Fr. Ed Tomlinson, SSC, parish priest of St. Barnabas, Tunbridge Wells, has written this reflection on the need for liturgical uniformity. My emphases.
One of the (many) reasons the Anglican church struggles to maintain unity stems from the fact it no longer uses a uniform prayer book. Common Worship might delight or dismay depending on churchmanship but chances are you will find something to approve of. The reason being that it is not one prayer book at all but an a la carte menu offering wide variety of Eucharistic prayers and liturgies according to personal taste. This might placate an increasingly schizophrenic community but the one thing it cannot do is produce unity of thought and expression.
The simple truth is that ‘you are what you pray’ with the words we use in our worship defining, moulding and forming us as ecclesial communities. Thus where the church of 1910 was united as around one altar through shared use of the Book of Common Prayer, the Anglican church of 2010 has little in terms of worship or identity holding it together at all.
To understand how this quickly leads to disunity let us ponder a town with three Anglican churches, one evangelical, one Anglo-Catholic and one liberal/middle of the road. In 1910 they would have offered distinct worship but the BCP would have been a common link between them. At Diocesan functions this shared liturgy would have bound them together even if they might have argued vehemently over matters of doctrine. Whereas today the evangelical church will likely adopt its own liturgy by use of power point and overhead projector, the middle of the road parish will opt for a pick and mix economy borrowing from all and any source (but especially Iona liturgies!) [and] Finally the Anglo-Catholic parish is likely to use the Roman Rite with exotic processions and devotions thrown in for good measure. When the three now come together there is very little they share and the old arguments over doctrine now extend to liturgical practice as well.
Now the Saint Barnabas’ liturgy is a curious thing but it is beautiful, dignified and effective. Being a thoroughly modern Anglican in one respect I am thoroughly unwilling to change it at present! Consider me part of the problem not the cure then as no copy of Common Worship has ever crossed the threshold. But I do think a common liturgy will prove essential to the future of any Ordinariate.
Might we say the same of the Church of England at large? My heart says ‘yes’ my head says ‘too late!’ For the lamentable, schismatic truth is that, following women’s ordination, we cannot even unite around one altar. No bishop in the Church of England can function sacramentally with every member of clergy in their care! This suggests it is too late for meaningful unity unless synod opts to either dismiss all opponents or cease ordaining women at all.
It is very hard to over emphasise how disastrous this is- it tells us that schism is not around the corner but already here. We are living with its devastating effect and that is what is causing so much pain, disunity and confusion. Can a church have much future when bitterly divided? How do we preach reconciliation between God and man when there is no reconciliation from within? Jesus warned that a house divided cannot stand- that is what makes sorting this mess a priority for Synod. But with the latest revision committee unable to reach any meaningful compromise it seems a miracle is needed. How sad that none of this was foreseen by those who tinkered with holy orders in order to placate societal notions of fairness and inclusivity.
Fr. Tomlinson views a common liturgy as essential to the success of a future personal ordinariate. But should the English personal ordinariate enforce liturgical uniformity, what would this liturgy look like? Anglicanorum Coetibus offers the use of the liturgical books of the Roman Rite (presumably in both the Ordinary and the Extraordinary Forms) in addition to (yet to be approved) Anglican rites. Most Anglo-Catholics in England now use the Modern Roman Rite. Is it time to return to more distinctively Anglican forms, and, if so, how would this be received by congregations who have now used the Novus Ordo for decades?
Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!
I strongly agree with Fr. Tomlinson. However, it should be pointed out that uniformity does not mean one single liturgy here. It means that every priest should be required on pain of defrocking to celebrate liturgy in accordance with limits as set down by legitimate authority. There can be more than one form for the Mass or even the Office; there should not, however, be an infinite number of possibilties based on the taste of the celebrant. In other words, Rome would detemine what the options are and then everyone must work in accordance with that, nec plus, nec minus, nec aliter.
As a Catholic, I must say that I was really troubled by the good Fr. Phillips's revelation that, from 1980 to 1983, the C.D.F. and C.D.W. actually looked the other way and allowed Anglican Use people to celebrate according to liturgical books that were not approved. That is just wrong. While I do trust the Anglican-Catholics entirely, not everyone in the Church even knows who they are, and it could cause serious concerns. Are Catholic priests offering Protestant "Masses"?
In the case of the ordinariates, Rome has already allowed three options even before the first structure has been erected. The next step, I think, should be application to Rome to approve one or two additional options which preserve the Anglican patrimony and yet also reflect union with Rome. As I have argued before, the ideal for the interim period is the 1921 Anglican Missal (not the English Missal of 1912) but with the stipulation that only the Roman Canon option in it be used.
Later, a commission of the ordinariate can arrange a liturgy which is based on traditional Roman and Anglican sources, using the 1921 A.M. as a model (but not necessarily the only model). Eventually, a single liturgy should emerge, with an American version for all those people who don't know how to spell words such as colour and anæsthesia (not to mention pyjamas, in which they have actually replaced the correct y with a wrong a! We don't whant *that* in the Commonwealth! [not that references to pyjamas are likely to appear in the text for Compline]).
I have considered this problem in some detail. When it comes to the prayers for the royal families or president, there can simply be appropriate options for the country in question.
I also favour retention of the Sarum Use as an option not only for cultural reasons but symbolic reasons as well. It signals a healing of the breach, almost a pulling of the Charterhouse monks off their hurdles. And that is wonderful.
P.K.T.P.
I very much agree with this. Sarum is the ideal (the 1911 Warren translation could be presented to the Roman authorities for approval). The realistic solution would be the 1921 Anglican Missal published in England (with the possibility of the Roman Canon), and versions in non-English languages to be presented to Rome for approval.
The Apostolic Constitution provides for the use of the Roman rite, and that comes in two forms: extraordinary (in Latin) and ordinary (modern vernacular and Latin).
I would have thought such a 'four-option' framework (two 'Anglican uses' and two 'Roman uses') would adequately cater for all.
Sarum use while it is of England and its pre-Reformation history is not the full Anglican patrimony that needs to be conserved within the Catholic Church. The full Anglican patrimony has Thomas Cranmer's prayers in the BCP, Coverdale's psalms, John Donne's mysticism, George Herbert's poems and mysticism, William Laud's high church orientation, the martyrdom of Charles I, the Tractarians and the Oxford Movement, and Anglo-Catholicism. In short the Anglican patrimony is more than the medieval but includes the faith of the English after the Reformation.
Now one of the results of the Elizabethan settlement and Anglican doctrinal ambiguity is that Catholicism survived within Anglican expressions of faith something unthinkable in other Protestant confessions. That is what the Ordinariates and Rome will have to sift through with discernment. The Sarum use may like be the EF in the Roman Rite which benefits a few. The Sarum Use may benefit a few in the Ordinariate but I believe a rite closer to the Anglican Use of the US Pastoral Provision may benefit the majority of Catholic Anglicans. But work has to be done to address criticisms of this use.
Lest Mr. Perkins think we were simply scofflaws during those early years, our situation was known and acknowledged to be extraordinary. The principles of our liturgical life had been clearly outlined, and because our parish was a juridical entity within an archdiocese, we were able to carry out our spiritual life under the guidance of lawful authority.
We weren't off in a corner someplace, making things up as we went along.
Thank you, Father, for the light of your experience. All you have been through will be a sure guide for us all. I do believe we will be allowed simply to carry on with what we have been doing in our parishes, chaplaincies and whatever. After a time, our liturgical usage will be evaluated and gradually refined into a new official Missal, Book of Hours, Ritual, Pontifical, etc.
In the end of the day, as we have discussed before, we'll see…. Qui vivra verra! Until now, there are no ordinariates, and the only ones among us in communion with Rome are the Anglican Use parishes. There is still a certain amount of water to flow under the bridge.
The Holy Father clearly believes that there is such a thing as an Anglical liturgical, spiritual and pastoral heritage which is "a treasure to be shared". I do think some clergy have been unwise to insist on the Roman rite while not fully accepting the authority of Rome. Cranmer's work of translation is marred by heresy, but is capable of being corrected doctrinally while retaining its undoubted beauty. I commend Bishop Andrew Burnham's new book, "Heaven and Earth in Little Space" for study: it deals with many of the points at issue. I hope an Ordinariate Rite (which may differ in different countries) will be something we can be proud to contribute to the richness of the Church's liturgy.
In an ideal world, liturgy is simply what we have "always" done, as effectively in some parts of Orthodoxy. That is not available in the West. So far as the Ordinariates are concerned, the choice (ignoring the latest revision of Trent) is only among recently chosen (and often recently composed) rites.
I do not think there is much desire for the Anglican compositions of the last forty years, unless and until the Ordinariates attract members who remained in Lambeth Anglicanism over that period.
The problem with the various English / Anglican / Sarum missal approaches is that there is no one document or agreed way of using it. For that small group (at least in England) who do use books within that spectrum, any particular solution will mean replacing their books – and their practices – with something different. (I somehow doubt that the old Holy Week rites would be allowed.)
The "Continuum" is by some thought to mean no change (and that is not going to be available). Wiser heads would prefer careful and organic change, respecting the Anglican patrimony but producing rites which are undoubtedly valid. That will be possible, but difficult. The more different rites people seek, the more impossible the task for the Roman authorities. We must all learn self-restraint!
If an Ordinariate is to succeed, it does so as a missionary body. In my judgement, it will exercise its mission most effectively if it does have a single liturgy (which it can therefore explain). But I think that our existing diversities are so great that this is impossible. Of course it is a gain if only authorised liturgies are used – but not a major gain if an Ordinariate cannot effectively worship together, because whatever liturgy is chosen, many people will be completely unaccustomed to it and unable to participate effectively.
Cognitive dissonance! We are talking about a future Ordinariate in England, not America or the other countries. Well then, I think we'll just have to get used to the Book of Divine Worship, go Novus Ordo or learn Latin. We are certainly not agreed on anything like 'Anglican identity', whether it is pre-Reformation or post-Reformation. I can understand the apologists when they say we should simply convert to Catholicism. Having a single rite won't be possible without some people having to give up what they're used to and using something else.
Now what if Rome were to say to us – "You can have the 1662 (with the Black Rubric and everything as printed) or the modern Roman rite", that might wake us up a little. Perhaps if I were the Pope, I would say – "The Anglicans wanted it all sorted out from the beginning rather than leave time for a hermeneutic of continuity approach with some ends still loose. Well they can take it or leave it. Now, Your Eminence, what else is there on the agenda before I go to bed?".
Perhaps the situation isn't so dramatic in England. Most of the Forward in Faith priests are using the modern Roman rite. Most of the TTAC priests are using the English Missal. I doubt that more than a few use the 'pure' Prayer Book. There, as things are now, I only see two liturgical usages. The English Missal is no more than the 'extraordinary' Roman Missal in English. That's how it was is the 'old days' – English Anglo-Catholics simply aped contemporary Roman Catholic practice as in the city churches. We should be careful not to get too hot under the collar.
I agree with the article. Lex orandi lex credendi. The law of prayer is the law of faith. Having been united with Rome for ten years now, I've experienced the difficulties in the Roman Rite which come partially as a result of having just two forms of the liturgy (ordinary and extraordinary). That's not to say it's a bad thing, just confusing to a Church that has been accustomed to one version of the Roman Rite for the last 500 years. The primary problem encountered with this was the notion that the ordinary form of the Roman Rite is "flexible," allowing clergy and parishes to do with it as they pleased. Of course Rome never intended that and it's a problem the Church has been working on correcting for some time.
We run the risk of similar thing happening in the ordinariates if we have too many liturgical variations. The two forms of the Roman Rite are status quo for now. So that is what it is. As for Anglican Catholics, the only approved liturgical text for the time being is the Book of Divine Worship, modeled after the 1979 version of the Episcopalian Book of Common Prayer. This text contains two forms (rites) as well, which currently puts us at four possible approved variations we can use (RR Ordinary, RR Extordinary, BDW Rite 1, BDW Rite 2). Based on the problems currently experienced in the Roman Rite, with the two forms of the liturgy, it might be prudent to be very reserved in introducing any new forms of the liturgy, lest we run the risk of developing the same problem experienced in many Roman Rite diocese. As suggested more than once above, the 1921 Anglican Missal could be a healthy addition to this list of approved texts, giving us a total of five possibilities for Sunday morning worship. At that, I think the options should stop. This would probably be a healthy starting point, pleasing the largest number of Anglican Catholic parishes, yet keeping a reasonable level of consistency between them all. The long term goal of narrowing down those options in the future is obviously something that will have to be worked out by the ordinary bishops, and the liturgical commissions they create, as they work together with the CDW.
Could someone please explain to me [P.K.T.P. perhaps?] the attraction of the 1921 Anglican Missal of 1921 over say, the edition of 1946 or the successive editions of the English Missal from 1912 to 1967, or the Church Literature Association’s Order for Holy Week of 1957 & 1965?
Is it the quality of translation? Or the inclusion of various Canons from around the world?
Theer was also Lowther Clarke’s The Missal, being the Priest’s Edition of “The People’s Missal” (Mowbray, 1920) which used the Sarum Canon.
Regards,
John U.K.
On Mr. Vellejo's comments:
I agree with most of this. But I think that non-Americans will not want the Anglican Use liturgy or anything coming from an American liturgy. Americans sometimes underestimate the extent to which others don't want anything from the U.S.A. This is particuarly so in my country, Canada. This is why the 1921 Anglican Missal is the best interim solution (in additon to the Anglican Use, of course, which is already allowed). The A.M. is mostly from the 1668 English Prayerbook. It also includes a sacral translation of the Roman Offertory and Roman Canon. I don't argue here that it is perfect but is likely the best option outside the U.S.A. until a liturgical commission can be formed.
What I suggest is a new arrangement based on the 1921 A.M. and using the Roman Canon and Offertory from that text. But it might include other things also to help preserve the Anglican patrimony. Eventually, this would become a conmon Eucharistic Rite for the ordinariates, something to unite them. Once approved by Rome, it would replace the Anglican Missal of 1921, the various national prayerbooks, and the Anglican Use Missal of 1983. But I'd have two editions for it, one in English and one in Americanese (and then translations into Hindi, Bengali, Spanish, &c.). I note that the Code of Canons has two English-language versions, one in real English and one in American English. The latter includes misnomers such as 'pastor' where parish priest is meant, and so forth (just adding a bit of humour here for some fun).
I agree with Fr. Chadwick that the Sarum Use could emerge as a sort of 'extraordinary form' for the ordinariates, although priests of the ordinariate would also keep the right to use the Tridentine Missal. (I note that, like many traditionalists, pace Benedict XVI, I reject the terms ordinary and extraordinary forms from "Summorum Pontificum" and insist that the latter is a separte Rite of Mass. But I'm not likely to convince the Church, so I won't press this.)
P.K.T.P.
On Fr. Phillips's remarks:
I realise that it was legitimate authority that was 'allowing' the prayerbook liturgy from 1980 to 1983. I just don't think it right or proper for Rome to permit any litugy that has not been vetted and corrected and then given an imprimatur, as it were. This sort of thing could cause real concern on behalf of the faithful.
Of course, the matter is separate from the issue of priests departing from approved liturgies. That is a question of the disciplinary function of the Church. But I think it would be scandalous if any Protestant liturgy were used by any Catholic priest until it has been examined for errors, corrected where necessary, and then approved. Imagine how the Martyrs of England and Wales would react if they knew what was being done by the A.U. parishes between 1980 and 1983? They would likely have been horrified. No offence to Fr. Phillips is meant here. But I'd rather not see this sort of thing repeated. At present, here in Canada, my understanding is that each TAC priest is left to 'assemble' a liturgy from various Anglican sources. For all I know, that could result in Masses in some places that are overtly anti-Catholic in ethos. While I doubt that that is the case, the very possibility is a scandal. So I really do favour working out the liturgical problem before any ordinariate is erected.
I note one other subject in closing. Under the law of the Catholic Church, personal ordinaries will have the right to restrict ministry at the Altar to males (just as Bishop Bruskewicz does for the Diocese of Lincoln, U.S.A.). I am hoping that this will be done, so that previous symbolism can be maintained: the servers symbolise the future of the priesthood. I've noticed that, in one TAC parish in Nova Scotia, women are allowed to serve at the Altar. This should be discontinued.
P.K.T.P.
On Fr. Chadwick's reply to Fr. Phillips:
No, I don't think that what is coming is parallel to 1980-1983. "Anglicanorum Cœtibus" is the part of the law of the Holy Catholic Church. We are all bound to respect and obey it. Article III stipulates that only those liturgies may be used that are approved by Rome. I am sorry, Father, but this does not allow priests to do their own thing. It may very well be the case that Rome simply turns a blind eye to mispractice. In no way, however, does that change our obligation to obey the laws of Holy Church. This means that a parishioner could insist that one of the approved liturgies be used. It also means that, in Moral Law, which far supersedes any positive law, priests of the ordinariate are bound on pain of sin to use only approved liturgies.
This is why I have been very politely pleading with His Grace, your Primate, to submit the 1921 Anglican Missal for approval as an interim liturgy. It is not fair and it is not right that faithful be forced to accept illicit liturgies or liturgies that are foreign to their charism or their national character.
P.K.T.P.
On the remarks of John, U.K.:
I cannot really analyse all the Anglican possibilties written after 1921, for this is not my own area of competence. Anglican liturgies are something I've learned about only in th last few years. But I suggest that there needs to be at least some uniformity for an interim liturgy, until the commission that His Grace is planning, can arrange a universal version for all the ordinariates. The value of the 1921 Missal is that it includes Roman Offertory and Canon in a fairly good translation (although those of 1912 are better there), using sacral wording, and it largely combines this with the 1668 prayerbook, which is generally regarded as the 'received version' . Lastly, it has recently been reprinted, not an unimportant consideration.
If you want to preserve the Anglican patrimony and yet show a connexion to what is Roman, it seems to me that, for a general liturgy, you need to avoid the English Missal, which is nothing but the Roman Mass in sacral English; and you also need to avoid the national prayerbooks. Lastly, you should not want the Roman or Sarum Mass as your norm for worship: otherwise, why not just convert as individuals? In terms of content (rather than the value of the translations), the 1921 A.M. will be a good guide for an interim Use. As for translations, I suggest that you need one that preserves the Cranmerian expressions and stays with sacral wording (e.g. use of the T. forms of the personal pronoun).
P.K.T.P.
On Shane Schaetzel's comments:
Well, since I have been a 'warrior' in the Roman Rite for decades now, a warrior against the N.O.M. and in favour of the T.L.M., I don't really think that the Latin Church's problems will be yours. First of all, most adherents of the ordinariates are not 'liberals' in any social sense. So I don't anticipate wild departures from approved forms. Long ago, when I was forced to go to the N.O., for example, on one occasion, a Franciscan priest who was visiting my parish just made up his own canon right on the spot–extemporaneously. I don't think that those sort of problems will be yours. You are leaving your liberals behind with the Schorri Woman.
The problem right now is that your only 'Anglican' liturgy is American in origin. That will not be happily received outside the U.S.A. Trust me on this. Here in Canada, it would be instantly refused on those grounds alone. There needs to be something coming directly from 1668, with a few Roman things thrown in for good measure, like the Canon and Offertory.
P.K.T.P.
What if the Book of Divine Worship were to be the Ordinary Form and the Sarum Missal were the Extraordinary Form for Anglo-Catholics? That would be a good balance.
We can discuss different liturgies all day and it really doesn't matter in the end. The liturgy will be determined by a committee, I assume, that Rome chooses.
If one is to be truly Catholic they must abide by what the Church decides, otherwise one might just stay where they are as Anglicans. We all have our own preferences, but it appears to be divisive when everyone wants it their way. I understand that is the Anglican mindset and look where it has brought the Anglican Communion to.
There will have to be compromise and when people make remarks about the AU liturgy, I think if it wasn't for those first priests within the Pastoral Provision, this moment would not be here. Their loyalty and orthodoxy as Catholics, I believe, is why Pope Benedict made the offer of an Ordinariate. These parishes proved that former Anglicans/Episcopalians make great Catholics and influenced him. I would hate to see a few coming into the Church ruin that trust by infighting over the liturgy. If we fight over that, what will be next and when will it end?
I have my own preferences, but I became Catholic several years ago and to me being fully Catholic and in communion with my fellow brothers and sisters is the important issue. It is difficult to explain the feeling of communion I have with other Catholics, no matter which liturgy is celebrated. I would love to have my old Anglican liturgy, but know that whether God allows an Anglican Use parish near me or not I am blessed to be Catholic.
Let us leave the liturgy to the Church and the Holy Spirit, I know that you can't please everyone, but let us not forget that Jesus in the Eucharist is what we will be worshiping however the final liturgy is finalized.
Dear Mr. Kovacs:
No, it would not be a good balance. The Book of Divine Worship is an American creature and is not suitable for non-American incoming Anglicans. Moreover, it includes that horrid N.O. Offertory.
Your Primate has already indicated that he will form a committee to arrange a new liturgical balance for all the ordinariates. That is really not an issue here. My point is that there should be an interim liturgy for use outside the U.S.A. I vote for the 1921 Anglican Missal.
P.K.T.P.
Mr. Yuhas:
I am really surprised at your comments about the Anglican Use. I have the greatest esteem for Fr. Christopher Phillips and the other A.U. priests, and also for their parishes. But I cannot accept your judgement about the ordinariates. It does not accord with the facts. First of all, the A.U. has had about zero growth for the past 30 years. It started with about eight parishes and has about the same number today. Most of them have been in Texas. Now I know that one does not 'mess with Texas' but this is ridiculous. The Traditional Anglican Communion, not the A.U. is the real reason for the ordinariates. Other incoming Anglican groups have also had some effect. But it was mostly the TAC. Darío Cardinal Castrillón Hoyos, former President of the P.C.E.D., said as much publicly. He said that the coming provision was mainly in response to about thirty incoming Anglican bishops. It just so happens that the TAC has about that number of bishops when you include their retired and auxiliary bishops. He was obviously referring to the TAC, with its international membership of about 400,000. I rather doubt that the A.U. has even 3,000 members and these are all confined to the U.S.A.
The U.S.A. is not the centre of the universe. This is not about America and most of the incoming TACers and other Anglicans are not American. Nor are they British. Frankly, they're from India. It would be absurd to suggest that Indian and African and British and Canadian and Australian Anglicans should be stuck with a made-in-the-U.S.A. liturgy. They won't want that. They are all proud of their own national prayerbook traditions and rightly so.
I think that everyone recognises two liturgical sources here which are international in scope. One is the 1668 English prayerbook (even if some national prayerbooks come from Scottish sources). This is the 'received' version from which most Anglican prayerbooks are derived. The other is the Roman Missal, and I mean the pre-conciliar one and not that whatever that we got from Paul VI. It would even be fair to say that the Sarum Use of the Roman Missal is the one best apertaining to the Anglican patrimony. So these should be the models for a new general Mass for the ordinariates (which is not to say that some elements from various national prayerbooks cannot also affect the final version). The model cannot be any national American version–and more than it can be a national South African or Indian version.
P.K.T.P.
I'll defer to my betters on liturgy; I just pray I won't be like the children of Israel in the wilderness and complain about the garlic and fleshpots left behind in Egypt. (will anyone miss Eucharistic Prayer C?) One question, however: What translations of the Bible are authorized for public worship in TAC and in the Anglican Use parishes, and what are folks' thoughts on which will be authorized in the US Ordinariate? I prefer the RSV and I think it is authorized in Caribbean Catholic dioceses.
Fr. Ledbetter:
The canons of the ACA, the TAC province in the USA, specify in Title II, Canon 19:
Eucharistic lections are taken from the 1928 American BCP (which I believe are based on the Revised Version) or one of the authorized Missals.
Revisesd Standard Version? No, no, no. Let's have the King James Bible, unrevised, 1611. Not one month past 1611, please! Look, on the Roman side of the lake, real traditionalists use the Douay-Rheims and the Vulgate Latin. I won't have any other Bible in my house–except for the King James! The King James Version is a literary treasure. It alone should be used in the ordinariates. I don't think that Rome would object to that. The so-called Apocrypha may eventually have to be reintegrated instead of collected in an appendix. A small matter. I've noticed that Canadian TACers use those readings in their lections, which is wondrous strange. But I'm definitely not against that!
The R.S.V. is skim milk; the King James Bible is the cream. From a literary point of view, I'm willing to admit that it's superior to the D.R. It hurts to write that! So nothing else should be used.
P.K.T.P.
There is just one final comment I would like to add here. Liturgical usage follows churchmanship. The biggest ambiguity we have at present is caused by the fact that there are as yet no Ordinariates and we don't know which Anglicans are coming and when. The TAC and the American Anglican Use parishes are likely to be the first.
Broadly speaking, Protestants and 'central' classical Anglicans referring to the post-Reformation divines and 'antiquity' are not going to be interested in the Ordinariate scheme.
The proportion of Protestants in the TAC is negligible. Most are Anglo-Catholics using rites that are very similar to the 1570 Roman Missal. Less than five or six of us use Sarum, even on an occasional basis. Most of those using the American or Canadian Prayer Books are using supplementary material from sources like the Anglican Missal. English Anglo Catholics (those who are still in the Church of England) are mostly using the modern Roman rite with only a tiny minority using the English Missal.
This original posting referred more to England, so I shall look at it from an English point of view. The Book of Divine Worship has never been used in England. The TTAC uses the English Missal and material from the "interim" Prayer Book or English 1928 (approved by Synod but not by the Government). Forward in Faith uses the modern Roman Rite. Uniformity in England will depend on which way you look at it. Be careful if wanting things, because one often gets what one asks for. Would the the priests presently in the TAC in England accept the modern Roman rite if the Ordinariate is headed by a bishop or a priest of Forward in Faith? It would seem to me that liturgical uniformity in such circumstances is impossible unless either Forward in Faith or the TAC is excluded from the deal.
I don't think anyone will be excluded, and there will have to be two liturgical usages in England: the modern Roman rite and the English Missal (or the Anglican Missal, which I have seen used in England only at St Agatha's Portsmouth – and Canon Maunder, to my knowledge, usually uses the English Missal).
I think our answer is there. Going by the evidence, I don't see any possibility of a uniform rite being imposed on Ordinariates everywhere in the world. The only possibility of this is if Rome decides to do away with Anglican liturgies and only allow the Roman rites (in its 2 forms) – but that is not what the Apostolic Constitution says. I'm not saying what I would like personally, but what I think is most likely.
I think this point you make is part of the confusion in your endless posts about the liturgy.
In our parish, for Low Mass each Wednesday, We use the Missal of Pius V, aka the Extraordinary Form of the Roman rite.
We have frequently been amazed in comparing that side by side to the Missal we use for all the other Masses.
With the exception of the Canon and a few known prayers added (prayer of humble access) they are identical. Content, rubrics, etc are the same.
There is no hidden heresy, there is no denial of the teachings of the Church. During the interim period, this concern for scandal of "protestant masses" being offered is unreasonable.
If such an interim period does indeed happen, I can't not imagine that anyone would be using a form of liturgy that had not been reviewed by the Ordinary, and approved. It may not have a "stamp" in the front, but knowing the content of the liturgy being offered is approved, I suspect will be better managed in the Ordinariates than what appears to be the managing of liturgy in some parts of the RC church in other parts of the US, where the provisions of the GIRM do not seem to be consistently followed.
Particularly in the case of the Anglican Missal/American edition as put out by the Frank Gavin Liturgical Foundation, they went out of their way preserving strict adherence to the Roman Missal, including the Gregorian Canon as an option.
They also did a fine job with the Anglican Breviary http://www.anglicanbreviary.net with the same lines of concern – working with the 1911 Roman Breviary. Unfortunately the market drastically changed – and they never saw much use of their Breviary.
SWR
Dear Mr. Reed:
I think that I made it abundantly clear that I do not think that any incoming Anglicans are likely to be using Protestant liturgies. But that is simply not the issue. This is the Eucharist we are writing about here. Faithful of the Catholic Church really do have the right to expect that priests are offereing Mass in accordance with approved texts. Most faithful out there don't know the Anglican Missal from the Presbyterian book of worship, and they've never even heard of the Anglican Use. I think it to be scandalous to suggest that Catholic preists simply be allowed to do their own thing in the sanctuary, even if these particular priests are likely to be doing something good. This would only add to the sense in the Catholic Church at present that liturgy is a permanent workshop. We already have enough problems with priests who use approved texts but then depart from the wildly. But do we want to add priests who offer Mass according to their own texts? No, I think that no priest has any moral right to use a liturgy not approved by long usage *in the Catholic Church* or by a direct approval from Rome. This is the Catholic Church. Get used to it! We don't just allow anyone to celebrate Mass according to unapproved texts chosen by himself, no matter how good they might (or might not ) be.
P.K.T.P.
On Fr. Chadwick's last comments:
I'm not suggesting that a universal liturgy be "imposed" on the all the priests in the ordinariate. I am suggesting that a general rite for the ordinariates would be useful, and your Primate seems to agree, since he has announced formation of a committee to arrange for that. This new rite would be one option. Other options should be limited so as to prevent liturgical chaos. I would suggest allowing the options already in Article III of A.C. (viz. N.O.M., T.L.M., B.D.W. [perhaps for the U.S.A. alone]). To these we might add Sarum and the English Missal of 1912 as an approved translation of the T.L.M. (in its 1884 edn.). Over time, the general rite still to be composed would become the most common one (we can hope), largely replacing the N.O.M. as presently used by FiF people, and replacing soem of the others too.
The iniative of applying to Rome to approve the 1921 A.M. as only an *interim* Missal is a separate issue. I think that you want something for the interim that preserves the Anglican patrimony and is also Roman in some ways. No need to repeat what I've already said about this.
Long term,
(a) Why would you want the N.O.M., since it in no way bears the Anglican patriomnay (nor is it traditional)?;
(b) Why would you want the English Missal of 1912? It is only the Traditional Roman Mass rendered in sacral English. So it also fails to bear the Anglican patrimony.
(c) Why would you want the old national prayerbooks? They are Protestant in spirit and often in content.
(d) Why woudl you (outsdie the U.S.A.) want to the B.D.W.? It has the N.O. Offertory and is wholly American in tradition.
Yes, I admit that I know little about post-1921 variations approved in England. So what? Irreelvant. There is no reason they cannot be taken into account when arranging Abp. Hepworth's new liturgy. I'm not writing against them. Nor have I suggested any interest in participating in that cmte.! (not that I would be asked).
The Anglican patrimony is worth preserving. Were it not, each of you chaps should have converted as individuals. A connexion with Rome is also worth preserving in your liturgical expressions. Surely, what I am suggesting here is sensible.
How hard could it be for His Grace, your Primate, simply to ask the C.D.F. & C.D.W. to approve the 1921 Missal for interim use? All it takes is a short letter. Ten minutes plus one postage stamp would do it.
The idea of allowing your clergy simply to do their own thing in the sanctuary is, to me, outrageous, if not scandalous. Not in the Cathoic Church. That is not how things are done in the Catholic Church. And for good reason. The whole notion of that smacks of a Protestant worldview. Every priest is not only his own pope but his own prefect for liturgy as well. That is scary.
P.K.T.P.
Getting English Anglo-Papalists to use ye olde Prayer Book is a non-starter nor is it desirable.
Yes, modern Roman Rite with Anglo-Catholic patrimonial panache and English Missal are the ways to go, the latter having options for the Americans in TAC who want something more Prayer Booky. As I imagine few of them do something approaching pure US 1928, such ex-Episcopalians not being interested in the ordinariate, no problem.
Long story short, carry on, FiFers.
But why not the American Missal for the Americans? Hasn't it been catholicised enough to be good enough for Rome? The Antiochian Orthodox essentially use it as well as the English Missal.
And why liturgical uniformity? The mediæval Roman Rite had lots of local uses (like Sarum), some of which survived in France into the 1800s.
I think among the few people outside Anglo-Catholic circles who know of the ordinariates, there are common-knowledge myths such as:
Hard-line trad fear: 'The Pope's soft – he's importing Protestantism, Cranmer's Prayer Book that the English Martyrs died rather than accept.'
And:
'Anglo-Catholic liturgy and indeed the BCP are just a translation of Sarum so that's what Anglican Use Catholics do.'
Keep up the good work teaching the facts!
Get used to what? You loving the sound of your own voice? You post over and over on this topic, as if you need to graciously vouchsafe your wisdom on us poor benighted ones.
Re-read what I wrote. No one has suggested, nor will it happen, that priests are doing their own thing. What possibly may happen, for some interim period, is a priest of a parish which just came into the oridinariate, be asked "until we have an official liturgy, what will be you doing," and he have to show the Ordinary and a decision made if that will be acceptable for the interim period.
As I indicated before, if you possibly had more familiarity with the topic you are attempting to discuss, and knew what the various Missals contained instead if ASSUMING that there are theological issues, you would likely have less fodder for writing.
The Missals did not do, what many in the Episcopal Church often claimed, that of simply suppling additional material for the BCP liturgy.
The theology of the Missal being a marked departure from the Protestant thought of the straight BCP liturgy is no where more apparent than in the Requiem Mass.
It is very clear that we are not simply "remembering at the altar" but rather offering the Mass for the repose of the souls in purgatory.
If our Archbishops have worked and led us this far, I can only assume they have thought through, together with the CDF, that we might possibly need a liturgy for day one, and that a plan for the interim period until an official liturgy is promulgated, is already in place.
SWR
Mr. Reed seems to be suggesting that every incoming priest to the Ordinariate be asked what liturgy he is using and then the Ordinary would approve it or not. That is unpractical. It is also contra legem. "Anglicanorum Cœtibus" is clear: only three liturgies are currently allowed for the ordinariates and all liturgies used must be approved by the C.D.F. Where does he get this idea that the ordinaries have the authority to approve interim liturgies? They do not, nor should they, since there is no sense that that have the expertise in such matters. Here in Canada, most TAC priests do not use any one of the legal options. Is Mr. Reed suggesting that they offer Mass according to Missals not approved by Rome?
So a simpler–and legal–solution is for your Primate to submit interim options to the C.D.F.
In closing, aim for a bit more politeness in your responses, please. And if you don't like my "long posts' on liturgy, simply don't read them.
P.K.T.P.
Further to Mr. Reed's post, I quote here from "Anglicanorum Cœtibus", Article III:
"Withoug excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations [that covers just about everything] according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, WHICH HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE HOLY SEE [emphasis added] …."
Last time I checked, there was a distinction in law between a personal ordinary and the Holy See. A personal ordinary is equivalent in law to a local bishop except insofar as defined otherwise … by the Holy See (cf. Canon 368 as a parallel). Therefore, this is not the same situation as the one that prevailed for the Angliclan Use from 1980 to 1983. There was no Article III then.
One possibility is that the Holy See, through the C.D.F., could vet each and every variation used by every incoming Anglican priest over about 20 countries. It's true that the Holy See could simply allow everything and anything or to delegate the office to the ordinary, but that will not likely happen; nor should it happen. It should not happen because Latin Catholics have a natural right to be assured that approved liturgies have been examined for theological and expressive errors, especially if some of the forms being considered were composed originally by a heresiarch named Cranmer. Litugies used in the Catholic Church are normally approved by Rome, not a local bishop. that has been the case since 1570, at least.
In fact, I very much doubt that there will be any problem with the fine liturgies used by TAC priests. They are likely to be far superior to the N.O.M. But the faithful need to be assured that someone who has the needed expertise has actually checked them before conferring a blanket approval.
So my suggestion is practical in nature. His Grace could simply submit a limited number of options to the C.D.F. which could then, as approved Catholic liturgies, be used by various ordinariates as they are erected. Those priests in your ordinariates would then have a guide for their liturgy. On an interim basis, the 1921 Anglican Missal makes sense because it marries the best of the Anglican patrmony with that of Rome, and becasue it has recently been re-published. I cannot imagine Canadian or Australian Anglicans ordering copies of the B.D.W., reflecting an American prayerbook tradition and including the N.O. Offertory. In fact, many American TAC priests will also likely shun the B.D.W.
In time, Archbishop Hepworth's litugical commission could arrange a general liturgy for the ordinariates and submit that to Rome as well for approval. But that will take some time. Hence the need for interim approvals.
I hope that my words here have been polite and gracious and yet also reflect a legitimate concern on the part of some Latin Catholics, especially those whose ancestors were once persecuted by Protestants. To me, it is outrageous to suggest that liturgies be used in the Catholic Church that have not even been read by the Congregation for Divine Worship. There needs to be some liturgical standards. That should be the norm in the Catholic Church.
P.K.T.P.
Most ACA and ACCC parish websites that I have visited include somewhere a statement along the lines of "All services are conducted according to the Book of Common Prayer." Presumably those who post this information believe a) that it is accurate b) that it will be a draw for their target audience.
Dear Lina Banda:
Yes, I have noticed that too. But if you examine the liturgies they actually use, you find that there are all sorts of 'inserts' added from other sources, typically from the Roman Mass or the Anglican Missal. I'm wondering if Canadian TACers could tell me if their liturgy is currently 'evolving' in accordance with the coming juridical situation. Are Masses gradually becoming more 'Roman'?
P.K.T.P.
I suggest nothing of the kind. If you re-read what I wrote, I suggested that in the event there are not additional approved liturgies at the first moment of the establishment of the Ordinariate, then certainly any liturgy to be used, if not one of those already approved in the Apostolic Constitution and Complementary Norms, will be examined.
Ordinaries will have the authority to do what is given them to do. This could be delegated to them or not. They would be the obvious first point of contact, and the obvious one to be dealing with priests of the Ordinariate. Whether they make the examination alone, in conjunction with the CDF, or they make a trip to see the Holy Father one-on-one, they will communicate the decision to the priest, once it has been made by competent authority. The Ordinaries will have as much authority as they are given to make decisions initially.
More importantly, I suspect the the competence of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith will have already worked through these issues, and not need your prompting to do so.
As to not liking your long posts, the length was not so much what I was referencing as their multiplicity and their appearance of often not having first read with comprehension what they are attempting to comment upon.
Your reply to me, was as if you totally missed the points in my previous that I have now restated in this post.
Let's leave this matter to the competent handling of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. We, for our part, have both in the past, and will in the future, be governed accordingly and not try to micro-manage their responsibilities.
You wrote:
"…To me, it is outrageous to suggest that liturgies be used in the Catholic Church that have not even been read by the Congregation for Divine Worship. There needs to be some liturgical standards…."
Who is suggesting this? What I am suggesting is that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, can well and sufficiently discharge their duties without your prompting. Further, that the Ordinaries can manage their Ordinariates, in accordance with the Apostolic Constitution, Complementary Norms, additional Norms, Canon Law, and directives of the Holy See without your prompting.
I am quite sure that our Archbishops and the CDF have thought of the fact that there will need to be an approved liturgy.
SWR
Mr. Warren wrote this:
"I suggest nothing of the kind. If you re-read what I wrote, I suggested that in the event there are not additional approved liturgies at the first moment of the establishment of the Ordinariate, then certainly any liturgy to be used, if not one of those already approved in the Apostolic Constitution and Complementary Norms, will be examined."
Examined? That hardly seems adequate. Let us consider the situation. A certain priest in, say, Thunder Bay, Ontario, does not possess one of the approved texts and has been using pieces of the Canadian Prayerbook of 1962, bits of the Anglican Missal of 1921, and some prayers taken from the Roman Mass of 1962 (this sort of thing is what is being done in the TAC's Cdn. cathedral, by the way). What is he supposed to do the day after he's incardinated into the ordinariate? Must he celebrate the Novus Ordo, for example, until Rome approves of his liturgy directly or through his superiors? That is completely unpractical given the number of cases which could be involved. This is why I am insisting that the licit liturgical options should be determined beforehand, before the structure is created. This is quite easy to do. Apb. Hepworth need only ask the C.D.F. to approve certain options for interim use. What could possibly be the problem with that? Can it really hurt to ask for it? What, pray tell, is your problem?
This has nothing to do with 'micromanagement'. The law is clear. Only the N.O.M., the Traditional Latin Mass (all in Latin) and the B.D.W. of 1983 are currently available to incoming Anglican priests. Period. There is no guarantee at this point that Rome will do anything more. Why would you think so? If Rome does nothing more before the ordinariates are erected, the incoming priests will have to use one of those three options. To do otherwise would be a breach of law and a cause of sin, since all priests must obey the law of Holy Church.
These comments about my 'prompting' are fatuous. I am not questioning the competence of the C.D.F. to resolve these problems. But I see no reason to believe that they are aware of them as problems. If your Primate does not approach Rome about these matters, I see no reason to suppose that they will be solved when the structures are erected. So I am doing my best to urge His Grace, Your Primate, to address these questions. I think them to be important. I have seen what sort of devastation came to the liturgy from Rome. Just consider what sort of a mess the I.C.E.L. has created. That is hardly a cause for confidence. Rome has made a complete mess of the liturgy in the Latin Church, so we may pray that a little 'prompting' might tbe helpful.
P.C.E.D.
Dear Mr. Warren:
I'd like to make a few closing points. First, Happy Easter to you! I have worked long and hard to convince fellow Latin traditionalists that the entry into the Church of the ordinariates is a blessing for incoming Anglicans and for all the faithful.
My concern in these posts is only to ensure that Anglican incomers are able to bring their superb patrimony with them. You must pardon me if I do not entirely trust the C.D.F. I don't doubt Cardinal Levada's good will. However, I'm not really convinced that he or the C.D.F. really understands the TAC point of view, for instance. So I am not really sure that the C.D.F. or other dicasteries are really worried about what liturgies the new faithful will be using. It is not that they are malicious but, rather, they might not really care that much. That is why I am praying the Archbishop Hepworth will take some action to preserve the Anglican patrimony where it counts the most: in the Holy Mass. We can all predict what might happen but the law as it stands is not satisfactory in matters liturgical. Therefore, I, for one, pray for an improvement in the situation.
I have seen first hand what can happen when Rome takes a wrong turn on the liturgy. So I'm not sure I trust the judgement of curialists. I have far mroe confidence, in fact, in the good people who arranged Anglo-Catholic Missals in the past. Look at the difference in quality. The Anglican Missal was a work of art, stopped by some anti-ritualtists in Parliament. Then we have the Novus Ordo Missæ. I pray to God that the N.O. will not become a commonplace in the new ordinariates. But I worry when I see it as one option allowed so far, and when I see that the other two are problematical for other reasons.
P.K.T.P.
"The Anglican Missal was a work of art, stopped by some anti-ritualists in Parliament."
This is wrong. What was refused by Parliament in 1928 was a revised Book of Common Prayer. The Anglican Missal was never anything other than an unofficial book. Have you been confusing the two all along?
Anglican Missal – http://www.archive.org/details/anglicanmissal00churuoft
1928 English Prayer Book – http://justus.anglican.org/resources/bcp/CofE1928/CofE1928.htm
The N.O. will be commonplace in the English Ordinariate, because the Forward in Faith clergy and communities will bring it with them.
Dear Fr. Chadwick:
Thank you for the correction. No, I have not been confusing them all along. I have a photocopy of the A.M. of 1921. However, I was under the false impression that it was the A.M that was rejected in Parliament.
P.K.T.P.
I may be wrong, but I don't think the Anglican Missal ever came up for consideration as an official Anglican liturgical book. Like the English Missal, and the Novus Ordo in our times, the Anglican Missal is totally "apocryphal".
In the Church of England, the official liturgical book is the Book of Common Worship (successor to Series I, II, and III and the Alternative Services Book of 1980), and the 1662 Prayer Book has never been banned.
I wonder if PKTP was thinking of the Green Book produced by the [then English] Church Union in 1922-23 as a contibution to the attempts at Prayer Book Revision culminatiing in the Parliamentary debates of 1927-1929 . (There were also a Grey Book and an Orange Book produced by other interested parties.)
The main changes in the Green Book were:
1] Fuller Calendar, icluding restoration of Ag.15th. as Red Letter Day, and Octaves for 13 Red Letter Feasts
2] Table of Concurence and Transference
3]Addition of Prime & Compline to the Ofices
4]Alternative introduction to Mattins and evensong
5] Additional Prayers and Thanksgivings
6] Provision of full Passions for Palm Sunday andGood Friday
7] Additional propers for use before dawn on Easter Day and ChristmasDay
8]Restoration of Peter and Paul to June 29th
9]Additional Propers for Sanctorale, Commons, and Various Occasions
9]Preparation for Holy Communion
10] Kyries as alternative to Decalogue
11]Glora restored to beginning
12 Additional Prefaces
13] Eiclesis in Canon [call The Canon to which 1549 Prayer of Oblation added
14] Lord's Prayer, Pax, Agnus, Humble Access and Confession before Communion
15] Shortened words of administration permitted
16] Reservation permitted
17 ] Blessing omitted at Requiems [coyly called "Obits"].
18] Alternative Order of Confirmation with Chrism
19] Anointing added to visitation of Sick as an option
20 Provision for Vespers of the Dead and Requiems, and for Burial of Children and for Buriial of [unbaptized and suicides]
It was probably not all members of the E.C.U. wanted, but was seen as a minimum.
Regards
John U.K.
Back to the scenario of the ACCC priest in Thunder Bay. Might it not take him some time to be incardinated into the Ordinariate, while details of his education, etc were examined pursuant to his ordination? In the case of former Episcopal clergy now leading AU parishes this seemed to take about two years. Won't this give him plenty of time to study and practise the approved rite(s)?
I knew that the 1662 had never been banned. I'm wondering, though, how commonly it is used in England.
P.K.T.P.
The Prayer Book Society ("Promoting the use of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer") website lists BCP services/parishes by diocese. A quick look under "London" shows about fifty.
Again, my main point in all this business is that I don't think that Cardinal Levada or anyone in the C.D.F. is sitting around worrying about what Missals incoming Anglicans might use. There were malicious anti-traditionalists in the curia in the past but Benedict XVI replaced them long ago. I suspect that most curialists simply have other things on their minds and are not concerned with Anglican liturgical questions.
So unless someone such as Archbishop Hepworth approaches the C.D.F. and asks for interim liturgies, none will likely be granted before the ordinariates are erected. I note that the TAC in England and Wales, in Central America, in the U.S.A., and in Canada have all asked for ordinariates but that none of them asked for any special liturgical provisions at the same time.
Now it is probably the case that the C.D.F. and C.D.W. will just ignore the entire matter and leave it to the personal ordinaries. But that creates a moral problem for those of us here who actually believe that we should be scupulous about Moral Law, and I am one of those. A priest who believes that he must follow the law will then have to choose between the Traditional Latin Mass, the N.O.M. in non-sacral I.C.E.L. wording, or the B.D.W., with the Offertory from the N.O.M. and in non-sacral wording (thereby creating a dissonance with the rest of the Mass). He might also claim a right to use Sarum on grounds of immemorial custom.
Most TAC priests don't even have copies of the B.D.W. or the Sarum Use; most will not want to use any of these options anyway. So I think it sensible and right for His Grace simply to ask the C.D.F. for some additonal options. They might include the English Missal, the Anglican Missal of 1921, and perhaps even the prayerbooks but substituting the Roman Offertory and Canon from some other approved Missal. Upon more reflection, I think that all the national prayerbooks should be allowed on an interim basis (but using an approved Latin Catholic Eucharistic Prayer and Offertory). The reason is that, in places such as India, obtaining anything else short term would prove too expensive and too difficult. India is really important, ladies and gentlemen. Over two-thirds of all TACers are living there. So we cannot make all of this too Anglocentric.
Anyway, I've made my point and I'm sure that either Archbishop Hepworth is aware of it by now or else that he will never become aware of it. In either case, I've done my duty. Case closed.
P.K.T.P.
I don't think enforced uniformity (in the singular sense) is called for. And I don't see any reason that the Mass from the Book of Divine Worship from the Anglican Use parishes (which I believe I read somewhere is being revised by the Vatican–presumably by the CDW) would not be an acceptable rite. And, from my experience of being Episcopalian from 1969-2008, that Rite is very close indeed to the Eucharist in the 1928 US BCP. It certainly captures that portion of the patrimony of Anglican liturgy with which I am familiar and from the language of which I was nourished.
Pax et bonum,
Keith Töpfer