If I'm not mistaken, Sundays after Pentecost is from the old Roman calendar, while Sundays after Trinity is from the old Sarum calendar. The new American prayerbook uses the former, while the new English book (forget it's name) uses the latter. I guess if one were splitting hairs, Sundays after Trinity could more properly be called part of the Anglican patrimony, or am I mistaken?
Then there is this little thing: in some places (newish) Low Sunday is called the Second Sunday of Easter, while in more traditional places it is called the First Sunday after Easter. The same may be true of Whitsuntide.
It is a distinctive part of our liturgical heritage; and was very common in northern European uses.
It must be remembered that Trinity Sunday is the Octave of Pentecost, and that in the East Pentecost is the feast of the Holy Trinity. By the coming of the Holy Spirit, Christians are given a share in the life of the Trinity. This has the effect of grounding ecclesiology in the worship and the life of God, and helps avoid a particularly modern problem of viewing the Church in democratic terms—which is not a negative criticism of the equally valid southern European tradition of numbering after Pentecost.
The English were in the forefront of promoting Trinity Sunday and the numbering of Sundays after Trinity was part of this doctrinal emphasis, for which our forebears deserve credit. Also, the introduction of Sundays after Pentecost was part of the doctrinal revisionism that characterized the revisers of the '79 American BCP, some of whom clearly did not believe in orthodox trinitarianism. So, I think we have every reason for keeping the number of Sundays after Trinity.
We keep the Sundays after Pentecost in our Anglo-Catholic parish because they are so designated in the Western/Latin lectionary. I certainly would prefer that any new liturgical arrangements for the Ordinariate would preserve that as a legitimate option, as found in the English Missal.
That is curious. My copy of the English Missal numbers Sunday after Trinity.
Actually at present the option for the Ordinariate are to number Sundays after Pentecost or by "ordinary time". As Anglicanorum Coetibus makes clear, the Missal of 1962 is authorized, which numbers Sundays after Pentecost. It is my hope that priests and congregations will avail themselves of this option, at least on occasion. The Book of Divine Worship, following the 1979 BCP does likewise. I suspect it will be grandfathered, at least pro tempore. So no matter what liturgy is about specifically to come out, if it really matters, you will have two choices of liturgical options that will allow you to have Sundays after Pentecost.
I think that most editions of the English Missal made provision for both Sundays after Trinity and Sundays after Pentecost. Which edition are you using?
As to the future, there is only one Ordinariate at present, and, as you point out, the only authorized liturgies are the N.O. (Ordinary Time) or the E.F. and the B.D.W. (Sundays after Pentecost,) but that has more to do, it seems to me, with the fact that Anglican liturgies were little used by the clergy who formed the basis of the English Ordinariate. It is worth noting, however, that only the E.F. retains the historic lectionary, and it may only be used in the Latin language; the B.D.W. uses the modern lectionary. If Sundays after Trinity were permitted for a hypothetical American Ordinariate that would allow continuity with the American '28 B.C.P. lectionary, which I know is still used in some T.A.C. congregations.
I will check my edition. As you can guess with me, it is rather old.
Well, for myself, *I* have no problem with doing it in Latin, but I suspect I am in a small minority. As for the '62 missal, you could request PCED through your ordinary for a derogation from the church's law for Anglican Use congregations to use a translation into English (submitted with the request). It might be looked upon kindly in our case, especially if all the Anglican ordinaries were in agreement.
As for the new Anglican Use liturgy, we will not really know anything until it is promulgated by the Holy See. At that time I am sure there will be a lot of comment. I might add that I have no inside information; I have no idea at this point what the final product will look like. However, in the next few years, especially after more ordinariates are set up, I would not be surprised to see changes made to this liturgy, with the ordinariates acting in consultation. If you have concerns, then the best approach would be to put them in the form of a scholarly paper, and distribute. Then if you can get people on board, follow up with a petition to your ordinary as to the changes you would like to see. This assumes you are in a position to petition, i.e., that you belong to one of the ordinariates. Of course, this may be mute, as all these concerns my be addressed in the liturgy about to be issued.
I might add that, in the present climate, things do get done, and folks concerns are getting addressed, if slowly. I would counsel persistance if you have real concerns, and also not to get yourself into the attitude where "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien", i.e., do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good—as a devout tradi French priest friend of mine used to warn me.
I might add that if folks have concerns, it helps to be respectful of the Holy Father and one's ecclesiastical superiors; they understandably do not respond well to the kind of nastiness into which some traditionalist folk tend to fall. (I do not speak of you personally, this warning is for others out there!)
Yes, it seems a small matter, but Sundays "after Trinity" have been engrained in our patrimony by the BCP tradition.
In the same vein, I would love to see Epiphany celebrated on January 6th (in union with the rest of Christendom), with the following season being "Epiphanytide" (instead of "Ordinary Time"), including Candlemas, the "-gesima" Sundays before Lent, and Shrove Tuesday (instead of Mardi Gras or variations thereof).
Loading ...
If I'm not mistaken, Sundays after Pentecost is from the old Roman calendar, while Sundays after Trinity is from the old Sarum calendar. The new American prayerbook uses the former, while the new English book (forget it's name) uses the latter. I guess if one were splitting hairs, Sundays after Trinity could more properly be called part of the Anglican patrimony, or am I mistaken?
Then there is this little thing: in some places (newish) Low Sunday is called the Second Sunday of Easter, while in more traditional places it is called the First Sunday after Easter. The same may be true of Whitsuntide.
Counting Sundays after Trinity is an historical Anglican preference. It is part of Anglican Patrimony.
It is a distinctive part of our liturgical heritage; and was very common in northern European uses.
It must be remembered that Trinity Sunday is the Octave of Pentecost, and that in the East Pentecost is the feast of the Holy Trinity. By the coming of the Holy Spirit, Christians are given a share in the life of the Trinity. This has the effect of grounding ecclesiology in the worship and the life of God, and helps avoid a particularly modern problem of viewing the Church in democratic terms—which is not a negative criticism of the equally valid southern European tradition of numbering after Pentecost.
The English were in the forefront of promoting Trinity Sunday and the numbering of Sundays after Trinity was part of this doctrinal emphasis, for which our forebears deserve credit. Also, the introduction of Sundays after Pentecost was part of the doctrinal revisionism that characterized the revisers of the '79 American BCP, some of whom clearly did not believe in orthodox trinitarianism. So, I think we have every reason for keeping the number of Sundays after Trinity.
We keep the Sundays after Pentecost in our Anglo-Catholic parish because they are so designated in the Western/Latin lectionary. I certainly would prefer that any new liturgical arrangements for the Ordinariate would preserve that as a legitimate option, as found in the English Missal.
That is curious. My copy of the English Missal numbers Sunday after Trinity.
Actually at present the option for the Ordinariate are to number Sundays after Pentecost or by "ordinary time". As Anglicanorum Coetibus makes clear, the Missal of 1962 is authorized, which numbers Sundays after Pentecost. It is my hope that priests and congregations will avail themselves of this option, at least on occasion. The Book of Divine Worship, following the 1979 BCP does likewise. I suspect it will be grandfathered, at least pro tempore. So no matter what liturgy is about specifically to come out, if it really matters, you will have two choices of liturgical options that will allow you to have Sundays after Pentecost.
I think that most editions of the English Missal made provision for both Sundays after Trinity and Sundays after Pentecost. Which edition are you using?
As to the future, there is only one Ordinariate at present, and, as you point out, the only authorized liturgies are the N.O. (Ordinary Time) or the E.F. and the B.D.W. (Sundays after Pentecost,) but that has more to do, it seems to me, with the fact that Anglican liturgies were little used by the clergy who formed the basis of the English Ordinariate. It is worth noting, however, that only the E.F. retains the historic lectionary, and it may only be used in the Latin language; the B.D.W. uses the modern lectionary. If Sundays after Trinity were permitted for a hypothetical American Ordinariate that would allow continuity with the American '28 B.C.P. lectionary, which I know is still used in some T.A.C. congregations.
I will check my edition. As you can guess with me, it is rather old.
Well, for myself, *I* have no problem with doing it in Latin, but I suspect I am in a small minority. As for the '62 missal, you could request PCED through your ordinary for a derogation from the church's law for Anglican Use congregations to use a translation into English (submitted with the request). It might be looked upon kindly in our case, especially if all the Anglican ordinaries were in agreement.
As for the new Anglican Use liturgy, we will not really know anything until it is promulgated by the Holy See. At that time I am sure there will be a lot of comment.
I might add that I have no inside information; I have no idea at this point what the final product will look like. However, in the next few years, especially after more ordinariates are set up, I would not be surprised to see changes made to this liturgy, with the ordinariates acting in consultation. If you have concerns, then the best approach would be to put them in the form of a scholarly paper, and distribute. Then if you can get people on board, follow up with a petition to your ordinary as to the changes you would like to see. This assumes you are in a position to petition, i.e., that you belong to one of the ordinariates. Of course, this may be mute, as all these concerns my be addressed in the liturgy about to be issued.
I might add that, in the present climate, things do get done, and folks concerns are getting addressed, if slowly. I would counsel persistance if you have real concerns, and also not to get yourself into the attitude where "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien", i.e., do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good—as a devout tradi French priest friend of mine used to warn me.
I might add that if folks have concerns, it helps to be respectful of the Holy Father and one's ecclesiastical superiors; they understandably do not respond well to the kind of nastiness into which some traditionalist folk tend to fall. (I do not speak of you personally, this warning is for others out there!)
Yes, it seems a small matter, but Sundays "after Trinity" have been engrained in our patrimony by the BCP tradition.
In the same vein, I would love to see Epiphany celebrated on January 6th (in union with the rest of Christendom), with the following season being "Epiphanytide" (instead of "Ordinary Time"), including Candlemas, the "-gesima" Sundays before Lent, and Shrove Tuesday (instead of Mardi Gras or variations thereof).