Fr. Chori’s piece on attending a local Novus Ordo Mass was a pretty good summing up of the perplexing experience that many Anglicans have when they attend Mass in a Roman Catholic parish. Over the years since I’ve become a Catholic, I’ve played with the analogy that the difference between Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism is like the difference between a big-box store and a boutique. I thought I would offer that analogy here, which comes from my own experience doing fundraising and promotion for both.
What follows applies in a very general way to the average Roman Catholic parish in the States and its Anglican counterpart. The language is largely that of business and marketing, but the primary aim is to get at the underlying cultural realities. This is only an analogy, not a comparison of two Platonic forms, so please take it in that spirit.
The Catholic Parish as Big-Box Store
A Roman Catholic parish is like a big-box store. The average parish in the US has around 3,250 members. In theory, at least, you attend a Roman Catholic Parish because it is the parish in which you legally reside and it provides a product that is generally uniform. The Roman Catholic knows that he can walk into a parish anyplace in the English-speaking world and plug in the standard responses, no matter whether a given parish is having a praise band or chanting the minor propers in Latin, because the structure of the Mass does not vary greatly. If you are a Roman Catholic, you don’t need a Missal or a service sheet because there aren’t many different texts. Like at McDonald’s or Walmart, the person who walks into a new parish will know his way around and what’s on the menu.
The parish store is set up to provide what the worshipper needs in a timely and efficient way. There may be six Masses offered on Sunday but, in most places, they’ll be pretty much the same right down to the hymns. The people in the pews are at Mass for many reasons but, at bottom, they come because they believe they are supposed to be there. No matter how much we have heard about the “gathered community” in the last 40 years, Catholics who still attend Mass regularly haven’t entirely lost the sense that you go to Mass on Sunday because it is an obligation you owe to God. There is less thought of how the Mass moves or speaks to the individual and, despite all efforts, the Mass remains very vertical, even if many of its more transcendental features have been minimized in most places and too many priest try to stamp it with their own personalities.
The parish is a franchise of the Roman Catholic Church, an international brand with a high degree of global consistency. The parish belongs to the Church in the same way that the local big-box store belongs to a corporation. While individual priests may put their stamp on a place for a time, they move around like employees of other large corporations. The district office at the local chancellery and headquarters in Rome plant, open, and close parishes based on large population trends to meet the organizational mission statement found in the Great Commission. An individual parish exists to meet the needs of the faithful in an area to serve the larger mission of the Church. The local parish is a means not an end.
The Anglican Parish as Boutique
Anglicanism is boutique religion. The average ECUSA parish has about 100 members. In areas where there is a choice, people belong to a parish because it is Anglo-Catholic, Evangelical, ’28 Prayer Book, because they like the rector, because they don’t like the rector across town, or any number of other reasons. Each parish will vary widely based on the Prayer Book it uses, the proclivities of the rector, and its historic churchmanship. You need a Prayer Book or an individual parish’s Mass booklet to follow all of these variants. You need to know how to flip around because there are so many possible options. You need a service sheet to know what Rite you’re in, whether this is a place that says the Agnus Dei, where the peace and Gloria go, where there are and aren’t hymns, and when and where to find coffee hour.
As in a high-end retail store, Anglicans expect service. They expect to be recognized when they come in the door. They expect their priest to know a great deal about them. They expect a service that is congruent with their own ecclesiology and theology and, if they’re not getting what they think they need, they may go elsewhere. The parish is more likely to be seen by its members as a voluntary community and both the clergy and the laity understand this. The parish is their parish. They feel responsible for its growth and well being. They’re proud of what they’ve accomplished and they want to share it with others. The local parish rises, falls, and gets by from week to week based on this commitment.
In most cases, the Anglican parish comes into existence and continues to exist because its members wish for it to do so. There may be four parishes in a small area because local Anglicans had four different ideas about what Anglicanism is. The diocesan office may provide materials and suggestions, but so long as the parish pays its way, it is left to manage its affairs, just as the independent proprietor may sell whatever he wishes in his store so long as he is covering his expenses. National and International bodies may set a few norms and procedures, but the parish, like its members, chooses freely in most cases whether to accept these and may, in extreme circumstances, transfer its membership to another body that is thought to better match the parish’s vision of the church. In this environment, loyalty to an individual place of worship or concept of churchmanship compete freely with and often trump the larger and softer brand identity of Anglicanism.
Hard Times for Big-Boxes and Boutiques
I have been in many conversations in the last few years about the Anglicanization of American Catholicism. In many cities Roman Catholics now drive long distances on Sunday to attend the Reform-of-the-Reform Parish, the Extraordinary Form Parish, the Charismatic Parish, or the Social Justice Parish. While ethnic and order parishes always provided some variety in the system, the geographic model has entered a period of unparalleled flux since the reforms to the liturgy added more variety to what was once a much more uniform product. Catholics of the last two generations have taken a very American attitude toward religion, expecting individual needs and interests to be met. As religious affiliation has become less obligatory in the larger culture, the Catholic Church has for the first time felt the effects of a society where people shop for services that meet their needs before making what has increasingly become a voluntary commitment.
The Anglican model has felt the pinch as well. As attendance has declined, the much smaller parishes of this model have lost their viability even more quickly, despite usually having greater resources per communicant. The Anglo-Catholic parish has often had to merge with the Morning Prayer parish a few blocks away and cook up a suitably anodyne product that is acceptable if not optimal for the members of both, usually leading to further losses. In the Continuum, the Missal Catholics and the Prayer Book Society folks have often found themselves in a similar position. The focus on the survival of the parish looms ever larger as numbers shrink. There is little central planning or management to meet larger trends and little authority to do so. The number of products has proliferated as consumers have become more demanding, but there is often an insufficient customer base to deliver a particular form of Anglicanism in an efficient way and those who are not having their perceived needs met often opt out of the system entirely.
What We Can Learn from Both Models
To my mind, the remaining strength of the big-box model is its understanding of the parish as a means of meeting a larger objective. The good of the brand, which is the Catholic Faith, is primary. Good and bad priests come and go, parishes come and go, but the Catholic identity has shown considerable ability to transcend this and endure. While the services in an individual franchise may be subpar or excellent, people are less likely to shop elsewhere because they believe in and are loyal to the brand. They come not because it’s the best church or the right church for them but because they believe it is The Church.
The strength of the boutique model is its sense of mission. Anglicans know that the success of the family business depends on everyone doing their share, whether it is teaching Sunday School, being a greeter, asking the neighbors to come to church, or giving generously. Each member or potential member is valued for what they added to the success of the enterprise—a shop with 100 customers sees them differently than one with 3,200. In the age of voluntary affiliation and diminishing resources, the boutique model offers a model for stability, growth, and church planting on a scale unfamiliar to most Roman Catholics.
The Ordinaraite offers the wider Church an opportunity to employ what is best in both of these models. The dangers that go with both will be present and there will be many skeptics within and without, but I think we may all learn some very valuable things.
Related posts:
- Anglican Catholic and Roman Catholic Mutual Liturgical Enrichment
- A Flowering of Anglican Use Parishes
- US Roman Catholic Bishops Approve New Translation
- Myth # 4: This is a disguised strategy by the Roman Catholic Church to make us convert individually rather than granting the possibility of true corporate reunion.
- Rite of Mass Approved in the Anglican Catholic Church in Australia on August 15th, 2003
Very interesting article, Brother, with excellent points.
My observations over the past thirty years in the Catholic Church have led me to the thought that most mega-parishes in the suburbs are more like malls than big-box stores, however. How so? I've noticed that in many of the big territorial parishes around us, there's a tendency to establish boutiques within the big box setting, rather like the separate shops within a mall. This happens liturgically, with people opting for a quiet early Mass, or perhaps the more boisterous "youth" Mass, or more usually the hymn-sandwich Mass, and their circle of parish acquaintances are centered there. It happens also through the variety of activities or programs, with some people throwing all their energy into the pro-life group, or the ACTS group, etc., again giving them a smaller community with which they can identify. There seems to be a need for people to find a smaller group within the wider parish, which indicates to me that our Anglican model might will find a ready market (and by that, I don't mean to reduce this to a mundane level). And this doesn't mean that our parishes need to stay extremely small. Our own experience of growth shows me that the "boutique" model can grow quite large, without losing its character. I believe this comes in part because ours is a personal parish, rather than a territorial parish — and that will be the case with the parishes of an Ordinariate. People don't come because they happen to live in our territory; they come by choice because they are looking particularly for what our parish is.
Father Phillips,
You've certainly been a pioneer in the building on the best of both worlds and I agree that the model is scalable. I think many of us would like to hear more about the lessons learned in church planting and growth by those of you who were pioneers in the Anglican Use.
I think that the mall analogy has much to recommend it and that people are looking for that smaller group identity. If I had made this a longer piece, I would have talked about how a parish now has to meet needs for human community that other institutions shared a generation or two ago . The Protestant mega-churches have been incredibly sophisticated in the way they have grasped this. Anglicanism, with its love of guilds and societies dedicated to different groups and interests has much to offer here since these groups both give people small group identity and tie them to a larger group identity with people in other parishes.
I think that the big box vs. boutique is an apt analogy. I would add a few things, from the mainstream RC perspective.
First, if you don't like the Novus Ordo and the participation of women, why do you come? That's the way we do it. At the end of the Chori post, I sort of felt like I had invited someone to dinner who had criticized the menu, the decor and the guest list. That's what we do. Like it, or…..
Second, if the Ordinariate takes hold (and we have a few Anglican use parishes in the US now), don't expect it to really change the US Catholic church. How could it, given the small numbers of people who might be in those parishes? Even if 5000 joined in 20 different parishes, they would be a little drop in the 65 million member US Catholic church. I am not saying that in a triumphalistic way. Just the reality of the situation.
Third, sort of a blend of points numbers one and two, the vast majority of the people in that 65 million (or the 20 million who regularly go to mass), like what they get, for the most part. There is sometimes the homily that is vacuous, the hymn that one can't stand, and the three year old throwing Cheerios two rows back, but that is church life and it isn't going to change much. We are there for the sacraments and the worship, and perhaps the connection to the community. We are not there (and I am a 'pro' church worker, so I am speaking for others, not for myself) to quibble about the liturgy. Most don't care, as long as basic needs are met. (I've tried to have this discussion with my own family when I'm home to visit and I get a glassy eyed "but the time is right and we can go to that great brunch place I told you about nearby.")
What is going to happen? The Ordinariate parishes are going to be just another optional flavor, just as Ukrainian or Byzantine or Melkite are now. I have worked for the church for over 30 years. I've never been to a Byzantine or Melkite church – and to a Ukrainian church once – and I know they exist. Most Catholics won't even know that the Anglicans are here. (They don't now, at least.) That doesn't make one insignificant. God counts us all! But it does mean that if one has found a home in the Catholic church, welcome! However, if in the conglomeration no one notices you are here, don't be terribly surprised.
Curmudgeon, those of us who have come (or are in the process) aren't doing it to be noticed. We just got tired of trying to fill our bellies with the "husks that the swine did eat…" Nor do we expect our presence to change the Church in any dramatic way. But we're here — or will be soon — and we're adding a bit of seasoning to the recipe…
Curmudgeon:
The current status quo in Catholic parishes is liturgical apostasy – a celebrated rite that is barely recognizable as something Christian, let alone Catholic. I don't speak of the Novus Ordo per se, but the Novus Ordo as it is celebrated in 99.99% of Roman-rite Catholic parishes.
If this is REALLY the status quo we must expect for the next several generations, and get used to, at what point do we say that the "gates of Hell" have prevailed against God's Church? We HAVE to believe that the present apostasy is temporary, and not acclimate ourselves to it. It must be resisted, not accepted.
From the RC Traditionalist perspective:
Curmudgeon wrote, regarding the Novus Ordo (aka Ordinary Rite) Mass:
"That's the way we do it." and
"That's what we do. Like it, or….."
In my experience of the Novus Ordo world, the so called "we" usually refers to the progressives on the Liturgical Committee who think they have the mandate to decide how "we" are going to "do" Mass. After Summorum Pontificum, and now Anglicanorum Coetibus, it is becoming increasingly difficult to pretend that this "we" represents the "mainstream". The period of time for this type of thinking is quickly coming to a close.
No one person, and no group that is in good standing in our Church, should feel pressured or intimidated to acquiesce to the "privilege" of second class membership. A passing numerical advantage for one group is not a licence to bully, or to boast.
If I have misread your post, Curmudgeon, please show what I have missed. If so, I'll be more than happy to modify my comments.
I work in a pretty conservative parish. And have for quite a while. The whole thing: chant, some Latin in every Sunday mass. Our school children can sing the Sanctus and Agnus in Latin. I think that if I showed that accusation of "liturgical apostasy" to the priests with whom I work, it would evoke the 'snort heard 'round the world.'
I was reacting to the items mentioned in the original Chori post:
"its not reverent enough", "why didn't we kneel more?", "there wasn't even a confession of sin!", "the sermon was too short", and "they had a woman in the chancel again!"
And these items are not "liturgical apostasy" but the NO as it is done most of the time and some of the time it is done rather well. (And sometimes, not. Have I seen horrors? Of course. I grew up in the '70's and I don't choose to live there now.)
Moreover, I have been to many, many episcopal and not so many papal masses where women are readers or servers. (Including Westminster Cathedral. I was just there two Sundays ago.)
That is the NO. You may not like it, and choose Anglican use or Extraordinary Rite. Which is why they are there: so that we can worship as one church with different styles. But style is not theology (nor apostasy.) It is what is preferred by some and not by others.
It is not the work of the devil, but the work of the Spirit. What would you think if you were plopped down in Zairean rite in Congo, which is fully approved, but I think not what you are used to? If one is an RC Traditionalist, fine. But to call the mass as it is celebrated 99.99% of the time "apostasy" is just untrue and pretty disparaging to our central act of worship.
Guys,
The internet is full of places to discuss what those of us who are already Roman Catholics are thrilled or dismayed with. If you want to have that discussion, there are places for it.
Let's try to stay on topic and, more importantly, stay charitable.
I always try to check off these three questions in the affirmative before I post:
1. Is it truthful?
2. Is it kind?
3. Is it necessary?
Curmudgeon:
The vast majority of the Catholic Traditionalists I know do recognize the full validity of the Ordinary Rite, and many of us worship God at this Mass when on travel, vacation, or due to some other circumstances. It goes without saying that this Mass can be said reverently in an edifying way, as EWTN demonstrates daily. It is also understood that this Mass allows for a certain amount of inculturation, so to speak. None of these should be problems from the Traditionalist point of view.
The question is with the environment this Mass finds itself in, as you touched on in your post. Specifically, the problem is with the "we" – is the local Liturgical Council and its allies in control of this Mass, with the priest essentially acting as a temporary contractor, or is the Bishop fully in control of this liturgy? In the field, this Mass all too often seems to be an unwanted orphan.
Tangentially, one of the differences between the two rites is that in the Extraordinary Rite there are no Liturgical Councils, and there never will be. Part of the animus against this rite seems to arise from this fact. Without this tool, it is very difficult to impose and maintain a specific political profile on the parish.
Hmmm.
In my experience, the liturgy committee has sort of gone the way of the dodo bird.
Which is not say that one no longer plans. But, one is planning for smooth execution, not innovation.
My two moments of revelation: Once in the 'seventies, at college, when we sat down to plan Palm Sunday and had a thirty minute discussion on the "theme." Finally, we decided that the theme was the Passion of the Lord. OK!
Second, I was on a committee that spent meeting after meeting during Lent coming up with the credal promises for Easter. I was appalled and asked if we could perhaps profess what the apostles had, as I didn't want to sit in the pews and ask myself, "Do I believe in what the committee came up with this year?" The staff member in charge allowed as how she didn't believe in the standard Creed, ergo the discussion.
That, I think, was a) the end of my use for liturgy committees and b) the beginning of the end of the last one I was aware of.
I am not speaking for the entire United States, and I know that some egregious nonsense is still being perpetrated on the people of God. (And I have been responsible in decades past for some myself. Mea culpa.)
But, I honestly do think that era is mostly over. At least, as far as I have seen, for quite awhile.
Not to totally beat a dead horse, the quibbles that got this thread going however were not goofy liturgical innovations but the NO as it is done according to the book.
Thank you for your comments, Curmudgeon.
It would be interesting to take a statistical sample today and find out how many parishes in our country have functioning liturgical committees, and how many don't. It would also be interesting to know how this correlates with the political profiles of these parishes. Interesting work for Father Greely's group, perhaps?
My experiences with such committees were negative, even in a parish headed by a conservative (in the religious meaning of the word) priest. On issues such as art work, devotions, tabernacle, kneeling during the consecration, or the presence of the crucifix – the common denominator was "we grew out of these things, we don't want them, we don't want to go back to those days". I never got the impression that they thought the faithful should be consulted on any of these issues – the vanguard decides for the masses.
In my experience such committees still exist, and all too often function as conduits for various ideologies that don't mix well with the fullness of our Church's teachings.
No worries about that. I know that many just want a place to feel welcome and worship. I was reacting to the original post about which Br. Stephen wrote.
I think I was also reacting to what I have read from some, along the lines of "this will accelerate the reform of the reform" etc. It will add more people, possibly, to that crowd, but in my experience, that is a pretty small crowd to begin with. I think anyone is certainly welcome (ala James Joyce and "Here comes everybody"). But I don't think it will affect the character of the wider church in a very perceptible way. (Any more than the inclusion of many of the Eastern Rites did.)
"Any more than the inclusion of many of the Eastern Rites did."
There lies the difference. The Eastern Rites are not within the Latin Rite and the Ordinariate will be. The Ordinariate clergy will most probably than not be asked to supply for the local RC parish. We will be interacting with the local parish priests, community, and bishops. We will go on retreats together and the lay people will also. The Ordinary will be part of the local Bishops Conference. The interaction will be endless! Of course we will have an effect on each other, and this for the best, Lord willing. So, for all of us 'Home' is the Catholic Church, where Anglican Catholics will be sharing the largest bedroom in that house called the Latin Rite. Happy dreams!
Although I liked the piece, I think the analogy the author draws would have been more apropos in the pre-liturgical train wreck Catholic Church, when liturgy was often uninspired but still conformed to an archetype that was recognizable as traditional Christian worship. I don't think most people today see the Catholic parish as representative of a "trusted brand." Not so much Walmart as K-mart: dingy and downbeat, dated but not classic, and not selling much of anything that anybody wants, unless you happen to live next door and it's the easiest thing for picking up some Palmolive or a spunge in a pinch. Think chapter 11.
Also, I'm not sure who he's talking about here: "While the services in an individual franchise may be subpar or excellent, people are less likely to shop elsewhere because they believe in and are loyal to the brand. They come not because it’s the best church or the right church for them but because they believe it is The Church."
In my experience, the people who believe the Catholic Church is the one true, etc. are the people most likely to shop around and suffer in the present environment, and they are not the typical Mass goer. For most who go, they are there because by accident of birth or some other contingency, they happen to be Catholic and, lacking religious interest or sensibility adequate to motivate them to decide what religion they might really want to make themselves a part of, they do what they already know. Most Catholic just use the Church for vague religious consolation and to mark the milestones of life: birth, marriage, death, etc.
I have rarely read a more accurate analysis. I would dare to say that if the Pope simply intended us Anglicans to integrate into mainstream parish life, he was wasting his time and did something completely pointless in issuing Anglicanorum Coetibus.
Gilbert,
A couple clarifications:
I agree that there's much more range now, but whatever the priest is doing at the altar and whatever the liturgical style, the people still make the same responses and the shape of the Mass is pretty much the same wherever you go. Certainly this was much more true 50 years ago.
As for franchise, I'm not talking here about people who say "it's the one true Church and everything is perfect." Instead, I mean that Catholics think of themselves as Catholics. It's a rare thing for a Roman Catholic to wake up on Sunday morning and decide to bail on Mass and go see what the Methodists are doing. When you say, "Most Catholic just use the Church for vague religious consolation and to mark the milestones of life: birth, marriage, death, etc.," that's part of what I mean here: When folks need something, they go to Mass; when a child is born, they baptize it; when someone dies, there's a wake with the Rosary. There's a high degree of givenness about these things even if the people don't think of themselves as highly devoted.