decades. Has the current Pope ever used girl-altar-boys (g-a-bs) or an EM that was not in major orders? And now this not-so-surprising revelation:
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=52403
And in connection with it: have lay EMs (l-e-m-mings*) or g-a-bs ever been used in the EF?
—–
Thank you all for your comments – they are very helpful to me.
*Yes, “l-e-m-mings” is not at all flattering; but people who are fully convinced of the realness of the Eucharist are generally not those who will hastily take up (without consecrated hands and prayerful preparation) to distribute the sacred Species. The Church will not allow them to don a stole; why allow them to distribute the Lord’s Body & Blood? What is more holy: the vestment or the Lord? Not to mention, lay EMs never seem to dress appropriately and they are almost always female despite there being numerous able-bodied men. Well, whatever… though they are currently acceptable, I feel nothing but pity for them.
Father I think it unfair to speak of being "forced" to do anything. Catholic priests are, or should be, men under obedience. You asked me re you being invited to celebrate the OF in a Roman Catholic Parish. My answers still stand. You accept the authority of the Church when it comes to who can "don the stole". We should also accept the authority of the Church in her provision of Ministers of Holy Communion. We can argue against that provision. But we should never be the cause of offence and dissension in refusing help from those duly authorised to help in a Parish where we are the guest.
There is a point emerging from this. There should be some protection provision to make it possible for Ordinariate priests to avoid becoming effectively "absorbed" in a "progressive" local situation. I think this question should be put to Archbishop Hepworth as one of the issues to be brought up in due time with the CDF.
It is one thing to accept some things (on an occasional basis) that are "not nice", like wearing a polyester rainbow chasuble or hearing electric guitars (if they'll turn the volume down). It is another to be asked to dish out baskets of hosts for people to carry away and distribute to all and sundry, or other such things.
Denying any "guarantee of protection" for Ordinariate priests may in some situations be tantamount to annihilating any purpose of the Ordinariate scheme, and perhaps in time sabotage the whole thing. In the spirit of what is offered, this seems reasonable.
As far as I know, no Ordinariate priest will be obliged to help in the local diocesan parishes, any more than a priest belonging to an exempt order of pontifical right. When priests of the Fraternity of St Peter and the Institute of Christ the King help in dioceses and parishes, conditions are negotiated before they do anything. An Ordinariate will be bound to obedience to his Ordinary, but not to the local Bishop unless actually engaged in a public ministry.
If this "wiggle room" space for negotiation is not possible, and a priest signs a blank cheque pledging blind obedience to the most modernist local bishop simply by joining his Anglican Personal Ordinariate, then I think many Anglican clergy will be thinking twice about an Ordinariate scheme perceived to be too fragile to be viable.
I would advise Ordinariate clergy not to volunteer for ordinary parish ministry, except in the exceptional dioceses where there is a conservative / traditionally-minded bishop and canonical / moral recourse against the tyranny of the arbitrary, but rather to stick to serving their own faithful, or entering a "teaching ministry" that is only indirectly pastoral. Such a teaching ministry is not necessarily teaching in a school or a university, but also doing theological and cultural research, organising summer universities, etc. Such ministries are less controlled by the local Bishop (unless you are particularly controversial or heretical). For priests with too little Anglican ministry, there is also the option of volunteering help to organisations like the Fraternity of St Peter and offering the extraordinary Roman rite (I can provide resources for those who wish to learn the EF and the Latin language).
I have often thought about these things, and not everything is resolved in my own mind.
Father, you say: "There is a point emerging from this. There should be some protection provision to make it possible for Ordinariate priests to avoid becoming effectively “absorbed” in a “progressive” local situation. I think this question should be put to Archbishop Hepworth as one of the issues to be brought up in due time with the CDF." The Ordinariate has its own Constitution and priests are accountable ONLY to their own Ordinary. There is nothing to fear about "absorption". The real issue is, I believe, the degree to which the Ordinariate and the local Roman Bishop are able to cooperate with each other for the good of the Church. No Ordinariate priest is forced to do anything outside of the Ordinariate, ie in obedience to his own Ordinary. Moreover, there are Traditional Anglicans who will want to be part of the Ordinariate and who are already committed to the OF. So it is that the Constitution provides that the Ordinariate can us the OF, the EF, and an Anglican form of the Mass (yet to be defined)
Thank you Fathers Fleming and Chadwick for you helpful comments. I apologize that I make no bones about my dislike of the Novus Ordo Missae and the many changes in ministerial norms (Traditions?) that it brought about; an attitude I don't think can be mitigated. Certainly there can be impiety, buffoonery and sacrilege in the EF as there can in the OF; it only seems, based on the evidence, that the "occasions for sin" are multiplied in the new Mass (has there ever been a single EF balloon Mass?). I don't fail to see that many Roman Catholics are nurtured by the Novus Ordo, but I think this is due their ignorance of what once was. Is it a coincidence that the "do it or die" promulgation of the OF precipitated the end of parish boundaries and the current practice of driving past several Catholic Churches to attend where one likes it best? The OF seems to foster the cult of personality (Protestantism). Folks chose whichever OF parish suits them, the looser the service the looser the faith and morals of the people; ushering in, or at least amplifying, the current crises in the Church.
The EF is the best way to pray. Why settle for second best?
Perhaps, a key point of the Ordinariate scheme is making the EF available for the whole Church only in the vernacular. I would have to have a profound revelatory experience (Theophony) in order to come to the point where I would, no questions asked, stand-in at any Roman altar and say the OF according to local customs either that or the money would have to be real good (just kidding!). This is not to deny the validity of the OF only the expediency of it. It's like settling for "McDonalds" when you’re used to fresh home cooking.
Fr. Chadwick has an excellent point that some form of protection needs to be provided Ordinariate priests from being locally-customized (by liberal bishops, priests and congregations) into oblivion or, happier yet, insanity. I know that I am not alone in saying that if potential Ordinariate priests will be required to help locally and to necessarily adhere to local customs when doing so, not many of us will be willing to suffer such a situation. For myself, I would rather become a Roman Catholic layman, find an amenable parish (that has not been wreck-o-vated) and hound the parish priest into saying the EF.
Fr. LR, I don't know if you mean to fill in for a Mass or two or if your replacing the priest for a long period. I attend a very traditional parish and the OF is done with great reverence. The priest faces East and there are 6 candles, no innovations at all. But I also have attended many other parishes and if your just doing a favor and not the Pastor it would be, in my opinion, rude to try to implement what you perceive as appropriate. Besides the Catholics wouldn't know how to follow the liturgy.
I pray that the Church will get more orthodox priests in the future and if they are the Pastor then they can implement changes slowly. Most Catholics only know what they have practiced for the past 40 years and don't understand that holding hands etc. were not approved at VII, but added by individual priests and finally the Church caved in and allowed altar girls etc.
If your'e just filling in for a short time I think it is best to ask the Pastor or whoever assigned you what the customs are in that parish. Although I don't care for some of the ways some parishes celebrate the liturgy, as long as it is valid I must show respect to our brothers and sisters by respecting their way of celebrating the liturgy. Who are we to act superior, it would only bring anger.
I understand that we as Anglicans or former Anglicans love our liturgy and feel it is better, but there are many Latin Rite Catholics who also want changes, but have no authority to do so. The new translation of the OF should help, but it is up to the Pastor to implement whether they have altar girls etc. or not. I have read many posts by Catholics who like having altar girls and there is a great divide within the Church.
But as I stated if your just filling in I think you would be met with anger by many if you try to change the form they use.
Dear Father, you say: "I don’t know if you mean to fill in for a Mass or two or if your replacing the priest for a long period." I was referring to filling in for a Mass or two. If your tenure is longer than that it will depend on what position you have. If you have been appointed Administrator of the parish then you run the Parish. At that point you will need still need to act prudently (depending on just how long you will be there). But it would be quite in order for the Administrator to correct any liturgical abuses he may find. Even if he is only there for a Mass or two he should not comply with abuses, ie acts or omissions (including changing the ords of the Mass) forbidden by liturgical law.
As an after thought, let us turn it around. Suppose you have an Anglican Use parish and must leave for a few weeks, you must have a priest who is from an OF parish come to fill in for you. He doesn't like the Anglican Use liturgy and he decides to have altar girls and Eucharistic ministers, would this be acceptable?
I do believe that there have been Latin Rite (OF) priests celebrate at some of the AU parishes and they follow the Anglican Use liturgy. There have even been Bishops who have celebrated the AU liturgy.
The Holy Father has given a generous offer to Anglicans and I would hate to see our priests offend Catholics who have a different form of the liturgy by saying we are better than you. I confess I am not an expert in any areas of liturgy, but I feel in reading some of these posts that there seems to be a feeling of superiority of some. We will be the newcomers and will have our own traditions and liturgy within the Church, just as we don't want others to come into our parishes and make changes to suit their preferences we should not do the same to others.
As someone mentioned, obedience is the key word here. That is not an easy task for many, but to be Catholic is to be obedient to the Church. It is not our responsibility to change the OF or EF liturgies.
We have been given a great gift and I for one don't want to lose it because we appear to want to be separate and feel above our brothers and sisters.
I beleive that this problem arose at OLA with people attending the EF a few years ago. If Fr. Phillips so chooses he can share the story. It was in some ways the same attitude from these Catholics that caused offence to other parishioners.
Thank you for your comments, Gay, I certainly mean no offense to anyone; I am merely speaking my thoughts with frankness so I can better understand what should be or is expected. I don't plan on wreaking havoc at the local Novus Ordo parish, though one can't predict the future… I have no desire to make enemies where friends ought to be made, yet we all have prejudices. I do not intend to imply or argue my personal superiority in matters liturgical (I have no high opinion of myself) only the superiority of the EF which belongs to the whole Church. Still there is no question in my mind but that the OF is inferior to the EF – they are the same (yes) but not equal. This is true by objective standards (e.g. attendance at Mass since the promulgation of the OF, numbers of conversions, numbers of baptisms, numbers of marriages, numbers of professed individual, numbers of priests et cetera, et cetera, et cetera). The EF is not better because it is what I prefer and what I wish everyone else preferred. It is not a matter of personal pride, arrogance. It is a matter of fact, that the "smoke of Satan" within the Church was never spoken of by a Pope until the promulgation of the new Mass. Coincidence? I don’t think so.
Again, frankly, I don't see that it would be a big deal if a visiting priest used the Use that he was most comfortable with; but having girls serve at the altar in a parish that did not use girls would not only be difficult to accomplish but would likely land his head on a pike – opinions against it are strong. But is this the same thing as not choosing to have girls serve when boys are able? To my thinking, hardly the same thing.
To be honest, I find that those who prefer the Novus Ordo tend to be more easily offended and that personally when someone like me questions their opinions and practices. They always end up arguing: "The Church allows it." To which I answer: Moses also allowed divorce – because of the hardness of the Hebrew's hearts – but it was not so from the beginning. What is permissible, S Paul warns, is not always beneficial.
I say that those who are good Catholics by dint of the OF would be excellent Catholics by dint of the EF and the facts support me.
Obedience seems to me a strange thing to invoke in regards to which liturgy one prefers, especially if the reasons for preference are sound. Invoking obedience implies disobedience is just around the corner. I think this is an unfair implication. I don’t see that preference and argument in favor of the EF is disobedient and those who favor the OF should not be intimidated by it especially if they are confident in their position. Certainly there are some OF parishes that I and other AC priests could easily step in and do exactly what is already being done – you mentioned one such parish, Gay – but there is unfortunately greater variety of Use in OF Roman parishes than one can shake a stick at.
I want to, Dv, be of use to my local Roman diocese as a, Dv, priest of an AC Ordinariate. I thank you all for your help in my “banging some ideas around.”
Dear Father, you said: "Obedience seems to me a strange thing to invoke in regards to which liturgy one prefers, especially if the reasons for preference are sound. Invoking obedience implies disobedience is just around the corner. I think this is an unfair implication." Of course you are absolutely right. While the Church offers a choice of Forms, in the case of the Ordinariate the OF, the EF, and the Anglican form (to be determined), people are free to have their preference. What they should not do is sit in judgement on others who have another preference as if their are first class Catholics (those who agree with my liturgical preference) and second class Catholics (those who have a different liturgical preference from me). Where obedience comes in is to see that when we as priests celebrate the Mass in a particular form we honour the rubrics which govern it. No local custom can overcome liturgical law, and no priest should impose his preference on a parish where he is a visiting celebrant. If we can each see past our own preferences and have a true pastoral concern for the people and the liturgy of the Church, then we as priests may of greater service to the Church than if we adopt the "my way or the highway" mentality.
Why does the Pope not immediately impose the EF on the whole world, then? The obvious answer: because it would cause alarm, upheaval, and schism. Neither a supertanker nor the Barque of Peter gets turned around quickly.
Some are unable to perceive why one use would be better than another. Is the AU better than the OF? In my opinion, certainly. Would that give me the right to impose it upon the OF faithful? No. Is the EF superior to the OF? How about the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom? (Remember how Latin imposition against the Byzantine faithful needlessly drove many into the arms of Orthodoxy.)
It is not disobedient to prefer the EF, any more than it is to prefer the OF or the AU. But to impose EF rules upon an OF parish is disrespectful to the parish, even more than it is disobedient to the ordinary in charge of that parish. On the other hand, following one's own custom for reverent celebration is highly desirable, so long as it is within the OF norms and does not impose upon the parish one is visiting.
Let me explain with an example or two. Insisting upon male altar servers or no EMHCs causes a parish to jump through hoops just to satisfy the visiting priest: schedules must be altered, several hurt feelings must be assuaged, and these burdens are borne by the parish volunteers far beyond the couple of hours the visitor is on premises. But setting out an altar crucifix and candles, possibly even bringing one's own incense and vestments, using the Roman canon (and singing it), etc., brings the parish an elevated experience at little additional effort. Ideally, the parish will ask itself, "why don't we do that every week?" Graciousness is the key.
I agree that "unfair generalizations" are totally out of order in this business.
There is a local Roman Catholic priest here in St. Augustine, FL (not of Anglican origination, but born and bred in that "Holy Land of England") who occasionally celebrates Mass nearby on an "as needed" basis. Fr. Tony Ford uses, as required, the Novus Ordo, and I will tell anyone first-hand that few of us have experienced the kind of reverence, dignity and sense of the Lord's presence that seems to fairly glow about this man of God as he offers the Holy Sacrifice. Bottom Line – rites and rituals are important, but vastly more important is the inner disposition out of which the celebrant conducts the liturgy.
Dear Dr Marziani, I agree. What is needed is a valid rite, a valid priest, and a priest who says the Mass in conformity with the liturgical law AND with the "inner disposition" to which you refer. As I remarked in my main piece, Anglo-Catholics can get steamed up about all sorts of things. But the answer isn't to allow chaos with each priest doing as he thinks fit. There has been too much of that in the Catholic Church in the post Vatican II era and it has to stop. The example of faithful and well disposed Anglican catholic priests will be very helpful in the current liturgical climate.
As I have said before, so long as the rubrics are followed, reverently, respectfully, and faithfully, without liturgical improvisation, I see nothing wrong with the OF. The point of the liturgy is to bring God to the people and the people to God. I plan on learning both the Anglican and the OF liturgies. I hope to make the Anglican use my preferred mode but I also plan on learning and celebrating the OF. I absolutely agree with Father Fleming, what is needed is a valid rite and a valid priest. I am terrified what it would mean for the successes of the ordinate if we get into a liturgical wars. God bless you Father Fleming you are right on!
Amen!
Lets not become Donatists.
I have two reactions to this thread; first, from an intellectual/theological perspective I find the discussion rather invigorating and necessary; second, from the perspective of wisdom and discretion, I find it appalling.
It is very important for priests to be able to communicate with each other regarding their liturgical and priestly concerns if they choose to enter the Ordinariate. Perhaps a private venue should be considered where priests, deacons and religious could air their concerns without being in a looking glass. Laypeople don’t want to hear priests air their dirty laundry. It is not proper and it does not concern us.
Many of the comments being offered may be doing more harm than good as they are totally devoid of charity. For example, the vow of priestly obedience comes across as optional; some appear to want to serve on their own terms. Priestly service is not on their terms, but is a sacrificial ministry to the Church. If we are to believe some of the selfish perspectives offered, the Mass is for the priest, not the priest for the Mass. Also, the demeaning language towards the laity, “Eucharistic Monsters,” ect., is beneath the office of the priest. These comments are a turn off and do nothing to build up a parish. Who wants a priest with an attitude?
It is always a pleasure to hear the diverse opinions regarding liturgical use; it is always one of the more popular discussions. However, the lack of charity towards Catholics who worship in the OF, broad sweeping negative statements (particularly those that are more opinion with little basis in fact) and a general bashing of all lay participation at Mass (please remember that this practice has the permission of the bishop, the authority in the local parish) is a real turnoff coming from those in leadership.
Just some thoughts offered in charity.
Blessings,
Clark
Dear Clark, in relation to the thread you say: "from the perspective of wisdom and discretion, I find it appalling." This is hardly fair. While I agree with you when you specify particular things that have been said which should have been unworthy of the contributor, nevertheless there has been an important airing of points of view in a refreshingly candid way. The discussion should help resolve some issues. So, while agree with you re some of the comments, I think your condemnation is unfairly sweeping.
Fr. John-
There is no condemnation, only a suggestion that priests consider that "discretion is the better part of valor" (yes, I know I am taking the quote out of context). Rather than saying my comments are "hardly fair," perhaps discussion of my suggestion of a different forum for these types of comments would have been more appropriate.
Besides, your comments are not the ones that lack discretion. Your comments are the ones that have brought Church teaching concerning the priesthood to the discussion. Your comments are the ones that have reminded your fellow priests of their vows of obedience, etc. Please don't shoot the messenger, I'm only making a suggestion, the different forum, and offering a "lay" perspective on how the conversation comes across.
I hope this offers a little clarity on what I meant.
Blessings,
Clark
Dear Clark, yes it does. Your point is well taken.
In Christo
Fr J
And I thought we were having a fine discussion, now Clark shows up and gets all whinny. What’s the saying? “Little pitchers have big ears.” What I think you need Clark is an adult sense of humor and to try harder not to be so easily scandalized. If you are so sensitive that frank discussion of serious matters upsets you, I would suggest you avoid the internet all together. Remember about brethren dwelling together in unity, it is like the oil that ran down Aaron's hair, beard and clothing – it’s close, sticky, slimy, gooey and odiferous and only gets more so with each passing day. The priest is for the Church, as you point out, likewise the parishioner; the converse of both is also true.
Things were so much simpler when there was one liturgy, one rule book. All altars faced "East," all the books said the same things and you made your confession or you didn't get communion on Sunday – on the tongue, kneeling and in one kind, no variation – there was no question whether you would be on the roster to dish out communion, it just didn't happen; and girls at the altar? They weren’t even allowed to wash the lavabo bowl in the sacristy. Things have dramatically changed in the Roman Church whereas they have not changed nearly so much in the Anglo-Catholic parishes of the ACA I’m familiar with. I will have to make some very serious decisions in the near future what I want my future to be. So, I’ve asked my relevant questions of individuals who are wise and learned with real experience in these things. I know you don’t like me Clark, because I’ve told you off before, I can’t remember why, but I think it was for sniveling just like you are now. Please, sling your hook somewhere else (haha, I just remembered), lighten up and laugh for a change. Are my questions and comments so offensive that only your "thoughts offered in charity" will sooth the waters I have troubled? Aren’t you just precious? My questions were in earnest and I appreciated the earnest, frank responses I received. I suggest that you keep your stifling suggestions to yourself or at least don't be so prissy about it. And yes again, I’m giving you the smack down; if you want to be so sanctimonious at least have the courage to come straight at me – I’m a man of the cloth, I can take it.
Fr. LR-
You are rude, dismissive, and acerbic and lack all of the fine qualities that a good priest should possess (To help you in your decision I suggest reading “Program of Priestly Formation” published by the USCCB. I’m pretty sure these “qualities” will not be found in the manual).
Honestly, I have never met a priest with such a secular attitude. Apparently you believe in the priest as bully model. You think that you can “smack down” someone just because they offer a different opinion than you. Your pastoral skills fall flat, as your way of dealing with those who disagree with you is to call them nasty names and attempt to bully them. You confuse my kindness as somehow being “prissy.” I am only attempting charity, a trait you are obviously not willing to be in turn. You have a right to your opinions, but for all the laypeople to have to sit there and listen to you insult them to their faces with your nasty comments is just plain rude (this is why I suggested a private forum, so you can gripe about us laypeople behind our backs). It’s not that I don’t like you, it’s that you don’t like being a priest in service to others. Your comments make it very apparent.
I’m not out to win an argument; you never do with a bully and someone who is good at being mean. I’m sure you can find something nasty to say, please don’t, your true colors are not very pretty.
Clark
Father, that post was uncharitable.
I do not think that a return to an EF only approach is the way to go.
I have attended many an EF mass and have seen few families, few children. How are we to carry on our faith if we have no one to give it to? I attend a reverent OF mass at a local parish and the pews are bursting filled with children and young couples! Things may have been simpler back in the good old days but as they say, "Give up the hope for a better past." We live in the now. The OF is used and will continue to be used. If you join the Catholic Church you need to be able to learn to at least respect the OF, for what it is. One of the many legitimate rites used in this word by which Jesus Christ, in body, soul and divinity enters into this world, for his people. His people who so ardently desire him like they do at the parishes in my diocese. Would Christ say the things you said in these comments? You are in Persona Christi but I do not see it in these harsh and unkind words. You have belittled an fellow Priest of God and I feel that you have insulted my faith by implying that because I attend a mass where the priest faces the congregation that I don't have a proper faith. Please Father, I don't think you are a bad person, nor do I believe that these comments are typical of you. But perhaps we should all take a deep breath, cool the anger, and continue on in this discussion in a respectful, civil manner, as Christ would have us do.
Thank you,
Robert Smith
Dear Fr Fleming,
I would like to apologise to you for my all-too-often cynical and sometimes aggressive attitude about liturgical matters.
It is obvious that we will be in exempt jurisdictions (the Ordinariates) and we will be asked (without being forced) to give pastoral help. It makes sense that a priest who gives short-term help in a parish is not going to try to introduce any changes, not even improvements. A new parish priest who has just been canonically installed in a parish makes no changes for the first five years or so, and then introduces them only gradually in consultation with the laity and in accordance with the Church's laws and liturgical norms.
Our record as Anglicans for liturgical anarchy is despicable. I understand the historical reasons for why it has happened, but it has to stop if we want to be Catholics. The Church has a number of rites in the Latin Rite, either explicitly approved or prescribed, and a number of others that still enjoy canonical existence by virtue of jurisprudence and immemorial custom – which could be used in the right circumstances.
I have had a talk today with Archbishop Hepworth, and this has left me joyful and optimistic.
Not every priest is called to parish ministry, and being a parish priest today in some countries requires a strength of character some of us just don't have. These are things a Bishop discerns in his clergy when giving the right jobs to the right men. There are many ways a priest can work to build the Kingdom of Heaven other than parish work.
We all need to be patient and learn to "let go" of our fears and anxiety. Things are being done and everything is going the right way.
Regards,
Fr. Anthony
Lets be honest. The Novus Ordo mass as celebrated in most Roman parishes sees the priest reduced to a magician – doing the essential mechanics of the consecration, with the laity doing readings, leading the petitions, distributing communion from baskets; they seldom genuflect, and rubrical sloppiness is the norm.
Fr. LR is not right in everything but he is right in saying that when the Church had the Tridentine mass, offered ad orientem, with communion received kneeling at the rails by people who had been to confession, fasted since midnight and said prayers of preparation, that this is infinitely superior to the current Novus Ordo liberal parish.
Most Roman priests in Australia, do not own a cassock or a cotta, never wear clerical collars, do not know what an amice or a maniple are and maybe use incense at requiems (called "Mass of Christian Burial") only.
Why do Latin Catholics not look at their own Eastern rite parishes? I commend you all to look at St. Elias Ukrainian Catholic Church in Brampton, Canada. They have I believe an ex Anglican deacon and they have traditional liturgy, like most Eastern Catholic churches. No polyester vestments, secular quasi-spiritual songs, female acolytes, lay distributors of communion or data projector at all.
Yes, you can celebrate the Novus Ordo with reverence and I agree that it starts with the preparation of priest and people. That means fasting for all communicants, confession for many (if not all!) and an understanding that the mass is about worshipping God, not making idols of humanity.
Lets also be clear. Vatican II threw away far too much. Fasting out the door. Ember days gone. As many smashed marble altars on the rubbish dump as in Henry VIII's day. Nuns dressed as laywomen and priests who you'd pass on the street and not know they were men of God. Reform of the reform? It sure is needed.
This raises in an interesting point. Your experience in Australia is radically different than my experience in the U.S.
We are a very international group here and yet we speak as if our experiences are universal. Perhaps what country you live in dramatically effects your experience with these things. I don't know…just something to think about.
Perhaps a summary of the more important points which have emerged will help.
Obedience is something we all have to learn – to our own Ordinary and to the authorised forms of liturgy.
Our Ordinary has a duty to cooperate with the local hierarchy and consequently to tell us what is required. Of course, the more duties we have within the Ordinariate, the less time we have for helping elsewhere. And priests who do secular work for a living have all the less time available.
If we are merely giving emergency cover, then the duty of charity is not to disturb existing arrangements (unless they are indubitably disobedient, in which case we must explain). Our taste is not very important.
Our liturgical priority is to be well equipped to celebrate whatever Anglican Patrimony liturgy is adopted within our own Ordinariate. It is not our duty to be well equipped for anything else, though as a matter of charity we probably should be minimally equipped to cope with the Ordinary Form as it lawfully develops, and some of us are competent Latinists (but glad as I am that the old liturgy is allowed, I personally feel that for me to celebrate it should be a rare treat, unless of course there was a congregation needing it regularly).
It is useful to sort our ideas out at an early stage, and some of us learn by debate, but we should remember that all manner of people, and not least CDF, may be watching.
The major task for any priest – and arguably any lay person as well – is going to be evangelisation. How are we preparing for that in the new circumstances?
Ah, yes, that "E" word – evangelisation!
We're in the process of beginning a new mission in the Green Cove Springs area here in northeast Florida just on the west side of the St. John's River. My lay mission steering committee members are keen on both keeping reverence in worship AND being about the work of harvesting what the Holy Spirit is bringing to ripe head in the vicinity. Our worship must feed our work of evangelisation, and must never become a diversion from it. Fed with the Bread of Life we go forth to bring in the increase of that Kingdom, which as the prophet so wonderfully told us, will only yet increase more and more. Liturgy, mission, sanctification – it's all of a piece, after all!
And this is NOT something that can await the fullness of the Ordinariate – we're either doing that work of evangelisation NOW, or we're just puttering around. In fact, it may be argued that the ultimate success of the Ordinariate will depend precisely upon how diligent we are in this vital apostolate, which hierarchy, clergy, and laity share alike. Worship issues will, I believe, resolve themselves satisfactorily IF we get about the business of our Father's heart to see as many of His children come to the New Birth as possible
While I am a devote of the Tridentine mass both in its Latin form and in the English Missal, we have to be careful in imposing it especially if we are only serving as a supply priest. For good or for ill the "Ordinary Form" (OF) or "Novus Ordo" is all that most Catholics under 50 have any knowledge. I think it is our duty to introduce the "Extraordinary Form" (EF) or "Tridentine Mass" in the places where we are in charge or have the blessing or the rector/pastor.
Fr. LR is quite right in believing that the EF is superior to the OF but we must not be heavy handed in imposing the EF on others as the OF is a valid expression of the mass despite how distasteful it may be.
I myself plan to join the ordinariate and hopefully offer both the EF and the New Anglican form of the mass in my parish. However, if asked by the local ordinary to help out at a local latin rite parish (i.e. to cover for a Sunday or two while the pastor is on vacation), I will be willing to do so and will celebrate the OF as it is done at that parish (unless something illicit is being done there ie. a clown mass, etc.) An Anglican Use priest who cannot in good conscience can not celebrate the OF should tell the local ordianary and be honest with him that he cannot do so. An Anglican Use priest will not be forced to do anything by the local bishop and I believe that he will be respected if he presents a rational argument for not celebrating the OF.
I have a concern from reading these posts. I post on other Catholic forums and I have seen Catholics mention this website. My concern is that some of the posters make snide remarks about the OF and even if the visitor might feel the same regarding the OF as many on this forum do, there are some that don't.
What must they think of us for undermining their form of worship? It won't make many Catholics supportive of an Ordinariate. It is not our business or concern to make remarks that are offensive to Catholics.
What is important is for us to discuss what our desires are for what the Anglican form of the liturgy will be.
We will be part of the Catholic Church with our own particular form of celebrating the liturgy and our other traditions, let us leave the decision making of changes in the OF/EF to Rome.
We must be charitable in our comments. How other rites are done will not affect us. As far as filling in on occasions for a OF parish, although one might dislike the form, he might learn to humble himself and have a greater understanding of Catholics in general.
Sometimes we aren't very charitable to each other either. Let us show more love for one another. Also as far as the priests on the Anglo Catholic, we do not know what situation they are in at the moment, some might be going through a "purgatory" within their diocese because they are known to be joining the Ordinariate and are expressing hurt and anger, not really towards people posting here. They need a place to vent and maybe this website is that place.
We must show others that our priests can be good shepards and degrading the OF for all to see does not bring a welcoming mat to our door. It would be best to discuss our own personal preferences of how we would want our liturgy, not to involve ourselves in matters that don't concern us.
I think you have some good points here. As for criticism of the modern Roman rite (ordinary form), there is criticism and criticism. The Holy Father himself both criticises and uses this rite. I think we should model our criticisms on the scholarly basis given by Fr Louis Bouyer, Monsignor Klaus Gamber, the present Pope, Cardinal Alfons Stickler and many others who were totally loyal to the Church and respectful.
I agree with you that a rite officially promulgated by the authority of the Catholic Church, however faulty, should be treated with respect and criticised on a rational and founded basis. We all know how much people have suffered from abuses and priests "without faith or law".
Conforming to the usages (if legitimate in the Church) of a parish where a priest is called to supply is common sense. I have celebrated the modern Roman rite on occasions when warranted in pastoral terms, but have done so as "traditionally" as possible as it was not in a parish situation, but rather with my family-in-law. I don't like the modern Mass and I find it illogical and clumsy. The symbolism is stripped away. The offertory is bad enough and the rite of the Fraction and the Agnus Dei is a complete mess – but that is what the Church asks us to use when we are not using the extraordinary form or the future Anglican Use (or however it will be called) to be granted to us. The perfect rite doesn't exist, because the most traditional rites are human creations.
We could go on about this forever, but the essential thing is charity and reasoning rather than responding from our hurt emotions. The modern Roman rite will be around for a long time, and we have to get used to it and work with it. Laws can be "bent" but not broken! It can be celebrated in a "traditional" and prayerful way, and we can expect improvements coming from Pope Benedict XVI's authority.
Yes, I agree, let's think more about our Anglican liturgical traditions rather than try to solve the issue of the Roman rite.
Also, we are the ones who have gone to Rome cap-in-hand. I ask God's forgiveness for my own pride and pray for the grace of humility so that others may find a good example in me!
Father,
Thank you for this last post. I respect your wisdom and your knowledge especially about liturgical issues. You have the ability to profoundly effect culture because of your gifts.
I am a Catholic that has not told many people about this site because they may be bewildered by the lack of charity if they just come into the above conversation. The conversation was excellent when we stuck to the issue at hand. I know that you suffer with righteous indignation. The battles against heresy in the early Church were often raucous. Did St. Nicholas really slap Arius at the council of Nicea?
As I was sitting at daily mass this morning I was thinking about all the caricature that is leveled at Roman rite. Seeing approximately 50 people there I could take heart at those faithful coming to celebrate the Eucharist (OF) with reverence in spite of what my brothers and sisters in the future ordinariates and the New York Times are saying.
Thank you Gay for your insightful comments through your grace you have been the one that can sooth the raging bull Father LR. Father LR there can be a fine line between righteous indignation and self righteous indignation. I believe you also suffer righteous indignation except it is harder to tell when you personalize your attacks.
Dear Fr. Chadwick,
Thank you for your gracious post. Although I am a convert to the Catholic Church and miss my Anglican liturgy, I have found a very traditional Latin Rite parish. Everything is done in order and reverence. The priest faces ad orientem. We kneel at the communion rail and receive on the tongue. The hymns are the same as when I was an Anglo Catholic. We have holy priests and feel blessed that I have been led to this parish.
I pray that someday I will be allowed to attend an Anglican Use parish, but have questions if that will ever be a possibility where I live. Although we will have Archbishop Gomez over us soon, thank God.
I still pray for all of you that you will soon be part of an Ordinariate and have a parish. I must leave all in the hands of our Lord and accept what He has willed for me. I understand that waiting is most difficult, but we must be patient as Rome moves slowly.
It is wonderful that there is a website that we can all interact with one another and have the support we need during these difficult days.