There has been discussion for quite some time about what form the liturgy would take in the future Anglican-Catholic Ordinariates. I am indeed heartened by reading Bishop Peter Elliott’s ideas as he expressed them on this subject:
Considering its history and strong influence in the first editions of the Book of Common Prayer, the Sarum Rite might well be a major source. Queen Mary I published a national edition of the Sarum Missal to replace all those missals for the diocesan uses that went into the fire when the first Book of Common Prayer appeared in 1549. Therefore the Sarum Use was the last version of the Roman Rite in England before the universal Missale Romanum, Roman Missal, was authorised by St Pius V in 1570. At the end of the nineteenth century when Westminster cathedral was being built, it was proposed that the Sarum Rite be revived as the use proper to the cathedral. Nothing came of this project, lost I suspect in the cross-currents of liturgical controversies and an Ultramontane trend to standardise liturgy along Counter-Reformation lines, even down to the shape of chasubles.
Were this idea to be taken seriously by Rome and actually implemented, at least as an option, it would be the fulfilment of a dream that goes back many years. In ecclesiological terms, I would like to see this Anglican inflow as a way of perceiving Catholic Tradition as reaching further than nineteenth-century “totalitarianism” and even the Council of Trent in the necessary steps it made to halt the progress of Protestantism and reform a somewhat corrupt clergy. Though all Catholics are bound to assent to the doctrines taught by all the Ecumenical Councils of the Church, we do well to recover some of the spirit of northern European Catholicism and the products of organic development in the various dioceses and religious orders. I believe a reasonable diversity of traditional and legitimate liturgical rites could be most helpful.
I write as a priest with more attachment to the traditional liturgies of the Latin Church than to our Prayer Book, at least for the Mass and the sacramental rites. Our Prayer Book Office is made sublime by the surroundings of an English cathedral, an English cathedral choir and a whopping great romantic organ built by Henry “Father” Willis, Arthur Harrison, William Hill or similar. For the private recitation of the Office, we don’t have any handy Sarum breviaries, but many Anglicans find themselves at home with the traditional Monastic Office (usually in English).
By way of an introduction, I cast my mind back to the 1970’s and the fact that every high church parish in London and other places seemed to have its own liturgy. Opening the priest’s altar book, one would find pieces of paper stuck onto the pages with a typed text. Other texts and rubrics would be scribbled out with an indelible wax pencil. It is difficult to trace the sources of some of these ad hoc modifications to the Prayer Book or the English Missal. This is why I would be loathe to see the Ordinariates uncritically adopt the Counter-Reformation and post-Vatican II Roman liturgical cultures, even though priests should be pastorally flexible when serving ordinary Roman rite parishes. Thus, in Anglicanorum Coetibus, the Holy Father says that we should not refuse the Roman rite alongside an authorised Anglican usage.
With these ideas in mind, it would seem to be logical to revive the Sarum Use, allow it to be celebrated in English (two translations exist, Warren 1911 and Pearson 1968, the latter being contemporary with the Dickinson edition of the Latin missal) and introduce a few adaptations like some saints’ feasts from the Roman rite and a simplification of some of the more complex ceremonies and rules for the daily ordo.
Would reviving the Sarum Use be the right thing? Surely, celebrating according to a rite that has not been in regular use for about 450 years is not on. This might be so in the English Catholic context, since the 1570 Pian missal was introduced very early on by the Jesuits and was adopted by the Vicars Apostolic and the Hierarchy of 1850. The question is asked differently in the context of the Ordinariates, since Benedict XVI makes specific mention of a special rite alongside the Roman rite. Frankly, I see no difficulty with the revival of Sarum if other local uses and rites (Ambrosian, Lyons, etc) are assimilated to the extraordinary form of the Roman rite and allowed on an occasional or regular “minority” basis.
Obviously, there is the spirit in which this rite would be used, either simply as a local or particular “personal” tradition in the Universal Church or as some kind of performance of something that is self-consciously obsolete. I celebrate Mass each day according to the Sarum Use, and have done so in the same spirit as other priests use the Roman rite. I try to recollect myself with the idea expressed by that wonderful hymn of the Oriental Church – Let all mortal flesh keep silence, and with fear and trembling stand… We are not playing a childish game but celebrating the Sacred Mysteries.
I also have the tongue-in-cheek thought in my mind that the Tridentine rite was considered just as obsolete and eccentric in the 1970's and early 80's as Sarum, and priests and communities using it were branded as cranks and rebels. It is now recognised as a mainstream rite by the Pope himself.
Would Sarum be confusing for the faithful? I don’t see why it should be, if people are capable of assimilating and following any liturgical form, including the ordinary form. Certainly, people will need to follow the rite in a booklet with a minimum of explanations. I have celebrated the Sarum Use in English for small groups of people normally accustomed to the Prayer Book. With a booklet, they were able to follow the Mass, make the responses and participate intelligently. Their reflection after Mass – Interesting and very beautiful, love to come back! Much as I would be attracted to the artistic style of the English Renaissance and the soaring Perpendicular wonders of Gloucester Cathedral, they are not essential to the Sarum Use. It can be celebrated with normal Roman rite gothic or baroque vestments, and using the facilities of any church still equipped with an eastward-facing altar (or at least a freestanding altar that can be used for an eastward celebration). Most readers here are certainly aware of the Sarum masses celebrated by Fr Séan Finnegan (http://valleadurni.blogspot.com/) in the chapel of Merton College, Oxford in the 1990’s. The effect was stunning, even though they were using whatever vestments they could lay their hands on.
Learning to celebrate Sarum can be a little tricky, even for a priest who is trained for the extraordinary Roman rite. The rubrics are found with the Order of Mass and the first Sunday of Advent. Sometimes, there are small ambiguities that can be cleared up in the light of the Dominican rite. Fr Finnigan obviously did well after due research and rehearsal. Another problem with Sarum is the difficulty in finding liturgical books. The Gregg reprint of the 1868 Dickinson edition is now a rare book and fetches in excess of £300 in specialised second-hand bookshops. I have to make do with copied pages of this edition arranged in A5 booklets done with Microsoft Publisher together with the Order of Mass text painstakingly separated from the mass of rubrics. A few of us need to get together and publish a new edition of the Sarum missal, not a critical edition for study, but a real working altar missal – worthy of getting Rome’s nihil obstat and imprimatur. There is then the question of a Gradual with the authentic Sarum chant. As I already mentioned, the English translations already exist, and are available in printed form from second-hand bookshops in or pdf form from the Internet. They can be used with the existing Anglican musical tradition. The Pearson missal is available, but it is a cheap paperback and could not take the punishment of being used at the altar.
The canonical dimension needs attention. The Use of Sarum can either be explicitly authorised as an Anglican-Catholic Ordinariate rite or assimilated to the extraordinary form of the Roman rite, in the same way as the Ambrosian and Dominican rites. It seems to have the same standing as a legitimate Catholic rite. St Pius V said in Quo Primum that all liturgies with more than 200 years' continuous usage may continue to be used. The only difficulty is knowing whether it can be used now despite its having fallen out of general use for more than thirty years or so. That is a canonical problem, which can be resolved either by bringing the Sarum Use into regular custom and keeping it going for some thirty years, or by it being explicitly approved by Rome. An anonymous commenter on Fr Finnegan’s blog gave this information:
Concerning the legal status, contact with the Congregation for Divine Worship has yielded positive results, insofar as Archbishop Ranjith has indicated that the Congregation is perfectly comfortable that the Sarum Use be celebrated, and that no formal permission is needed (though out of common courtesy one should request, or even inform, the Ordinary of the Mass's occurrence).
It would therefore be preferable for this rite to receive explicit authorisation from Rome, especially if it is to be celebrated in English. To what extent is Sarum used in an Anglican context? The complete and "pure" Sarum Use has rarely been celebrated in the Church of England in spite of the 19th and 20th century "English Use" movement, particularly in the hands of Percy Dearmer, but it has happened. After the wreck of the Mary Rose was discovered in the 1980’s, a public Requiem Mass for the souls of the sailors who perished was celebrated in Latin and English according to the Sarum Use in Portsmouth Cathedral. All Saints, North Street in York is a beautiful medieval church and a venue for reconstructions of the York Use, but the English Missal is the "normal" rite there. In the Continuing Anglican Churches, Sarum is celebrated occasionally in a few American parishes. I use it every day.
Going by what Bishop Elliott has to say, and my conversations with Archbishop Hepworth, we are not going to get “pure Sarum”, but an Anglican Use based to some extent on Sarum. I could imagine a missal in English containing a number of options, alternative preparation prayers, penitential rites, offertories, communion rites. This manufactured hybrid would be necessary on pain of the entire Ordinariate project breaking up, fragmenting and failing. I imagine a temporal cycle restoring the Septuagesima season, the Ember Days and the Sundays after Trinity. An optional three-year lectionary could be a possibility, but its being made to work with the traditional temporal cycle (rather than the 1979 American Prayer Book or the modern Roman rite) would take a considerable amount of rearranging work so that the readings fit the prayers and the propers. I wonder if that would be done by men who would work to objective liturgical criteria, on pain of producing a botched result. The existing lectionary for the modern Roman rite would simply not work because of the difference between the two calendar systems. The Sarum lectionary is fuller than the 1962 Roman, since there are proper readings on Wednesdays and Fridays in Advent and the weeks after Epiphany, Easter and Trinity. As in the Roman rite, Sarum has propers for every day of Lent and Passiontide.
I can see the necessity of a hybrid missal with a number of options, since I find it difficult to imagine that a one size fits all policy will work with the incoming Anglicans. One can exact holy obedience, but it might be as difficult to enforce as with the young French hotheads zealously defending St Nicolas du Chardonnet in 1977! If a Catholic asks me whether I believe in the Church sufficiently to submit without conditions, I would ask that person if he or she would unconditionally stay in the Church. If things became difficult or unacceptable in the mainstream, that person would join a traditionalist group in communion with Rome like the Fraternity of St Peter or canonically irregular like the SSPX or the various independent groups around priests without bishops. They might at least go to a parish other than their own. Double standards often abound, and we Anglicans go forward with our eyes open.
A pragmatic consideration is going to be the accommodation of those who are attached to the Prayer Book and the halting of “liturgical fragmentation” and each priest doing his own thing for the simple reason that Catholics cannot be satisfied with the “bare” Prayer Book Eucharist. The old rift between English Anglicans and Anglo-Papalists finds its reflection within the TAC and some parts of the Anglican Communion. I would doubt this diversity could be abolished, and I see no reason why it should be. We do need a rite (or a “liturgical system”) that will enable us to go away satisfied or at least able to go along with what is offered. The closer we are to the traditional Sarum Use, the more likely we are to reduce this gap between “English” and “Papalist”. It would, at a stroke, remove the Angst of trying to tamper with rites (the jibes about there being as many Anglican liturgies as parishes is often too true) to make them both Anglican and Catholic. Priests will have to learn to stop doing their own thing.
Perhaps, alongside a hybrid “liturgical system” from which all Anglican-Catholic communities would find their joy, I would like to see the option of using the Sarum Use “as is” as something assimilated to the extraordinary form of the Roman rite. Time will tell, and we will shortly see what is decided and promulgated for our use in communion with the Universal Church.
We are balancing liturgical integrity with pastoral pragmatism, playing one off against the other, and running a big risk of ending up with neither. Time will tell…
Related posts:
I have to say it. Fr. Chadwick's zeal is quite convincing, and I'm interested in exploring it further. But if I might ask a question out of my ignorance…
What about the singing of hymns with the Sarum Use? I know our EF friends become almost apoplectic at the thought of hymns during the celebration of Mass, but I'm afraid I really love our great tradition of hymnody. It really gets the blood pumping to process in on one of the great barn-burners, organ full on, with the congregation belting it out. And during that time after Holy Communion… there are so many lovely hymns that reinforce the Mystery just received. I'll fully confess that at our parish we tend to layer things at the High Mass — processional hymn, which is followed by the chanted introit, during which we incense the altar. And so it goes throughout the Mass.
An honest question: would such a practice find a place in the Sarum Use?
I don't see why hymns could not have their place in an English Sarum Mass. In my opinion, they should not take the place of the sung proper, which can be sung in English using editions already available from St Mary's Wantage, etc. I suggest a hymn during the Communion and at the end of Mass. Perhaps during the Offertory if incense is used and the Offertory antiphon isn't long enough. I would say the same for the English Missal or the extraordinary Roman rite.
… or indeed the Ordinary Form of the Roman rite.
Most of our finest vernacular hymns were not written to be sung at mass, after all.
Naturally, I don't want to get into an argument about this subject. I understand Fr Phillip's position based on experience and pastoral pragmatism. I would prefer to limit music in the Mass to setting of the proper in plainsong or polyphonic singing (with or without organ), and adding other texts set to music only when the liturgy is "interrupted" for the homily (or sermon, whichever you prefer), and the Communion of the faithful. After the Mass is after the Mass, so a hymn can be sung there just before the final organ voluntary.
It all depends what you have at your church. Hymns can fill in when there is no choir or competent organist (or when there is the latter). I take no particularly strong position on this, and I'll leave others to argue it out.
Fr. Chadwick,
I certainly agree that the Sarum use is not only appropriate, but among the loveliest of 'organic' liturgies. It is distinctly English and Roman at the same time.
That said, there is no reason why the Sarum cannot continue its organic growth without essential changes. Great hymnody is certainly a valid part of our patrimony but is often included in a less than artful manner. My personal preference leans toward a solemn Gregorian Introit from the back of the nave followed by a great processional hymn. The reverse of that works for the recessional after the Last Gospel and followed by the postlude.
There may be a place for a hymn following the homily, but I wouldn't press the point. The Offertory and Communio should be the domain of the choir, perhaps divided between an anthem and a motet. The flow of the Sarum is so exquisite that "breaking it up" seems to border on sacrilege.
I would agree with you – if you have the people able to sing plainsong or polyphonic music. It is not the case with small TAC parishes. It will already be something to overcome "stick-in-the-mud" conservatism and introduce liturgical changes in a Sarum direction. With the secondary things like hymns and flowers, I'm sure it is possible to go pastorally and slowly, giving people time to breathe and catch up.
It's got to be done sensitively, otherwise people will vote with their feet!
I agree with you, Father. The "full Sarum" would probably work only in cathedrals with the pastoral and musical resources. You pointed out to me several months ago how appropriate the "Chapel Mass" would be for the average congregation. I think that you were spot-on as it corresponds to something between the high and low masses of the EF.
The key might lie in reserving the Sarum for great feasts with the AC (whatever is the final form) rite for most other celebrations.
I am always amazed at the facility with which some congregations adapt. I have introduced Oxford Chant to Romans and plainsong to BCP parishes with smashing results. I am reminded of the great period of years before the 1950's when ECUSA parishes embraced music from the Orthodox Church, primarily Russian. The results were astounding and much loved by parishioners.
I with Fr. Philips am becoming more convinced by Fr. Chadwick that the Sarum Use should be the major source for our new and common AC Use. Though it is unknown to many of us its significance in our Patrimony is indisputable. I think we'll be sorry if we don't, during this "once in a lifetime" opportunity, take firm grasp of it. What are we more attached to the BCP form or the BCP language? If it's only (or mainly) the language we are attached to (this is my case), it then makes sense to merely attach the BCP language to the Sarum form with a resulting purely Anglican liturgy – things old and things new.
Most of us will have to relearn how to say Mass according to this usage; but I think this a very small price to pay for the long-term benefit derived. After all, I like to think that if schism with the Pope had never taken place we Anglicans would today still be using the Sarum Use. The BCP was something we didn’t want or ask for, but something forced upon our ecclesial ancestors; and we have become conditioned to love this thing that was loathed by our forefathers. It seems now is the time to abandon the Cranmer contrived BCP form while retaining its language, which is not his language but the language of a people, since we have the opportunity to resuscitate something even more vital to our Patrimony. Are not the English, Anglican and American Missals mere attempts at splitting the difference between the BCP and the Roman EF? Compared to Sarum, are these Missalæ true parts of our Patrimony or are they shadows of the real thing that was stolen from us? What will they say of us 100 years from now if we decide for a pragmatic, make-as-many-people-happy-today, liturgy verses a single unified Sarum based liturgy? The Pope has given us the opportunity to return with the best our Patrimony has to offer. That’s what we should endeavor to do.
Indeed, I think we should go for it. The Warren and Pearson translations are in Prayer Book language. All the music composed for the Prayer Book Communion Service can be used with Sarum.
With Sarum (with the possibility of celebrating it in English or other vernacular languages), there is no price to pay, no disadvantage or "yes, but….".
I would love to see the Sarum Use, and not have to be bound by pastoral pragmatic arrangements like a three-year lectionary (unless it is worked out to be compatible with the traditional temporal cycle, with year 1 as the existing lectionary).
It's all going to be up to a liturgical commission. I don't know if I'll be invited to be on it. Fr Phillips would have a chance, and he could be our advocate for this cause. Bishop Elliott is pro-Sarum, and that is enormous!
Sarum Use could be the EF of the Ordinariate. The Anglican Use (BCP) should be the OF. The Sarum does not reflect the Catholicity that survived and even flourished during the Reformation The Reformation is integral to the Anglican Catholic experience which the Ordinariates pay homage to and try to preserve.
I was just about to say that…I love the Sarum Rite, I hope to use it…but I also like the BCP. I think that the suggestion made above of using an updated BDV would be great! I'd like to use both forms on a regular basis, I think that way you could appeal to both the traditionalists and the modernists who come it. I know a Catholic Church in Chicago that does both the OF and EF in a reverent way on a regular basis, and they are having huge success. Perhaps that's a model we could imitate. I don't know…just a thought…
There were two aspects of the Reformation:
1. Reforming the clergy who were making people pay for everything and whose theological education was zilch,
2. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
The Catholic Church is having to start again with #1, but #2 doesn't belong to Catholicism.
I agree with Ben Vallejo that the Sarum Use should be approved for use in the Ordinariates – perhaps as "our" version of the Extraordinary Form. However, I do not think that it would be suitable for everyday use – certainly not at this point!
No, what is most urgently needed is an actual version of the Book of Common Prayer – actually titled "The Book of Common Prayer", approved by the Holy See. For any Anglicans used to one of the contemporary Anglican liturgies (which are so close to Novus Ordo), or who actually use the Novus Ordo, the new Roman Missal will serve them very well. And the liturgy nerds (or jocks, whichever you prefer) can spend decades discussing exactly which missal, or which edition of particular ancient uses would be the ultimate in liturgy – you know, the one that Jesus and the Apostles *really* used.
However, the vast majority of lay traditional Anglicans have a spirituality based around the Prayer Book. As Bp. Elliot has pointed out, only very minor changes were needed to approve the American 1928 BCP for Orthodox use. Although there are different versions of the BCP throughout the world, most are fairly similar.
In the interim, I think that the best possible outreach tool – both to re-evangelize nominal or former Anglican churchgoers, and to reach out to traditional Anglicans who might be interested in entering into Full Communion – would be to allow the use of the American 1928, Canadian 1962, and other traditional editions of the BCP, with as few alterations as are absolutely necessary.
There are so many people with copies of the Prayer Book at home, even if they haven't been to church in years – and to know that they could still attend this Anglican Catholic mass, and bring their Prayer Book with them, and follow along (even if there were a few minor differences), will be seen as proof that this thing is actually a bona fide Anglican Church. That, more than anything else, will symbolize for many people that the creation of Anglican Ordinariates is a genuine ecumenical accomplishment, and not simply Latin Rite Catholicism with an Anglican varnish.
Mr. Trolly: I like the idea of calling it the "Book of Common Prayer" but with a most notable change within the order for holy Mass. In all honesty, the current BCP communion service doesn't "fly" even today among Anglican-Catholics (is there anyone who still says the Gloria in extremis? Leaves out the Agnus Dei or the Ecce Agnus Dei?). An obvious Anglican-Catholic ordinariate solution is the Sarum order for Mass with certain "organic" developments; e.g. updated/simplified rubrics and BCP English.
We have all heard folks opine that the original BCP (and its successors) were "translated" from the Sarum Missal. My meager knowledge of the Sarum Missal has led me to know that there is very little substance to this common opinion. We should forgo opinion and seize knowledge; revert to the authentic formula while retaining the BCP language.
I, too, like the idea of retaining the "Book of Common Prayer" title — as Michael states, so much of the Anglican/Episcopal laity have a deep spirituality centered around the Prayer Book, it should be a foremost part of the Patrimony. One of the thing I hope isn't lost is ability to have such rich devotional and liturgical resources in a single volume — this is something my Anglican cousins can't understand about Catholicism — why there's no equivalent to the BCP. The entire life of the church — both public and private, can be summarized in one book.
I appreciate this idea, especially in America, of having the Prayer Book as an "ordinary form" and Sarum as an "extraordinary form".
But, I have a question. Are many parishes using the bare Prayer Book without additional material from either the Anglican Missal or the English Missal?
Perhaps we could have the Sarum Missal with two alternative orders of Mass: original Sarum and American 1928 Prayer Book. The range of options would have to be restricted to the minimum, otherwise Rome won't buy it. What do you American Prayer Book people think of that – a kind of "English Missal" based on Sarum and Prayer Book rather than Tridentine and Sarum?
Trying to be constructive….
To answer the first question, in the US it seems to be about 50/50 split between Traditional Anglicans and Episcopalians. To answer the second, I like the idea of it but I have to admit I'm not ALL that familiar with the 1928 Pray Book. I don't have any problems with it, but I wonder how many for Episcopalians will be familiar with it. We may have to have a little instruction in it. But on the other hand, when did (good) catechesis hurt anybody?
Among American continuers, folks tenaciously hold to the 1928 A BCP, but *nobody* strictly uses it for Mass (ditto for the Office – they almost always make up their own form; e.g. leave out the confession, rarely use the collect appointed for the day &t.). The 1928 A BCP is most significatly a rally-flag for continuers.
Current Episcopalians who will be coming over should be prepared to accept that their 1979 APB is not going to receive any respect from those in the ACA who left ECUSA years ago partly over the debacle of that ill-begotten-spawn-of-a-thing. There certainly must be forgiveness, but certain feelings run deep among continuing Anglicans, one of them stems from the rude and vicious treatment they have received from those who would not leave ECUSA because the continuers lacked "gravitas." We are not at this historic point in time because of the efforts of ECUSA folk but rather because of those who were willing to suffer reproach, poverty and loss by coming out from among ECUSA’s strange gods. In general, continuing Anglicans despise the 1979 APB and will take little truck with folks who would like to see it become part of the ordinariates. I think that the ECUSA folk that come out (the more the merrier), knowing the facts of why and how Anglicanorum coetibus came to be, should not expect their opinions on liturgy and such to be given much weight – personally, I would look on such folks the same disdain I’d look on someone cutting line at the post office.
Yeah…except they're part of this thing too. My parents are ECUSA, I grew up ECUSA, most of my friends are ECUSA, when I think Anglican that is what I think. Now, granted I understand that the TAC was instrumental in the formation of the Ordinates and they hold pride and place, that's fine, but the Ordinates were not just for the TAC. There are hundreds of thousands of former ECUSA in the Roman Catholic Church. When they think Anglican they think Episcopalian. I see you feel very hurt by them, and I'm sorry for that, but we need to realize they are part of this thing too. We should listen to them and get input from them.
I don't know if we should look at using the 1979 BCP but I'm not opposed to the investigation of it. It is the prayer book I grew up with, its the prayer book that most of the people who will be in the ordinates are familiar with. I think it needs to be considered.
No. The 1979 American Prayer Book (APB) is riddled with heresies; it is a piece of modernist horse pucky: trash from cover to cover respectively. I'm not hurt by ECUSA folk; they hurt themselves staying too long at the glt-fair. Humbug on their insane prayer book. It is from below. The only thing the 1979 APB is worthy of is opprobrium.
Could you give an example? I'm not being critical, I'm just ignorant.
If, as Mr. Tighe states in the immediately following comment, from the beginning the BCP was “composed by heretics to inculcated heretical ideas” (a factual statement); how much worse is the 1979 book created by and for a body of people who unquestioningly had abandoned the Apostolic Faith by attempting to ordain females? The book is rubbish (yes, I am very opinionated and bigoted against it). If we are to look for a standard Anglican book from which to draw material, anything of value in the 1979 book can be found in the 1928 BCP. The new and modified materials in 1979 book are worthless. Why waste our time with it?
The BCP was a book composed by heretics to inculcate heretical ideas about the Eucharist — but, by a kind of "felix culpa," it did not provide a secure barrier against the return, sometimes in defiance of the plain sense of its text, of many Catholic beliefs and practices discarded at the Reformation. I am speaking here, of course, of the English BCP tradition down to, and including, the 1662 BCP. Elsewhere (Scotland 1764; PECUSA 1789; and in various pre-1965 Anglican liturgical revisions in places such as Scotland, South Africa and Canada) the whole local BCP tradition moved to a certain extent in the Catholic direction. However, none of these revisions ever ruled out reading its texts in a Protestant and Reformed manner; and so at best the BCP tradition is ambiguously Catholic .
Such ambiguity is simply incompatible with a full-hearted profession of the Catholic Faith. By all means, strive to retain "Prayer-Book English;" keep, if you wish (although I wish it not) the title of "Book of Common Prayer" — but eliminate both the doctrinal ambiguity and its mere appearance. Put differently, I disagree profoundly and totally with these sentiments from #8 above:
"The Sarum does not reflect the Catholicity that survived and even flourished during the Reformation The Reformation is integral to the Anglican Catholic experience which the Ordinariates pay homage to and try to preserve."
I do not know what the first of these sentences means. Such "Catholicity" as "survived" survived barely and in a stunted fashion; it cannot in any sense be said to have "flourished" (except among the Recusants, who are not under discussion here). And far from the Reformation being "integral to the Anglican Catholic experience," it is precisely the incubus that must be exorcised in order for an Anglican Catholicism to be securely planted and, please God, to flourish.
Terrific comment. I frankly see no reason to keep the Prayer Book for the Mass if there is a traditional rite (Sarum) in Cranmer-style English. The only reason for opposing the Prayer Book against a traditional Latin rite (in English) would be doctrinal and motivated by Protestantism. Most TAC groups saying they are Prayer Book probably use the Anglican Missal with parts of the Prayer Book rite, so it is "re-sarumised" Prayer Book rather than Sarum. Why re-invent the wheel?
The Sarum Mass can be celebrated as a Low Mass or a Missa Cantata (without deacon and subdeacon) like the older Roman rite. It doesn't have to be "all-or-nothing". I celebrate a Sarum Low Mass each day, and it is no more difficult than celebrating the 1962 Roman Missal. Actually, it is simpler and has much of the sobriety of the Dominican rite.
The Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, etc. are exactly as in the Prayer Book, and I repeat that the Anglican musical tradition (and hymns if desired or considered appropriate) is perfectly usable with Sarum in English.
The only thing that could be desirable as an optional Communion devotion would be the Confession, Absolution, Comfortable Words, Prayer of Humble Access and the Thanksgiving. They could be added to Sarum in English as they were in 1548. I see no need for them personally, but I also see no reason to forbid their use by those who want them.
If there is to be a single rite allowed by Rome for the Ordinariates, then I think it is a choice between a manufactured hybrid or the traditional Sarum in good English. I know which I prefer. Those who like a modern liturgy can use the ordinary form of the Roman rite.
In short, the good reasons (cultural) for wanting the Prayer Book are satisfied by Sarum in Cranmer-style English. Those wanting the Prayer Book for doctrinal reasons are unlikely to be interested in entering the Catholic Church.
However, the Prayer Book has one up over the Sarum Use. It is the basis for the Book of Divine Worship (approved by Rome) although I am not a fan about inserting some parts of the 1979 BCP and the post Vatican II Roman Missal in this book.
Well the BDW reflects the what was corrected in the BCP, which is ambiguity thanks to Elizabeth the Queen (which is the REASON why Catholicity survived the Protestant Reformation)
It is historically revisionist and terribly damaging to completely disregard the positive aspects of the Reformation in Anglo-Catholic experience. Anglicanorum Coetibus was not meant I believe to restore the English Pre Refomation Church. It was intended to bring Anglicans who want to bring to the Catholic Faith their spirituality and one cannot deny that the Reformation has something good in here. It is not just a matter of using Cranmer's English in the Sarum Use. In this I am with Catholic EF traditionalists. The EF can be said in hieratic or even Cranmer's English, but that was not meant to be. To do so is to remove the Tridentine Mass from its proper historical context. Thus the Sarum Use is better said in Latin as it was done in England. This is the Mass that St Thomas More heard and the Mass that the lamentable Henry VIII tried to preserve unto his death. Only when the Calvinist influenced Edward sat on the Throne that the Sarum Use was replaced by the Protestant BCP rite in English.
That's why I say the Sarum Use could be the EF of the Ordinariate. It should be authorized and an Ordinariate priest can say it if he wants and if the faithful derive benefits from it.
Let's preserve the patrimony of the English Church. The Sarum Use in Latin and the BCP with its heretical parts excised, in Cranmer's English.
Let's preserve the patrimony of the Latin Church. The EF only in Latin and the OF in Latin and its faithful and theologically correct translation in the vernaculars of the world. And before the Traditionalists complain, let me remind them that like the Reformation for Anglicans, the Vatican II reforms are part of our history and I believe through God's graces, something good did come from it.
We also have to remember that the Reformation resulted in the Tridentine reforms which we Catholics largely agree were good for the Church. But of course we and our Protestant separated brethren deplore the excesses of the Reformation.
Actually, there's no reason why the Sarum liturgy ought not be adopted throughout the entire Anglophone world (with the exceptions of perhaps the dioceses of York, Hereford and Bangor). If things had been as they should, it would be in daily use throughout Australia, seeing that our church was founded by Englishmen (and Benedictine monks at that, just like Augustine landing in Kent).
There are even a few Australian catholic churches designed for the Sarum mass, rood-screens and all.
And I understand that in the sacristy of one catholic cathedral here in Australia lie ash-grey vestments for use during Lent …
It's clear that not only was the "reformation" a thorough-going disaster, but upon reflection, the Counter-reformation ended up being almost as destructive in some ways.
I'd like to suggest the Ordinariate drop all of these Latin and Anglican liturgies and, instead, adopt the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil, but adding the Prayer of Humble Access" and the "comfy" words.
Well, it has been great fun to see the gamut of views on potential liturgies, but it would take an infinite number of universes needed to realize all of the variations.
I would remind of an interesting phrase given in Archbishop Hepworth’s recent letter:
“A great deal of work has already been concluded in the updating and expanding of Anglican service books. The calendar of saints for instance in the Prayer Book of 1662 has no additions since then, in spite of the manifest sanctity of so many Christians since that date. Much more work needs to be done and will be a very high priority for those engaged in implementing the Constitution.”
Based on this, the basic structure of the Anglican Ordinariate liturgy has already been set. When the liturgical service books are eventually approved and published, it is certain that there will be griping from some quarters, simply because of the fragmented nature of do-it-yourself modern Anglican practice.
What will be nice is that for once we will have liturgical Anglo-Catholic unity. That unity will be based on the authority of the pope – who, ironically, is the one who sees what is truly valuable in the Anglican way and worth preserving. As Dr. Tighe points out, it will expunge the protestant elements, although the Anglo-Catholics have done most of the work already in the Anglican/English missals. These are quite beautiful and unquestionably part of the patrimony, not simply `half-way houses’. Sarum is fine too – although very few have any experience of it. Don't underestimate the power of familiarity.
While it is fun to speculate, it would do my heart good to see everyone commit to joyful obedience in whatever liturgical decisions are made.
I would also add that the Recusants at first were willing to die for the Sarum Mass in Latin and many of them did in Elizabeth's Glorious reign., Only later after the Tridentine Reforms did the Sarum Use was replaced by the Tridentine Mass in Latin.
Now I would like to ask if the Recusants (which are part of English Catholic history) die for the Sarum Mass in Cranmer's English? Elizabeth would have gladly spared them the Tree at Tyburn if they just attended services conducted in English!
So it comes to us down the ages their last cry
"I will pray in Latin"!
The recusants weren't dying for Latin, they were dying for the principle that the Queen had no authority to tell them how to worship. Just as St. Polycarp was martyred not because he abhorred incense, but because he refused to offer it to Caesar.
It seems the resident expert on the BDW, Fr. Phillips, might wish to shed some light on what he likes about the BDW and what he would like to see changed. Father, you may not be at liberty to speak on such things at this point in time, but I would love to know what your real experience has been living with the BDW for many years. Is it your hope that the AU parishes can via the ordinariate start with a liturgical "tabla rasa" or are there parts of the BDW that are worth retaining? Does the BDW posses any "Sarum-esque" elements? When originally developing the AU liturgy what would have been your first choice? Was there any consideration of the Sarum Use? It seems to me that you and your AU peers have earned the right to speak both first and last in this discussion.
Thanks, Fr LR. Our experience in the AU may well be valuable, but the mere fact that "we got here first" shouldn't give us an advantage in the discussion of an Ordinariate liturgical Use. We're really in this together, and after the brief time I spent with the bishops in Orlando, having the opportunity to worship at the Cathedral of the Incarnation, it made me realize that our coming together will be of mutal benefit.
I've kept it no secret that I'd like to see the Anglican Missal as our liturgy, with whatever revisions the Holy See deems necessary. I've been following Fr. Chadwick's selling points for the Sarum Use, and it has a certain draw; however, the thought of such things as bowing and not genuflecting would call for a pretty big cultural shift for most of us, I think.
Imperfect though it is, the BDW represents the very best we could do at the time. I don't like the Offertory rite, but then, who does? I don't like the truncated Prayer of Humble Access, but that could be put right with no effort at all. There are a number of things like that — changed from the '28 BCP just enough to be bothersome, but which could be revised back to the original form. I do like the "Christ our Passover" after the fraction, harking back to the earliest BCP, and if I'm not mistaken, to Sarum itself (although Fr. Chadwick should correct me if I'm mistaken).
The fact is, we've adapted the BDW to our needs over the past quarter of a century, and we've managed to make it pretty close to the Anglican Missal. We always use minor propers, depending on loose rubrics which allow for "a hymn or a psalm" at given places. We've become quite attached to the Gregorian Canon, and going back to the '28 BCP canon wouldn't be high on my list of priorities, although if (by some strange reason) the Holy See approved it in some form, we'd happily use it from time to time as an alternative canon.
If we end up with a liturgy based upon the BCP, I hope we might continue to call it the Book of Divine Worship. The name has a certain history, and we purposely incorporated the name of the Congregation under whose authority we were working. It has an Anglican sound, but a Roman connection. The BDW is serving us well — through it we can confect valid sacraments — but I wouldn't go to the stake to save it in its present form.
I must say that I do NOT like what it's done to the Daily Offices. The mangling of things in a '79 BCP fashion is off-putting to me. I want the old daily Office lectionary ("through the Old Testament once a year; through the New Testament twice a year"). This business of having three daily readings, and trying to figure out which Office gets cheated out of a reading, I just don't like.
Certainly, I don't think we need to throw out the whole BDW, and if I recall the press conference announcing Anglicanorum coetibus, a copy of the BDW was held up and the world was told that it would serve as a "template" for a future liturgy. If that's the case, there's a lot of work to be done on it, but there's no doubt that it could be made quite satisfactory indeed.
Many thanks, Father. Your comments are most appreciated and helpful. Experience is the best teacher and you and your peers alone have been there and back again. Now, you can help to guide us. Even though the rest of the world doesn't have resident Anglican Use parishes I think many are looking to your admonitions, advice and recommendations in order that we might hopefully avoid some of the pitfalls that, as you indicated, snuck up on you.
I have certain things that we would like to see in the approved Anglican Catholic liturgy, but ultimately what I am most looking forward to is a liturgy that, to use your words, "confect valid sacraments." I will happily abide with whatever is approved for our use. And with guides such as you to see to it that the universally disliked Offertory is fixed/removed, we should be good to go.
Regarding the Sarum Use ritual, I think that it could be improved if, with a few exceptions, it were brought into conformity with EF ritual (genuflecting, prep. of chalice &c.). This would go a long way toward making it generally more acceptable. However, one thing that would have to stay is the part after the "Simili modo" when the celebrant holds his arms out in the form of a cross.
Father, when you say "the old daily office lectionary," do you mean the 1945 lectionary appended to the 1928 US BCP, or ++Cranmer's original lectionary? I have to say I prefer the UK 1922 or even 1961 lectionaries, as they cover more than the US 1945, especially if they are supplemented with lessons for Catholic holy days from Fr. Hartzell's old PRAYER BOOK OFFICE (a book that really ought to be reprinted).
All forms of the Book of Common Prayer contain not just the Communion, but the totality of what is needed for parish life. That is why the laity are right to value them in book form. There has to be change to secure unambiguous Catholicity, but that change is best kept to a minimum.
The irony of the English 1662 is that the words of the Communion were barely changed, but that unambiguous rubrics were inserted to enforce a meaning which the Reformers would have rejected. In that sense, it is a rite of Catholic intention, but achieves the purpose in a rather clumsy manner – what Parliament would tolerate.
However, what many of us want is not literal 1662, but the reworkings of the period roughly from 1928 to 1965. Even in England, after Parliament rejected our 1928 we eventually had an authorised alternative liturgy "Series 1" which is not uncommon in Traditional Anglican Church parishes to this day. In using that liturgy, priests do not make it up themselves, but follow what was once authorised. Rites of this period (and I have in mind particularly the Canadian rite) may not be inspired but are a solid basis for the Ordinariate. Once the necessary steps to secure unambiguous Catholicity have been taken, it is not essential further to supplement them from any other source, whether Tridentine or pre-reformation or modern.
Others may have different desires. But what has not been used for several hundred years is hardly in the main stream of Anglican patrimony.
What a mess! I have just found a highly relevant comment on the New Liturgical Movement. I quote:
It's what The Book of Common Prayer doesn't state and doesn't celebrate that's always been the problem, and I believe that these omissions were corrected by the competent authority in the usages now made available to those Anglican Use parishes already in existence. This of course will do nothing to mitigate the avalanche of bloodletting and hairsplitting that's about to descend on us as each one goes off searching for his own comfort zone. This is sure to guarantee a delay of yet another forty years and the ultimate creation of yet another liturgical elephant that satisfies no one.
We won't be around in forty years time and nobody else will care.
What about looking at the Lancelot Andrews BCP? Here we have the BCP with Matins and Evensong essentially like 1662 with some additions like the Antiphons for the Venite.
The mass is entirely recognisable as Anglican with a strengthened epeclisis, restoration of invocation of the saints in the intercessions. This is approved as the Liturgy of St. Tikhon and is used by the Western Rite (Antiochan) and some other Orthodox.
The ceremonial is largely in conformity with English Missal use. So here we have a valid mass, approved by canonical Orthodox, so why re-invent the liturgy again?
Anglicanism has always sought to be a bridge between the West and East. Surely we ought to be looking at an Anglican liturgical rite that is capable of reflecting that and maybe this is more useful to the whole Catholic Church that seeking to revive Sarum.
Anglicanism retained the monastic office for the laity expressed through Matins and Evensong, a tradition lost in the Roman Church, wherein we see no offices except the occasional Choral Vespers in a few cathedrals, with an emphasis on the music, rather than engagement in the cycle of prayer. This should be retained.
I also believe that the Anglican rite does not need to conform to the 1962 EF reform or indeed the 1955 reforms of the Triduum which radically changed observance of the three most sacred days of the Christian year.
The diminution of the Western calendar found in the OF calendar is also unacceptable – the loss of Feasts such as the Finding of the Holy Cross, St. Peter's Chains etc.
In addition it is to be hoped that the Ordinariate will restore fasting to at least the full adherence of the 1662 BCP standards with the addition of the Anglo-Catholic norm of mandatory fasting from midnight for Holy Communion. Again it is worth looking at the Eastern Church's remarkable success in not altering the fasting regime at all – and succeeding in getting the laity to participate in this. Certainly the modern Roman rite's abandonment of serious fasting and abstinence and "eat a sandwich in the car on the way to church" pre-communion fast is to be deplored.
Finally, maybe as a sign of humility to the whole Church – East and West, the Ordinariate ought to consider the use of the Eastern Church's methodology for calculating Pascha.
Jim I remember my parish using the English Hymnal and the Russian Kontakion for the Dead found in it, for funerals. We were a country parish of the Anglican Church of Australia, with Choral Matins, and a High Mass every Sunday with robed choir, plainsong sung and it was comparatively easy.
My query about Sarum is the manner in which it was set and frozen in the past, due to its desuetude. Developments such as genuflection, set schemata for liturgical colours, Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament are all excluded by default yet are almost universally observed.
I don't see why it shouldn't be possible to put in genuflections like in the "extraordinary" Roman rite or follow the Roman colours for vestments. The Feast of Corpus Christi figures in the Use of Sarum, and there were processions of the Blessed Sacrament and Benediction in the early 16th century.
One point I have made is that you don't have to be "all-or-nothing" purist. It's like playing Bach on the piano. Pianos didn't exist in Bach's time, so he played the harpsichord and the organ. Now we have pianos and synthesisers, you can still play Bach and make the music sound good. Same with the Sarum liturgy.
I would prefer these minor adaptations to having to stomach a hybrid fabricated "elephant" liturgy that will satisfy only its creators, and leaving us all with the same old problem of choosing between Prayer Book or Novus Ordo and having to do an ever more irregular patch-up job.
As Michael Gray noted, the advantage of the Book of Common Prayer is that it had all the offices needed for the laity. Whether it's called BCP or BDW doesn't matter so much as having a book that contains not only the Mass, but the Daily Offices and the other sacraments, and the other prayers and litanies that everyone should know.
Historically, the BCP was a great boon to the church papists under Elizabeth that allowed the laity to fight against the many Puritan clergy who would have gone on "purifying" the Church of England from anything that resembled Catholicism. They were able to point to the book and say "this must be done". It was also a great boon in the mid-17th century when the Protectorate and Prebyterians sought to eradicate liturgical worship and episcopacy; the BCP kept Anglicanism alive in the homes of those who refused to go along with the roundheads, so that what emerged in England after the Restoration more closely resembled what Laud and the other Caroline Divines had attempted than the church under Elizabeth.
I think it would do us well to have a similar bastion of prayer in one book for all the people to use (which could easily be shared with the wider Catholic Church, which, as has been noted, doesn't really have anything like the BCP).
The Euchologia – a single book for the faithful with the essential of the liturgy, the offices, Sacraments and private prayers – has been around for centuries in the Byzantine and Latin Churches. There is to this day a schism from the French Church going back to 1801, called the Petite Eglise. All their clergy died before the mid nineteenth century. They have no clergy, but stable communities of laity, and they have real churches, some of them are very beautiful like at Courlay in the Deux-Sèvres. They have an Euchologia and a Bible, and that is how they survive. They have no Sacraments other than Baptism and Marriage, as those are the only Sacraments a person can administer without ordination. The Euchologia is the predecessor of the hand missal.
The Euchologia was only ever intended to contain the more currently used parts of the liturgy, and never to be exhaustive. Perhaps the Book of Common Prayer can be a book of devotion for the faithful, for it is a kind of Euchologia. It cannot be an exhaustive compendium of all liturgical services of the Church, on pain of stripping the liturgy much further than the Bugnini reform of 1969 ever did with the Roman liturgy.
Prayer Book users have admitted this by adopting the English Missal and the Anglican Missal. If this is to be the principle, the Sarum Use is no more complicated or difficult than the Anglican Missal. The only difference is that the English Missal and the Anglican Missal are English translations of the Pius V Roman Missal. I notice a number of commenters here who are restless with the Prayer Book Office, and feel the need to have recourse to a Latin breviary in English translation.
We really do need to get our minds a little clearer.
In other words, if the Prayer Book is the exhaustive liturgical book of the Ordinariates, we would then be better off with the Novus Ordo if the choice was restricted to these two!
The Euchologion in the Eastern Rite is a pretty close parallel to the Ritual. It does not contain the Liturgy at all (that would be in the Liturgikon). It has baptism, etc. and exists in its fuller form in 3-4 volumes–just like the old Rituale Romanum. It was also never intended for use by the laity, but by the clergy.
Oh, I see. I know very little about the Oriental tradition. I assumed the Oriental Euchologion had a similar role to the books for the laity in the west. It's obviously not the case, and I thank you for the correction.
That's like what Christopher Haigh wrote about the English 'Reformation'. By the time it was complete, around 1600, most English were 'parish anglicans' (his capitalisation) who went along with the new Prayer Book but approached it like Catholics, wanting the rites done reverently and to the letter. I think the Civil War further eroded their faith and the 'Enlightenment' shattered many's. After that you had the Anglican mode of the deep freezer of latitudinarian moralism (Dr Tighe's expression) in an orthodox shell of the BCP etc. (both Methodism and Anglo-Catholicism were revivals trying to be counter-movements to that), which pigged out on granola and is now Episcopalianism as we know it.
Within our little Western Rite in the Orthodox Church we have had people promote the Sarum use too. While not all of the arguments and discussions pertinent to this forum, some of them are. I hope I will not offend by presenting these for consideration.
Firstly is a problem of clarity of the use. This is not a light issue. As we read the above article about what the Sarum Use is, it becomes clear that it is not a singular use, but use that varied in different locations and in different times. That shouldn't be too surprising at all. This was one of the reasons that the Council of Trent felt compelled to codify the rubrics of the Roman Rite because things were getting confusing. Who would direct what the Sarum use would be? Would it be done by scholars who create another pseudo-historical use, selecting parts they like whilst omitting others? This looks like it could become a highly subjective task which would not please everyone (even scholars). I would question the appropriateness of having scholars define one's prayer life–which would be inevitable in this case.
Secondly is the concern of continuity of use. Again, not a light problem. Except for the attempt by Rev. Percy Dearmer and some who followed him in his attempt to resurrect the Sarum use, it has not been seen in parish life for almost 500 years. While one might like the idea, the practical reality of life within that use is not really known empirically. Again, it becomes quite subjective. This seems to contradict the very essence of organic liturgy that is rooted in the lives of peoples' living prayer and experience. Even the English who continued in communion with Rome adopted the Pius V Missal when it was promulgated in 1570. Does it contain a great deal that is Counter-Reformation? I suppose so, but is that really a bad thing? By entering into communion with Rome (or Constantinople for that matter) isn't one acting counter to the Reformation? And don't we generally agree that this is necessary?
Thirdly, and this might seem a bit odd, I fear that it is a bit preciously English. Don't misunderstand me. I LOVE rood screens, a great rood, carved reredos', etc. But these also have a much broader heritage. When I was an Anglican, my identity was not wrapped up in being "English." It was entirely immersed in being Catholic. The entire spectrum of the western heritage was ours to embrace. As a Texan, I find that even the Spanish colonial is appropriate. The essence of my thought here is that there must be more than a British museum orientation. I'm not immune to romanticism regarding our English past. I love to point out the date of my ancestors voyage to the Colonies in 1636 from England. That one of my ancestors was a Tory during the Revolution. But it seems to me that the gifts of our Anglican Patrimony are much broader than this–or then they are not truly worthy.
I do accept that the BCP was heavily influenced by the Sarum Use. How could it not be? But does that mean that the current groups of Anglicans are likewise influenced by that use in such a conscious way that it becomes obvious that the Sarum use be adopted? I regard the BCP has having distilled much of the Sarum use for our enrichment and that we will continue to treasure that much of it.
In fairness, my preference is the old altar missal Mass. I will even admit that I would prefer to use the Roman lectionary (although I am open here) and only the Roman Canon. Anglicanism in the past 100 years has become a largely varied body liturgically and that will need some reigning in. I have stated elsewhere my own (perhaps not so humble) suggestion. I would love to see a vernacular EF Mass with hieratic English, filled with its beauty and grace–all according to the ceremonial Fr. Adrian Fortescue's Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described (a rather English form of the old ceremonial). As to some who comment that the use of hymns seems odd in such a form… well, the Anglican patrimony would certainly disagree.
In the Orthodox Church's Western Rite, the call to Sarum by a few has created some difficulties for us and so my comments should be understood from within that vantage point. With us, I have seen this largely come from an Anglo-centric romanticism that is not necessarily conducive to bringing the Faith to all. One needn't be esoteric nor exotic. If one looks out beyond the immediate future, one needs must answer the question, "Who will people the parishes of the Ordinates in 20-30 years?" Will they all come from an English background? They don't now and I don't think they will be later either.
Let me end by asking forgiveness for any ruffled feathers by my comments. I don't intend to irritate or be negative.
Well, gentlemen, that is a pretty motley load of comments supporting one thing or its opposite. One thing they prove to me is that we as a group are not capable of defining our identity or coming anywhere near a consensus about the liturgy.
It all brings me to this conclusion. There will be one single liturgical rite for the Ordinariates. It will be formulated in secret by a commission and probably under the direction of a Roman dicastery. Whatever it will be, we will have to take it or leave it. We would of course have the choice of using one of the two forms of the Roman rite. The extraordinary form of course requires the priest, ministers, servers, choir, congregation, etc. to be accustomed to worshipping in Latin.
Heads – it will be a fabricated medley for the whole family. Tails – it will be based on the English Missal or the Sarum, with a lot of adaptations for contemporary use. Of the Prayer Book, it is unlikely that there will remain more than the two choir Offices and a few prayers out of the Communion Service.
For those not able to accept what comes, remember this: life is short and eternity is long. People in fifty years time won't have a care in the world about what we are discussing now.
Are any Sarum Masses celebrated currently?
Under Roman Catholic auspices, there were some Sarum Masses celebrated at Merton College, Oxford. They were stopped in the 1990's by the Congregation for Divine Worship for the same reason as they were against any traditional form of worship. It is not impossible that they might be resumed one day.
I celebrate it every day.
There are one or two TAC (ACA) parishes in America using Sarum occasionally.
In the Church of England, Fr Barton (priest in the Diocese of Lincoln) has an association for celebrating pre-Reformation liturgies, including Sarum and York. Here is a Guild of Clerks programme of a Sarum Mass in 2007. http://www.ecclsoc.org/MedievalMassprogramme2007.pdf
I have to say that if using Sarum depends on existing usage, it is a non-starter. The Ordinariate project of Benedict XVI was criticised for this reason – being without canonical precedent and being an innovation. My argument for Sarum is, 1. It is not a modern invention and a product of a more spiritually healthy era than our own, 2. It would make it possible not to have to have a smorgasbord of choices to satisfy everybody. If translated in Prayer Book style (the translations, two of them, exist), it would satisfy most high church or Catholic-minded Anglicans, and the modern Roman rite is available for those who prefer a modern liturgy. There is also the 1962 Roman missal in Latin.
As is seen, the present situation of Sarum is marginal, but it seems the right way to go via a programme of education and explanation. Some objections are based on misunderstandings. Surprisingly enough, there is quite a lot of interest in Sarum. I started an e-mail list in 2008 and I have 119 members on it, mostly Orthodox and Anglicans.
Well, I imagine one more comment won't hurt. How about approving all of the following at the choice of the pastor of the parish and with the consent of the pastoral council:
1. Sarum in Latin
2. Sarum in Prayer Book English
3. The Extraordinary Form in Latin
4. The Extraordinary Form in English (English/Anglican Missal); and finally,
5. The Ordinary Form in Latin
6. The Ordinary Form in English
7. A BCP-based liturgy complete with its own Eucharistic Canon (distinctively not the Roman Canon)
And there we have all possible options to satisfy everyone, tied together by a mystical number!
Correction:
1. Sarum in Latin
2. Sarum in Prayer Book English
3. The Extraordinary Form in Latin
4. The Extraordinary Form in English (English/Anglican Missal)
5. The Ordinary Form in Latin
6. The Ordinary Form in English; and finally,
7. A BCP-based liturgy complete with its own Eucharistic Canon (distinctively not the Roman Canon)
Do note, Rome has already approved explicity #s 3, 5, and 6. The BDW could be used as a template for 7.
A document (prepared by Fr Michael Gray?) available at the website of St Luke's Ampthill of the TAC in Great Britain entitled "An Anglican Patrimony" makes an interesting point:
"I have said little about eucharistic life. One reason is because this is not in our gift, as the content of the liturgy will be determined elsewhere and much of the detail will be constrained by practicality…Perhaps I agree with Dean Inge that the best of Anglican spirituality has not been centred on the eucharist. Anglo-catholicism is a special case, but I think it is important to realise that the Anglican patrimony (even with respect to the eucharist) is much wider than a rather brief phase of a particular group within Anglicanism."
There is one argument in favor of the Sarum that stands out in my mind. Other than a modest accommodation for genuflection (if really necessary) and some small rubrical adaptations, its text can remain unchanged. There is no need to "patch it up" to make it acceptably Catholic. The core of the Mass, the Canon, is as "Roman" as it gets.
The current Masses based on Cranmer's Communion Service all, to some degree, are "patched" with gingham over silk.
Fr. Chadwick –
Thank you for your answer! I saw the video that was posted. I hope the Sarum Use will be revived.
In the UK, at one time, there existed an Anglo-Catholic Missal, in all respects identical to the RC Missal, except that it was in English only, had no impimatur and referred in prayers for the Pope as "pastor inter pares". I loaned to a friend and never saw it again – 'never a …….. etc.'.
You are certainly talking about the English Missal.
One lesson to learn: never lend books. You never get them back.
Fr. Anthony's observations on the benefits Sarum might bring to the the implementation of Anglicanorum Coetibus give us food for thought. One potential weakness in the argument is the lapse in the Use as a regularly celebrated, living tradition. In mitigation, the revival of Sarum would not be without precedent, or divorced from tradition. The venerable Portuguese Use of Braga had effectively died out by the early 20th century when its restoration was authorised by Benedict XV and Pius XI. Sarum is used in the Western Orthodox Sarum and English Liturgies. The Sarum books figure in the development of those elements of the Anglican patrimony that are compatible with Catholic Christianity, in which the Holy Father sees potential benefit to the Church beyond the Ordinariates.
Thank you for this positive comment. The whole idea of importing some kind of Anglicanism into post-Tridentine and post-Vatican II Catholicism is a complete anomaly and an innovation. This innovation is made on account of pastoral necessity. The salvation of souls is the supreme law. For the liturgy, the modern Roman rite and the Prayer Book would cause division in the Ordinariates if either were imposed as a single rite. My reasoning is that there are three choices:
1. Let everyone go on as now, but Rome has always wanted some kind of control, if not complete control, over the liturgy. Rome could, as was in the case in the beginning for the Anglican Use parishes, allow "present" usage ad experimentum and then go on to codify an official book as was done with the Book of Divine Worship. No need to discuss this in the comments – it's all been hacked out already.
2. Issue a completely new and eclectic rite with "something for the whole family", lots of options and different calendar systems and lectionaries, and "codify" the present liturgical situation of Anglicanism.
I must add a note to say that most of the idiosyncratic usages are no longer in use since the 1970's and 80's. Anglicans in England use the Novus Ordo and the Book of Common Worship. A very few use the English Missal (eg. All Saints North Street, York or Fr Hunwicke in Oxford) and less high-church parishes use an "interim" version of the Prayer Book (Prayer of Oblation put back in its place after the consecration and before the Lord's Prayer, Fraction and Communion.
What might be envisaged in the TAC-based Ordinariates would be the English Missal with an (optional) three-year lectionary (if the temporal cycle calendar can be made compatible), a few "favourite" prayers from the Prayer Book and some updated saints' feasts. Perhaps there would be alternative offertory rites, between the Tridentine / English Missal formula, Sarum, monastic, Novus Ordo, etc.
3. Approve an English version of the Sarum Use (Warren 1911 or Pearson 1869 – the former is better in my opinion) and make that the Anglican rite to be used, with the alternative of using the 1962 Roman liturgy in Latin or the modern Roman rite (the new translation will be out in a year or two).
For languages other than English, there seems to be no need for an explicitly Anglican rite, and the modern Roman rite in a "reform of the reform" spirit would seem to be the thing, perhaps with a few options like the offertory prayers.
Whether we get a "new" Anglican use / rite or the Sarum, it is going to be an innovation. Of course we might get the Prayer Book, but we would then be back to the early twentieth century when priests patched up the proverbial sow's ear to make an ever-elusive silk purse. So this would be the reason for reviving something that is objectively obsolete.
Whether others will see it this way, I have no way of telling…
I just wanted to say that I wrote in support of the possibility of the Sarum use within the Traditional Anglican Communion when I saw it posted on New Liturgical Movement, but for some unaccountable reason the comment was taken down, which I find unfortunate. But my position would be that since the rite did not die of dis-use, but was forcibly anesthetized, it has been on life support ever since. Cardinal Wiesman was offered its use nationally as recently as 1850, and St. Edmund's College at Ware requested it in the early 1900's, and was given a partial approval. Of course Fr. Sean Finnegan has done it in Oxford, Bishop Conti has done it in Glasgow, and I think there is a monastic community using it somewhere in the U.S., so it's definately still out there. I say use it, even in varying combinations of fullness. The Sarum use is a treasure too great to lay idle, and its return to the Roman Communion would be a MOST welcome development.
I have written to you privately. Your comments are most welcome and germane. At least whilst we have Pope Benedict XVI, the writing on the wall looks to me like less liturgical uniformity (communion in the Church defined by other criteria like unity of doctrine) and more cultural diversity – including English and European culture.
I perceive Anglican patrimony as essentially pre-Reformation but needing the same kind of reforms (old-style English, a little streamlining in the ceremonies, etc.) as were envisaged in the Roman rite from the beginning of the 20th century. For me, it is simply a kind of "retrofit" to reboot the English Church of Queen Mary's reign so that we would occupy a position that could be compared with the Ambrosian Rite people, Dominican friars and so forth. We would simply be Catholics with a particular liturgical tradition.
Not wishing to be polemical, I have read some comments on this thread suggesting that Anglicanism is the post-Reformation patrimony: the Prayer Book, the Caroline Divines, etc. But, such a vision would find it much more difficult to find a place in Catholicism as its position is deeply rooted in opposition to Rome. Our Bishops and Vicars General have signed the Catechism of the Catholic Church, signifying unity of doctrine with the mainstream Catholic Church. I have understood this as meaning that the Reformation is over except for the positive points like the vernacular Bible and liturgy and more faith in God than ourselves, etc. The Reformation insofar as it was a revolt against Rome and Catholic doctrine is over. It is on this basis that it would be wise for us to adopt a Catholic rite (like Anglo Catholics have been trying to reinvent for the last hundred and fifty years – why not the one our forebears used?
Doctrinally Sarum's no problem of course but reviving it would be artificial and probably doomed.
My picks for the ordinariates' missals:
US: The American Missal, the only BCP-based one of my picks. Essentially a catholicised US 1928 BCP Communion service sandwiched into the structure and ceremonial of the Tridentine Mass/Extraordinary Form with the propers made to fit US 1928's readings.
UK/elsewhere: 1) The Extraordinary Form as the English Missal, Anglo-Catholics' translation of the Tridentine Mass.
2) The Ordinary Form (Novus Ordo) done in Anglo-Catholic and Pope Benedict's style. What most British ACs already do. Why not? The ordinariates essentially will be my old idea of RC national parishes for ex-Anglicans writ large; ethnic national parishes all use the Roman Rite but are culturally different. So it is with this.
Summing up: the same things Antiochian Western Rite Orthodox use (now that's good ecumenism) but with the addition of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (with the new translation of the OF ordered by Pope Benedict solving all of the old translation's problems).
Imposing a BCP-based service, including the current Book of Divine Worship the American Pastoral Provision parishes use, on the Brits would be a no-go as most here know.
In 1983, the Vatican approved a Catholic adaptation of the (1928?) Book of Common Prayer called the Book of Divine Worship (http://www.atonementonline.com/BODW.pdf for electronic copy, albeit with a few typos) for worship in the "Anglican Use" parishes here in the United States. While this version of the Anglican liturgy probably will not be the only approved version, it does have the virtue that it is already approved and thus is immediately available. The preparation and approval of other versions of the Anglican liturgy undoubedly will take some time, unless there's already something in process that has not come to light.
Norm.
As someone who left the Episcopal Church in the early 80`s to become Catholic, I have to say that I look toward the Ordinariate with great hope and anticipation.
What some may not fully appreciate is that in many ways, the Traditional Anglican Rites feel more 'Catholic' than what some of us Catholics are forced to currently endure in our own parishes.
Next Fall, the language of Mass is also changing, and those changes are also more 'English' in many ways.
The Ordinariate, I hope, will help to restore a sense of the Sacred and God's Majesty to the Latin Mass.
Many of us long for that.