I have given the decision of whether or not to post another liturgy-related posting a good deal of thought. However, in our reflection, a dimension has been neglected, one that exists whether we like it or not. For the sake of completeness, I consider a tendency that homogenously developed in the Church of England and the reason why most of the English Forward in Faith clergy considering the Ordinariate, to my knowledge, use the modern Roman rite. I resolve, in writing this article, to represent that tendency as best I can with the most positive and kindly spirit. It is something I can understand having consulted Michael Yelton’s Anglican Papalism (London 2005).
This clergy-driven Romeward movement is best understood in the light of history. The term Anglo-Papalism is a neologism of uncertain origin, but the tendency it designates can be found in the very early twentieth century. We find clergy like the Revd Spencer Jones, Vicar of Moreton-in-Marsh, author of England and the Holy See, recognising the Pope as the visible head of the Church and accepting the Council of Trent and Vatican I. They accepted the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady and even the Assumption (which was not defined ex cathedra until 1950). The only thing they refused was Leo XIII’s condemnation of their Orders!
I see Anglo Papalism as the most “extreme” version and a development of the Anglo-Catholic movement. However, rather than attempt an apologia of the Reformation and how Catholicism survived in the English Church despite Protestantism and a highly repressive persecution of recusants, Anglo-Papalists consider the Anglican Church as part of the western Church that was forcibly separated by the English Monarchy. Regarding the liturgy, the Prayer Book was seen as enjoying the authority of use, but that using the Roman Missal and Breviary was also legitimate. They also used all the para-liturgical devotions in use in Catholic parishes at the time. They saw corporate reunion with the Holy See as the only logical consequence of the Catholic movement. The most prominent community representing this tendency was the Benedictine community of Nashdom, numbering the distinguished Dom Gregory Dix amongst its members. Like the parish of St Magnus the Martyr in London, they went as far as celebrating the Roman liturgy in Latin.
This movement’s heyday as a parallel to contemporary Roman Catholicism in England ran from about the beginning of the century up to the 1960’s. Less “extreme” Anglican Papalists continued the Anglican way of celebrating in English, which they did by using the English Missal, first published in 1912. They reacted against Dearmer’s Parson’s Handbook and rejected the mediaevalist tendency. Their way was resolutely Roman and Counter Reformation.
In this optic, certainly vastly simplified, the Anglo Papalists logically followed all the changes and modifications during and after Vatican II, including the adoption of Paul VI’s reformed liturgy, which they called the Missa Normativa. It was in 1979 when I found this rite used at Saint Alban’s church Holborn, with sumptuous Tridentine ceremonial and music. The most well-known Anglo-Papalist parishes in London, other than St Alban’s Holborn, are St Magnus the Martyr near London Bridge, St Mary’s Bourne Street, St Augustine’s Queens Gate, to mention only a few. Their altars and internal appointments were characteristic, and quite often in baroque French style rather than Roman, marked by very high tapering candles and tomb-shaped altars. Mass facing the people came in relatively late in the Anglican world, and the temporary altar was often brought on only for some of the Sunday Masses. Solemn Mass would continue to be celebrated on the high altar in the traditional eastward position.
Going by most recent photos (I have been away from London Anglo-Papalism since about 1980 – thirty years ago), most Masses are celebrated facing the people as in Roman Catholic parishes. It suffices to look at the Forward in Faith website.
The use of the modern Roman rite is thus logical and understandable by Anglicans who rejected Anglicanism by the very beginning of the twentieth century, and rejected only one piece of Catholic teaching, the bull Apostolicae Curae of 1896 by Leo XIII saying that Anglican orders are invalid. Anyway, I don’t want to go into that subject and will not answer comments thereupon.
I have been though much of the thought that provoked this decision by some Anglican priests to use the modern Roman rite. I would reasonably deduce that there are two categories. One would comprise those previously using the English Missal, and believed it to be their duty to change as the Catholic Church changed through the 1970’s. The other group would be those who were disillusioned with the non-Papalist Anglo-Catholic group and English Use. I could imagine this second group saying – If you’re going to use the Prayer Book, use the Prayer Book, but don’t mess about with all those bits and pieces you put into it to make it into a Catholic rite! Such a mind could only conclude the bankruptcy of Anglican liturgy and either revive Sarum or adopt contemporary Roman usage.
Personally, I find this position at its most extreme puzzling. Why did they not convert to Catholicism the way it was done before Anglicanorum Coetibus? Answer, their marriage and the requirement of celibacy in the Latin Church, though there are many celibate Anglo-Papalists too. There is also the added incentive of a fine church building and perks from being employed by the Church of England. There is also the priest’s friendship with the others of his class and in his diocese and deanery. These are not dishonourable, and are understandable in a world that has become a hard place to live in for priests.
How does an Anglo-Papalist priest using the modern Roman rite, interested in joining a future Ordinariate, define Anglican patrimony? I am precisely talking about those who wish to use the modern Roman rite in an Ordinariate context or think it would be the right thing, and not merely to serve Latin rite Catholic parishes or stand in one Sunday morning for a priest who is sick or absent.
May I make a suggestion for the comments? I suggest we refrain from all polemics against the modern Roman rite, whether coming from Roman Catholics or Anglicans. I suggest we give every opportunity to priests of this tendency to flesh out the bones of what I have written – and enlighten us who are more of the Prayer Book / Sarum “tendency”. I urge all Catholic Anglicans to adopt an attitude of tolerance and understanding, even with those we might believe to be objectively wrong.
Let’s give it a try.
Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!
Anglicanorum coetibus makes it clear that one of the purposes of the Ordinariates is for the nurture and sharing of the Anglican patrimony, in whatever way that's defined. It's also clear that the liturgy of the Latin Rite, both OF and EF, may be used at any time. By the very way it's designed, a priest in the Ordinariate — while he will be part of the juridiction that includes the Anglican patrimony — could well spend the greater part of his priestly ministry using the modern Roman rite. And what I've said about priests would apply also to those parishes which are accustomed to the Missal of Paul VI. Those places would never have to use the Ordinariate liturgy, and yet would still be part of an Ordinariate.
It appears that the Holy Father has already provided for this possibility.
Yes, I can understand that the Holy Father has designed everything for a situation like England in mind:
1. Some Ordinariate parishes use the modern Roman rite,
2. Some Ordinariates parishes use whatever Anglican rite will be allowed or required,
3. Ordinariate priests will be called upon to help in Latin rite parishes and will use the modern Roman rite,
4. A few Ordinariate priests might be asked to help in the traditionalist groups in communion with Rome, and if they know enough Latin, they will celebrate the 1962 Roman rite.
I see no reason why all that can't fit together in a single English Ordinariate.
Here in France, 99.9% of my ministry as a Catholic priest will be in category 3. I'll just have to get used to it and use the most "Benedictine" options available and possible in the local circumstances. That's the way it is.
While what Fr. Chadwick writes here is entirely true, I am wondering if there could be a drift towards a single ordinariate Mass text, but without excluding any of the others. For some time now, people have considered some sort of marriage between the Anglican patrimony and the Traditional Roman Rite (or else the Sarum Use thereof). What I find exciting about the ordinariates is the possibility they afford for this. I think that the TAC Primate and other TAC leaders are hoping to achieve this, and my prayers, for one, are certainly with them.
P.K.T.P.
Dear Father,
Be not down-hearted: I am sure I am not alone in saying I follow your posts avidly
I wrote a little while ago [in response to P.K.T.P. if I remember correctly] on this very topic, so I do not propose to revisit my comments than.
But you write:
Personally, I find this position at its most extreme puzzling. Why did they not convert to Catholicism the way it was done before Anglicanorum Coetibus? Answer, their marriage and the requirement of celibacy in the Latin Church, though there are many celibate Anglo-Papalists too. There is also the added incentive of a fine church building and perks from being employed by the Church of England. There is also the priest’s friendship with the others of his class and in his diocese and deanery. These are not dishonourable, and are understandable in a world that has become a hard place to live in for priests.
Writing as an Anglican priest in England, ordained in 1983, I think oyou hacve omitted tha chief reason, to which you have alluded earlier in your article, when you wrote Anglo-Papalists consider the Anglican Church as part of the western Church that was forcibly separated by the English Monarchy . It was their very loyalty to the Papacy which led the adoption of the New Missal. As I think I wrote earlier in the year, the rug was somewhat pulled from beneath their feet by the Vatican's delegation of so muc hliturgical deciasion-making to ocal episcopal conferences. Was the local episcopal conference for England [& Wales] in Vincent Square, or Church House EWestminster and Cathedral Road Cardiff. That, coupled with liturgical revisionby both the C.of E. and the C.in W. producing rites which were patently capable of a catholic interpretation, means that by no means all FiF and SSC priests use exclusivelythe new Missal. Some will, but others will sonetimes use a liturgy from Rome, sometimes from Common Worship, perhaps supplemented with material from across the Tiber [particularly the Lectionary and Offertory prayer [prayer over the Gifts] ]. Others will us the English Missal, perhaps with the new Prefaces translated into sacral English.
Now, with Anglicanorum Cœtibus some may think that Rome has once again "pulled the rug" or called the Anglo-Papalist bluff. But surely, those who have such loyalty to Rome, and regard the break as a wicked desi=gn of Tudor monarchs, will welcome the Ordinariates as a recognitrion that, pace Apostolicæ Curæ and some virulent Roman Catholic commentators, there is some recognition that some catholicity remained or is now in the Anglican tradition, as witness the testimony of many contemplating the move corporately both many years ago and now, that they have ,b>not been asked to desist from saying Mass or celebrating any of the other Sacraments. This surely is what the Anglo-papalists, and even those a "little lower down the candle" longed and prayed for – corporate re-union with the Holy See.
That is what is on offer: currently obedience to the Holy See means using the New Missal, [tho' the use of the EF in English has spread since S.P.] in the Ordinariate bedience means using whichever of permitted rite is pastorally desiirable, which ion some places will mean a variety].
There is more to the Anglican patrimony and ethos than the text of the Mass.
Kind Regards
John U.K.
Sorry about the typos in my last.
John U.K.
By no means all the traditionalist Anglo-Catholics in the Church of England use the modern Roman Rite. [Incidentally the usual shorthand "Forward in Faith clergy" is misleading - not all Forward in Faith people are Anglo-Catholics, and not all traditionalist Anglo-Catholics belong to Forward in Faith.]
A substantial number (perhaps as many as half) use Common Worship, tho' in such a way that it is very close to the modern Roman Rite. There are also intermediate positions, e.g. Common Worship on Sundays, Roman Rite for weekday masses (this last is common even among liberal Anglo-Catholics).
Having said that, the modern Roman Rite has spread way beyond parishes (and clergy) that would historically have seen themselves as Anglo-Papalist. A factor in this was a sense of disgust that liturgical revision (because of the obduracy of the Evangelicals – under the leadership of Colin Buchanan) had failed to produce, even as an option, a truly Catholic Eucharistic rite. (Contrast the situation in other Anglican provinces.) This had been the whole point of revision for Anglo-Catholics of all sorts (including "Prayer Book Catholics"), and it was a bitter thing to have those hopes dashed.
At the same time the Church of England adopted the R.C. weekday lectionary, and the most convenient way of using this was to buy a copy of the Weekday Missal. There was a certain "inevitability of gradualism" from this point onwards. If you have the book, what more natural than to start to use, not just the lectionary, but the rite itself? Especially when the official rite (in the late, unlamented Alternative Service Book) is unsatisfactory, but sufficiently similar that most of your congregation wouldn't notice the difference.
When Our Lady of the Atonement parish celebrated its tenth anniversary in 1993, one of the speakers was a priest of the Church of England, Fr. Peter Geldard. Some parishioners, including this writer, assumed that he would be thoroughly familiar with our liturgy; but he remarked that he had not seen anything quite like what we were doing since his seminary days. He informed us that "Anglo-papalists" in England used the English translation of the Roman Missal and explained that the "official" liturgy of the C of E was – and I believe still is – the 1662 BCP, which Anglo-Catholics avoided because it was "too Protestant." When the BCP was revised in 1927, for some reason Parliament would not approve it; but the following year a similar revision was approved by the Episcopal Church in the U.S. and remained in use until 1979. It must have satisfied the needs of the high church Episcopalians in this country because I never heard of any of them using the Mass of Paul VI after 1970. This was not the case, of course, in the U.K., where there was no 1928 BCP. I hope this will contribute to the discussion and I apologize in advance to Fr. Geldard in case I have not remembered his explanation correctly.
I was just at a TAC parish in Oshawa, Ontario. The Mass they used there was the 1961 Canadian BCP Communion, with emendations. The Mass was preceded with a procession in honour of the Ascension, which the priest explained to me was an Anglican custom (and which I had just read in Dom Gueranger as being the practise in France in his day). It was rather a pleasure to hear both the Pope and the Queen prayed for in the canon (as mutatis mutandis, it is Belgium and elsewhere). It was one of the most reverent liturgies I have ever assisted at.
Part of the patrimony, obviously, are pre-Tridentine Catholic liturgical and devotional practises that are eminently useful for pastoral reasons in the rest of the Western Church.
I certainly agree with you Father that a legitimate liturgical pluralism is what is required.
Dear Mr. Couloumbe:
Do you know if Prof. Toporowski and Messrs. Bousfield and Toffoli are still active in the Toronto Branch of the Monarchist League? I was a member there and am now a member of the Victoria Branch. I remember them very well. Are you still involved in the Monarchist movement internationally?
P.K.T.P.
Yes on all counts, save that Dr. Toporowski is retired and living out west (though he was there this past weekend, thankfully!). It was in fact Arthur Bousfield's parish that I attended — and I am looking very much forward to kneeling next to him at Communion!
After "Summorum Pontificum" was published (2007), there was a great deal of commentary on its full meaning in various places. One aspect that many Latin traditionalists tried to 'cover up' was this: a careful reading of S.P. shows that it is licit for priests to offer the Traditional Latin Mass entirely in the vernacular in accordance with translations approved by Rome or by local bishops in the late 1960s (before promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missæ in 1970). That is one reason why, in S.P., you may notice that the 1962 Mass is called by various names but it is never called a 'Latin' Mass (another reason, of course, is that the nNw Mass can be offered in Latin as well.)
Traditionalist such as I generally avoid disucssing this because we don't want priests to do substitute the vernacular for the Latin!
However, the context on this blog is different. According to Article III of A.C., ordinaraite priests are free to offer Mass according to any approved texts of the Latin Church. Therefore, as at today, should any ordinarate be erected, its priests would also have this this option.
Of course, I am not all that happy about this option because the approved translations of the T.L.M. were not in sacral English. On the other hand, they have the Traditional Offertory instead of that nauseating N.O. Offertory; they have the traditional Confiteor and so forth. I am supposing that they will not have the Judica Me at the opening of Mass or the last Gospel, since these were abolished in 1965.
(When the Cardinal Heenan Indult was granted in 1971, Rome specified that the Mass had to be the T.L.M. as it was with the changes of 1965 and 1967 [Tres Abhinc Annos] and 1968 [addition of the Bidding Prayer, I suppose]. So this would not be a pure T.L.M. but still far better than the N.O.)
If this could be allowed, I'd wager that Rome would also allow the English Missal of 1912, which is the Roman Missal of 1884 in sacral English. This would not transmit the Anglican patrimony and I do not suggest it for incoming ordinaraite parishioners specifically. However, I'm betting that the ordinariate may attract many conservative Latins who would like to have a reverent Mass in the vernacular, versus solem orientem, and with all the smells and bells.
I think that the TAC prelates can do a better job than the late 1960s T.L.M. in non-sacral English, and I think that their interim Mass text will be approved before the first ordinariats are erected (or thereabouts). But this is another option. Just about anything woudl be better than the N.O.
P.K.T.P.
Everyone here seems to assume that FiF England will always prefer the N.O. I'd like to suggest that its preference for the N.O. in the past had much to do with a polemic of resistance against the virulent liberals of the Canterbury Communion and their nutty ideas and inane policies. Take away that context, and their perspective could actually change.
It is true enough that, by now, FiF England has become used to the N.O.M. It is also true that its adherence to this liturgy still has cause, since they have not yet made the final break, even as a clear intent. But if the TAC prelates can propose a Mass text that combines the best of the Anglican tradition and some Roman (or else Sarum) parts meant to ensure the Sacrificial meaning of the Rite (viz. Offertory and Canon)–if such a rite combined the best of both–, I can see them choosing to adopt it and letting the N.O. go.
I can also imagine such a text influencing the direction of the fourth edn. of the N.O.M. While just about any change to the N.O. would be a good thing, this sort of change could be an inspiration. In the end, however, the Anglophone N.O. supporters come from non-English backgrounds (including Irish) and won't want sacral wording, either because it sounds to them to be antiquated or artificial or too 'Anglican'. It is foreign to their liturgical culture. So the ordinariates could become the preserve of sacral English for those people who see the value of using hieratic language during a sacred action. Remember that many people want a sacral language but are not comfortable with Latin, a language they do not understand.
P.K.T.P.
Apart from the TAC, what Dioceses or groups (eg Forward in Faith) have applied for Ordinariate status? The Ordinaries will undoubtedly be the ones who, with Papal permission, tell us what we will be using, and will mandate the writing and printing of "new" liturgies or missals etc. to meet the need. Archbishop Hepworth is fond of pointing out that most of the TAC is not English-speaking, and that we English-speaking ones are not as important as we might think! I know in the case of our Anglican Catholic Church of Canada is concerned, a new missal is virtually ready for printing, which is The Canadian BCP (1962) with Sarum additions ala The English Gradual, and with other Mass additions to flesh it out. It is a lovely piece of work, by which I say Mass or hear Mass said daily. The text is already in Rome, to see whether there is any reason to proceed with it any further. The text of an Office Book is also in Rome awaiting comment. The Mass contains the 1962 Canon and the Roman Canon. We are also aware that we must as priests be ready to celebrate the Novus Ordo (I really don't want to do this!) and the SP Mass if our Latin is good enough. As I have been living this preparation for a couple of years now, and find the results quite satisfactory (others may not), please be aware that much work has already been accomplished and submitted to Rome. I await their response eagerly.
Thank you, Father, for this information about the Canadian liturgy. This is one of the most positive developments I have read for a while. Unless, we know these things, we can only speculate and wonder – and assume the worst.
The central idea you express is that specific Ordinariate liturgies would be situated at the level of the Ordinary, and presumably submitted to Rome for approval. This means diversity between the various Ordinariates in the world, keeping in mind that many represent languages other than English. This seems the wisest thing. It is the case in my own situation, living in France. I doubt I will have the luxury of using an Ordinariate rite – if the Archbishop of Rouen asks me to help. That's life and the priestly calling.
Some might feel this "liturgy thing" goes on and on, but it has been necessary in order to appreciate the limits of the Ordinariate project and our fundamental inability to define some kind of "transferable" Anglican patrimony held in common between us all. We need the Papacy and the Universal Church, because we are little more than loose atoms.
On the front page of Anglo-Catholic Central (http://www.AngloCatholic.net) is a liturgical suggestion that may beat any of these ideas.
I am somewhat confused here. If there are islands of Catholic Anglicans that are content with the Novus Ordo, at best a somewhat clumsy adaptation, then why not just a simple convert to Rome? The essence of our patrimony is a deep devotion to liturgy that is artful and profoundly Catholic. Perhaps it is that protestant influence in Cranmer's work that moves us to take up arms in defense of the utterly Catholic. Our history is filled with strife… a strife that reflects in many ways the current battle within the RC.
Benedict did not bid us to convert to the contemporary Roman Church in a way that would result in our cultural assimilation; he invited us to bring our heritage to enrich and feed a See that has been ravaged by an artless decline. There are two levels to the invitation; one for the salvation of souls and the other for the salvation of the Church.
I agree very strongly with this comment, and I am coming from the other side of the pond. I cannot fully understand thsoe Anglicans in the U.K. who want the N.O. However, we should be welcoming also to those we just don't understand. Perhaps these sorts of Anglicans will be drawn gradually back to their patrimony once it becomes celebrated under the great Roman tree.
P.K.T.P.
The choices are over thirty years ago now in England, and so somewhat hard to recover. I lived through them, and I think the problem was this. The repairing of the Prayer Book was completed in England in the mid-1960s ("Series 1") but had already been made intellectually suspect by Dix and Couratin (who held that you could not keep most of Cranmer's words without keeping his doctrine). Simultaneously, there was a widespread belief that use of contemporary English would solve many problems of evangelism. Hence modern liturgy, and modern Roman material was undoubtedly superior to the long series of "alternative services" and eventual "common worship" (falsely so called) of the Church of England.
The loss of patrimony was common to everybody except those who, like me, sought out reactionary parishes and, eventually, TAC. For that minority, patrimony is still alive. For most people in England, and certainly most of that small group which still attends Church of England worship, the Prayer Book (and even its latest repairings) have never been experienced (or not for thirty years).
We now know that contemporary English does not "work". But there is "no way back to before". We may be allowed to adopt a further repaired Prayer Book (or anything else in English liturgical language), but for many who may wish to join us this will be an artificiality which they do not know.
So yes to the Pope's offer of patrimony; but it is not the whole answer to the conversion of England.
This piece of thought gives me an idea, related to Summorum Pontificum, the two "forms" (which is a pragmatic solution) and the reform of the reform. At least in England (I don't know the situation in the US, Canada, etc. well enough), those who want reconstructed or otherwise restored solutions (including the 1928 BCP, Sarum, Tridentine, English Missal, etc.) will be allowed to have them. The mainstream has gone along with the new modern-language books like the Novus Ordo.
Patrimony is not the only thing, though we must do the most possible to ensure the establishment and survival of an Ordinariate. Anglicanism is moribund and Catholicism in England is capturing a considerable amount of attention. The more the anti-clericals and atheists bray on and on, the more people will notice the Church. We must serve the mainstream more and more and bring as much of our influence to bear as possible to help with that reform of the reform – whilst we still have Benedict XVI as Pope and this new way out.
Of course, in England, everything is still being slowed by the Magic Circle and the old guard clinging onto the clapped-out Küng-like ideologies of "progress" and so forth. As Fr Zuhlsdorf keeps saying – brick by brick. It's the only way. Anything else is just smacked down as a cranky cult unworthy of being given the time of day.
We have narrow limits, and this Ordinariate scheme is not going to be easy. We just need to keep our eyes on the objective and the big picture, and stop getting bogged down in too many parochial arguments.
I think it is my turn to be "puzzled" !
Jim wrote:
I am somewhat confused here. If there are islands of Catholic Anglicans that are content with the Novus Ordo, at best a somewhat clumsy adaptation, then why not just a simple convert to Rome?
I tried in my earlier comment to explain why the new missal is used rather than wanted extensively in England, though not as universally [in which I was supported by The Welsh Jacobite] as some seem to think. Jim, may I ask you to re-read my earlier comment [now moved down to #4 at the time of writing, and I will be happy to try and answer any points you feel need clarifying.
To P.K.T.P., who wrote: One aspect that many Latin traditionalists tried to ‘cover up’ was this: a careful reading of S.P. shows that it is licit for priests to offer the Traditional Latin Mass entirely in the vernacular in accordance with translations approved by Rome or by local bishops in the late 1960s (before promulgation of the Novus Ordo Missæ in 1970 . . . Of course, I am not all that happy about this option because the approved translations of the T.L.M. were not in sacral English.
The translations I have in front of me Missale Romanum et Anglicanum (3 vols, Goodliffe Neale 1965,1966) does employ sacral hieratic English – the Almighty is always addressed in the 2nd.person singular. I remember wondering at the time why the prayer book translations were not used where appropriate: a reluctance to find anything good coming out of the Church ofEngland, I suspect, led to "re-inventing the wheel". Differing translations of the Gloria and invitation to the Lord's Prayer were authorised for use in Scotland, Ireland, and England & elsewhere. The Knox translation is used for the scriptures.The Canon itself remained in Latin.
There are some, of course, who regard the 1965 Missal as the culmination of the "organic development " of the 1570 rite
Regards
John U.K.
John,
In reading your #4 again, I take your point. My comment arose from the rather narrow perspective of liturgical preference and was not extended to other aspects of our rich heritage.
As a youth, raised in the RCC in the 1940-50 era, I had a rather large St. Joseph's Missal as my Mass-book. The pages were divided between Latin and English. I was always enchanted by the elegant sacral English of the Tridentine Mass and wished that I could occasionally attend a Mass where it was used. It was not to be and that translation was never approved for use in the celebration.
What a shame. It was as lovely as anything that Cranmer produced and was very like the Knott Mass.
Regards,
Jim
Thank you Jim, for your kind reply. If you look lower down this thread, you will see I have been discussing with Fr.L.R> the fact that in the U.S. the vernacular went straight to addressing God as "You",whereas in G.B. until the ICET texts were approved sacral English was retained, along with the Knos translation of the Scriptures.
P.S. Perhaps that is why certain people over here [U.K.] are suspicious of American English translations??
Regards
John U.K.
Please see this article on the legitimacy for use of the 1964 Missale:
http://catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=43203
The only two draw backs I can see to this missal is the lack of hieratic English and that it weighs nearly ten pounds – I can just see my servers eye bugging out! I own one (imprimatur +Spellman, 1964) and refer to it from time to time. It DOES include the Judica as well as the final Gospel. Interestingly one of the "audible" parts still done in Latin is the Preface. The Roman Canon (plus S Joseph) is to be done “secreto”. I wouldn't be all that upset to have to use this missal, it's the closest thing in the Roman Church to the English Missal. Thanks Mr. Perkins for reminding me of it.
Father LR, thank you for the interesting link. Am I right, therefore, in thinking that whereas the English translation of the 1965 missal authorised for use in Great Britain [ together with two special prefaces granted by indult to G.B. for the Dedication of a Church and for All Saints and Holy Patrons] used hieratic English,that authorised for use in the United States did not?
Regards,
John U.K.
John U.K.,
apparently so. You may look at the text of the 1965 U.S. Englishing of the 1962 missal here: http://www.coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/. I do have a copy at home, and will have to take a look at it when I return this afternoon to see if it is that way. I had remembered it as having sacral English, but perhaps that way a Sunday Missal from the 1950s for lay use.
Another page that relates to the "1965 Missal" is in the Way Back Machine which discusses changes to the Liturgy after the 1967 publication of Tres abhinc annos.
Steve, thank you for the links.
Interesting that the U.S. and U.K. should differ in their approach to the Almighty.
I find the posts (on your second link ) of October 24th & 18th 2005 – HighMass with the 65' Reform and Low Mass with the 65' Reform particularly significant.
Regards
John U.K.
Now that I look at it more closely I notice a few discrepancies and interesting tid bits:
1) Not only the Prefaces are to be done in Latin but also the "Dominus vobiscum. – Et cum spiritu tuo." the "Oremus," and the Collect, Secret and Postcommunion are also in Latin only.
2) It should be pointed out that this missal provides for the Ordinary as well as the Pater noster and dismissal to be *said* in English; however, when the Mass is *sung* all of these elements are to be Latin.
3) Regarding hieratic English: thus begins the Gloria in excelsis: "Glory to God in the highest. And on earth peace to men of good will. We praise you. We bless you. We worship you. We glorify you…" as compared to the Pentecost Sequence: "Come, thou Holy Spirit, come! And from thy celestial home Shed a ray of light divine!" So we notice a mixture of styles.
4) Also of note at the Pater noster when *sung* (in Latin) it is alone sung by the priest with the traditional sung resposory, "Sed libera nos a malo." and silent "Amen." But when it is *said* it is implied that the whole assembly say it together including the "Amen."
It is clear from the copyright page of this missal (1964, imprimatur: Francis Cardinal Spellman) that it was produced under the authority of the "National Conference of Bishops of the United States" and that all English translations are the property of the "Confraternity of Christian Doctrine".
I was unaware that England had its own version. Did Australia do the same? Maybe it's a passing fancy but I wonder if this missal has proven useful to the compilers of the Anglican Catholic Use (especially the hieratic English version in GB) or if this might be a Use that Anglican Catholic priests could take up in assistance to local Roman diocese?
Fr LR wrote:
1) Not only the Prefaces are to be done in Latin but also the “Dominus vobiscum. – Et cum spiritu tuo.” the “Oremus,” and the Collect, Secret and Postcommunion are also in Latin only
Unfortunately, The Missale Romanum et Anglicum contains no kind of "Instruction".
However, it is clear from the lay out that English was authorised for all of the Mass except the Canon, for which no translation is provided, and the "private prayers" of the priest at Communion time. The "Prayer of the Faithful" is entire;ly in English.
Trying to clarify from my somewhat limited collection of liturgical books from this period is difficult. Indeed the lturgical revisions came so thick and fast that I believe at least one liturgical publisher in the U.K. went out of business trying to keep up!
However, J.B.O'Connell, in his The Ceremonies of Holy Week [Burns & Oates, 6th.edn.1966) quotes, regarding the use of the vernacular, from an instruction of the Hierarchy of England & Wales The Reform of the Sacred Liturgy (§ IV) issued on 10 March 1965:
1. If the Liturgy is said, aklk except the Mass must be in Englis . . . If a priest wishes to say the Holy Week Liturgy in whole or in part in Latin for a good reason . . . he may apply to the bishop.
2. Anything sung by the ministers or choir must be in Latin, except, if so desired, hymns and psalms in a version and music approved by the Ordinary.
3. Any part or all of the following may be spoken in English even though they are partof a sung service:
The Lessons; Epistle; Gospel; the Passion;
Palm Sunday: all before the Mass.
Holy Thursday: the Mandatum.
Good Friday: any [part up to and including the Bidding Prayers.
All the rest except the prayer: Perceptio Corporis tui: Domine, no sum dignus.
Holy Saturday: everything up to the beginning of Mass
I have been unable to source a copy of this instruction, but it would appear similar to that issued by the USCCB to which Fr.LR refers, but for more detail see further below.
In the preface to The New Orderr of Holy Week, containing the Revised Latin Text of all Masses and Other Rites for Holy Week together with the New English Version prepared under the auspices of the English National Liturgical Commission (Burns & Oates, Imprimature January 1966) the then Archbishop of Birmingham, George Dwyer, wrote:
When the Constitution on the Liturgy was promulgated the Hierarchy of England & Wales set up a National Liturgical Commission and a Translation Committee of experts to prepare suitable vernacular editions of the liturgical texts. This version of the Holy Week Liturgy is the first-fruits of the Committe's work. . . .the Epistle, Lessons and Gospels may be read in any of the versions approved by the Hierarchy for liturgical use although this edition prints the Knox version. In some case an existing version of a hymn had been adopted.
At the present moment all our liturgy is to a certain extent provisional. . . .
No translation can yet be definitive. Even whils work is in progress, ideas on the style of translation are in constant flux. MoreoverPope Paul has directed the different language groups to do their best to achieve uniform versions of all the major languages. [In fact, both the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy and the subsequent Instruction on putting it into effect spoke of consultation with neighbouring episcopal conferences!] An International Committe of the English-speaking countries is about to start work on this. In the meantime … the Hierarchy has thought well to authorize this present version and directs that it be the sole vernacular used in all churches and chapels of England and Wales for at least three years.
It has been the aim of the Committee to produce a version in an English that is recognizably modern yet with a certain gravity of style appropriate to the subject matter. They avoided of set purpose any atttempt at an archaic or artificially "sacred" style.
A subsequent note in this book, which is people's edition [no music, everything translated in parallel columns with the Latin, rubrics entirely in English] indicates it is authorised for use in Scotland [Scottish variants noted in the text], and that the copyright is aith the Archbishops and Bishops of England and Wales.
I thought it worth reproducing this preface fairly fully, for it is interesting in the light of subseqent develepments, not to say prophetic in places.
Turning to the Altar Missals: as I indicated earlier, though well setout, with good typography and well-bound, they do not contain any sort of General Instruction.
The Missale Romanum et Anglicanum was, I suspect, designed to be used in conjunction with an Ordo Missæ which I do not possess. Part I A prima Dominica Adventus usque ad Sabbatum post Dominicam I Passionis was issued on20th.September, 1965. It had been preceded by Part III on 20th.May, 1965, Temous per Annum post Pentecotem. Part Ia Hebdomada Sancta emerged 11th.February 1966. It alone contains extracts from the Order of Mass, the Prayer of the Faithful and allfrom the Preface on. None of the English is set to chant, though the Latin is fully set. "Thou, thee" is used throughout for God, "And with you" is the rendering of Et cum sptitu tuo. I do not have what I preume would be Part II for Eastertide, so I do not know if it apppeared in time for Easter 1965, 1966 or at all. That Holy Week is part Ia might point to 1965 for Part II.
I also have The Prayer of the Faithful (preface, July 1966, Imprimatur November 1966, finally published 1967, Burn & Oates) which claims to be a fuller collection than that issued in July 1965.
Lastly, I have altar copies of the Ordo Miss 0230 from 1968 and 1970.
That from 1968 received its Imprimatur 7th June 1968, with the translations of the Ordinary being approved by the Vatican on 18th July 1966 and of the Propers on 20 September 1967. It is a mixture of the earlier sacral English translations and the ICET texts that had by then appeared.
E.g.
In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
Lord, show us thy mercy.
Glory be to God on high, and on earth peace to men who are God's friends. We praise thee..
I believe in one God.
And with you has become and also with you.
The Prefaces include the indult prefaces of G.B. for Advent,mThe Blessed Sacrament, the Dedication of a Church, and All Saints and Holy Patrons.
The translation of the Prefaces and Canon Missæ are ICET.
A supplement, bound at the back, Vatican approved 17th.December 1968, Imprimatur29th.January 1969 contains the ICET translations of the New Eucharistic Prayers [2-4) and Prefaces.
There is no music, and the "private" devotions of the priest remain in Latin.
Finally, the 1970 (Goodliffe Neale, 12th January, approved by the Vatican 24th.October,1969 with Jerusalem Bible scriptural texts. All texts are now ICET, only two of the G.B. prefaces survive: Dedicatiojn and All SS.& Patrons, and Latin is relegated to a section at the back headed Ordo Missæ cum Populo with four prefaces and a small selection of propers.
Enclosed in this mass book is a copy of the letter of approbation, signed by Berno Card.Gut Præfectus and, wonder of wonders, A.Bugnini, secretus.
Regards,
John U.K.
What is wrong with the English Missal as from the Ss. Peter and Paul 1921 Edition? This talk of a new Ordinariate mass is not helpful I feel. Simply use the English missal c. 1921 as is. Problem solved. Change the prayers for the Sovereign and Royal Family in republican countries and leave the British Commonwealth and Great Brfitain to the straight English missal.
My Dear Mr. Perkins:
Finally, I feel as if there might be a sliver of hope!!
Someone actually "thinks" (yes, as I do, but that's irrelevant), and realizes that there have been a wealth of translations employing sacral English around for at least "a coon's age". NONE of which have be utilized…
And no, the excuse of "well, they weren't 'officially' sanctioned doesn't fly either. It's beyond sad really, that so many were made to endure such banal and trite "liturgy" for so long, when the solution was at hand.
Bravo!, and well put sir! An equal amount of Bravo! for Papa Ratzinger! We only seek to worship, adore, and commune with the Almighty in some fashion befitting His Majesty………..must be an awfully difficult concept for so many to comprehend.
Many thanks for your posts….very enjoyable reading….
Godspeed in your endeavors!