Some Thoughts about the Ordinariate Liturgy

This is the talk I delivered at the recent International Symposium: "Council and Continuity" which took place in Phoenix, Arizona. It contains some of my own observations about the place of The Book of Divine Worship as a foundational document in the future Ordinariate liturgy.

THE BOOK OF DIVINE WORSHIP: A Catholic Claim to Anglican Patrimony

by Fr. Christopher G. Phillips

The Book of Divine Worship is one of the results of the implementation of the Pastoral Provision of Blessed John Paul II, which he approved in 1980, and which opened the way for Anglicans to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church while maintaining worthy elements of their Anglican heritage. In this brief presentation, we are looking particularly at the Book of Divine Worship as it contains many of those elements, and as part of the Church’s response to requests which had come from various corners of Anglicanism, but most especially from some Episcopal clergy in the United States.

The initial appeal made to the Holy See included a request for the Catholic ordination of Anglican clergy, with the possibility of dispensations from celibacy for married clergy, which was granted. It included also the request for some sort of parish structure to which the laypeople could belong, which was granted. And it included a request for elements of our Anglican liturgical heritage to be incorporated into a fully Catholic liturgy. This, too, was granted. It is this liturgical aspect of the Pastoral Provision which interests us for the purposes of this presentation.

When we made the request for “elements of our liturgical heritage” to be approved, those of us who asked knew very much what was in our minds. In addition to the daily Offices of Morning and Evening Prayer, it was a request for what would be needed for parish life, not only such things as the Rite of Baptism, Matrimony, and Burial of the Dead, but especially it was a request for a fully Catholic rite of the Mass.

The liturgical life which had formed us, and which had nurtured in us the desire for full unity with the Catholic Church, had always found its expression in the traditional Missals found in Anglo-catholicism – whether the English Missal (known as the Knott Missal) or the Anglican Missal, or the American Missal – all of which are variations based upon the same principle; namely, the supplementing of the Book of Common Prayer to make it a more Catholic expression of our faith. Although the various Anglican Missals had been developed while we were in a state of separation from the Holy See, nonetheless these developments tended to focus and define our desire for Catholic unity, and so our request was based on our desire to bring this enriched form of Prayer Book worship into the fertile soil of full Catholic communion.

In 1983 a special committee was established by the Holy See, under the jurisdiction of the Sacred Congregation for Sacraments and Divine Worship (as the CDW was called then), in conjunction with the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The task of the committee was to propose a liturgical book to be used by the parishes and congregations being established under the terms of the Pastoral Provision. I was privileged to serve on that committee. Then-Archbishop (later Cardinal) Virgilio Noe served as chairman, and there were various liturgists and theologians taking part. I was the only member of the committee who would actually be using the liturgy we were to discuss.

As we began our deliberations, it became evident the members of the committee did not all have the same agenda – and that, of course, would not be unexpected. The majority of the membership did not share an Anglican background, and so had not been formed by an Anglican liturgical life – again, that would be expected, and it was perfectly reasonable that the committee membership would be comprised of people from different backgrounds.

Within a short time after beginning our work, it became clear that there were three positions developing within the committee. There was the position (certainly my position) that all of the Anglican Missal tradition should be approved; there was the position that none of the Anglican Missal tradition should be approved; and there was the position that we should pick and choose, incorporating bits and pieces of the Book of Common Prayer.

The Book of Divine Worship which resulted shows much of the strain we experienced within the committee. It is marked by evidence of necessary compromise and committee decisions. There is some evidence of the Missal tradition; however, there is even more evidence of the desire by many on the committee to jettison that tradition, and to make this a liturgy more contemporary in its style, which meant that much of the source material was taken from the 1979 Book of Common Prayer – a version of the Prayer Book which none of us who had made the initial request had ever even used.

In some ways, the Book of Divine Worship is an unsatisfying book, easily criticized by those on both banks of the Tiber. In some important instances, it is incomplete. There is a jarring mixture of linguistic styles within it. It has the feeling of being a “cut and paste” document, because, in a very real sense, it is exactly that. Bits of the 1928 Book of Common Prayer have been joined with pieces of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer. The Offertory Rite from the modern Roman rite has been inserted. The Gregorian Canon has been lifted out of the traditional English Missal, and inserted as an alternate form of the First Eucharistic Prayer, but it bears the marks of some ICEL adaptations in the words of institution, and with the Mysterium Fidei separated from its tradition place. Even such things as the magnificent Prayer of Humble Access – so much a part of our traditional preparation before receiving Holy Communion – is in a truncated version, quite different from its more traditional and familiar form.

A list of the shortcomings of the Book of Divine Worship could go on at some length, but to what end? Its importance is not so much in what it contains; rather, it is important because of what it is. The existence of the Book of Divine Worship, as a fully-approved Catholic liturgy, means that it is – at the very least – a place-holder, a “foot in the door,” if you will. For the first time, because of the approval given to the Book of Divine Worship, the mellifluous English translations of Thomas Cranmer were fully incorporated into a liturgy of the Catholic Church. What Dr. Cranmer would think of such a thing, we cannot know; however, although his heretical theology has no place here, his brilliant skills as a translator most certainly do. It is this “Cranmerian” or “Prayer Book” style of English which is perhaps one of the greatest treasures of our Anglican patrimony, and it is what defines the traditional versions of the Anglican Missal. It is what moves the Anglican Missal away from simply being the Extraordinary Form in English, and transforms it into a liturgy which is firmly grounded in the traditional Catholic rite of the Mass, but expressed in a particularly Anglican way, with specific Anglican enhancements. It is this “Prayer Book” style of expression which is basic to the Book of Divine Worship. In fact, the “cut and paste” sections of the Book of Divine Worship are immediately evident, because there are portions of it which depart from this traditional style of English.

We should make a special note that it is not simply a matter of including “thee” and “thou” in the text. There is something else about the soaring phrases and time-proven sentences which make them so memorable and so pleasing to the ear. Consider, for instance, the Collect for Purity, one of the opening prayers of the Mass, which has its roots in an ancient collect, but which has been superbly translated by Cranmer:

Almighty God, unto whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid: Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of thy Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love thee, and worthily magnify thy holy Name; through Christ our Lord. Amen.

Or, even lovelier I think, the Prayer of Humble Access, said just before Holy Communion:

We do not presume to come to this thy Table, O merciful Lord, trusting in our own righteousness, but in thy manifold and great mercies. We are not worthy so much as to gather up the crumbs under thy Table. But thou art the same Lord whose property is always to have mercy. Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood, and that we may evermore dwell in him, and he in us. Amen.

Certainly, the sentiments expressed in these and so many of our traditional prayers make them memorable. But there is more to those prayers than just the thoughts contained in them. There are principles having to do with the particular rhythm of the words, and the cadence of the phrases, which were put into practice and perfected by those who compiled the prayers found in the Book of Divine Worship, and which we consider to be an important part of our patrimony.

There is an excellent essay titled “The Prayer Book as Literature,” written by Dr. W. K. Lowther Clarke in 1932 and included in his larger work, Liturgy and Worship. In his essay he discusses possible reasons for the beauty of some of the phrases we use in our worship. In part, he says, “A particular theory has recently been propounded to account for the literary qualities of the sixteenth-century Prayer Book, namely, the survival of the cursus, or flow of the cadence in prose. The beauty of Latin prose depended on the arrangement of long and short syllables, especially at the end of the sentence… The cursus had three main forms: planus, with the accent on the second and fifth syllable from the end; tardus, on the third and sixth; and velox, on the second and seventh.”

Just as music follows certain rules to achieve a beautiful end, so it is with literature. Excellent writing does not consist simply of stringing words together. It involves a rhythm. It shows sensitivity to the zenith of a phrase. It allows for a cadence. In the liturgy, when we think of a prayer as being “beautiful,” it describes not only the sentiment it contains, but also the way in which the thought is expressed. This is why so many contemporary prayers are unmemorable. The ancient principle of cursus has been put aside because of the mistaken notion that ignoring it would somehow make prayers clearer.

The “Prayer Book style” (if I may call it that) has survived in the Book of Divine Worship, and it is part of the very patrimony being referred to by Pope Benedict XVI in his Apostolic Constitution, Anglicanorum coetibus. In the third section of that Constitution, the Holy Father says,

III. Without excluding liturgical celebrations according to the Roman Rite, the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See, so as to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.

We should notice an important statement within that section of Anglicanorum coetibus, where it refers to “…the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See…” One of the principles expounded by some members of the 1983 committee was a requirement that the only material that could be used in the Book of Divine Worship was material which could be found in a Prayer Book which had been approved by an official Anglican body. It was this (mistaken, I believe) requirement that kept out liturgical material from the traditional Anglican Missals, which had not received such authorization, even though such material was very much a part of Anglican tradition. But Anglicanorum coetibus states clearly that the Ordinariates may use elements of the Anglican tradition “which have been approved by the Holy See,” with no reference to previous official Anglican approval.

Now that we are entering the era of the Anglican Ordinariates, we have a unique liturgical opportunity. In fact, although the title of this short presentation is “The Book of Divine Worship: A Catholic Claim to Anglican Patrimony,” I think that title might be backwards. In light of what Anglicanorum coetibus is calling for, a more accurate title might be “An Anglican Claim to Catholic Patrimony.” In other words, we want – indeed, we need – a fully Catholic and historic liturgy, which can be expressed in a particularly Anglican way. We need a liturgy with its own integrity – not a “cut and paste” effort which attempts to put an “Anglican veneer” on an invented liturgical use. The Book of Divine Worship was a necessary first step towards an authentic Anglican Use liturgy. At the press conference on the day Anglicanorum coetibus was announced to the world, Archbishop DiNoia held up a copy of the Book of Divine Worship and stated that it would be a “template” for the Ordinariate liturgy. But we should not stop with a “first step,” nor should we consider a “template” to be a finished product. This liturgical chapter in the Church’s history must have its place in the hermeneutic of continuity.

Some of us have been using the texts of the Book of the Divine Worship in public worship for a generation. Because our spiritual and liturgical lives were formed by the Anglican Missals of the past, so we have attempted to uphold that important hermeneutic of continuity by conforming the Book of Divine Worship to those Missals as completely as the rubrics would allow. Our efforts are now confirmed by the words of Anglicanorum coetibus itself: that the members of the Ordinariates are “to maintain the liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion within the Catholic Church, as a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.”

The various editions of the Anglican Missals are undoubtedly part of Anglican tradition, since their very purpose was to enhance and enrich the Prayer Book liturgy, moving it in a more Catholic direction. These Missals were used by Anglo-Catholics within the Anglican Communion throughout the world. Those of us who entered into full communion through Blessed John Paul’s Pastoral Provision a generation ago, were using some version of the Anglican Missal up until the time of our reception, and those Anglicans awaiting their reception into the Church through the Ordinariate continue to worship according to a traditional Anglican Missal.

Certainly, the Ordinariate Catholics who wish to use the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite – or even the Extraordinary Form – have full permission to do that. It is stated very clearly in Anglicanorum coetibus, and in fact that is presently the preference in the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham in England.

However, for those who will enter the Ordinariate in the United States, or Canada, or Australia, there is a clear preference for a liturgy which exhibits a hermeneutic of continuity with the historic Missals which have been foundational to the spirituality which has brought us home to the Holy Catholic Church.

The Church has called for an Anglican Ordinariate liturgy. We know this liturgy is to have the Book of Divine Worship as its starting point. The Book of Divine Worship is now poised to be enriched and completed by what we have known in the various editions of the Anglican Missal. Therefore, to ignore the Missals in the development of a global Anglican Use liturgy for use in the Personal Ordinariates would be not only a rupture with the past, but it would miss the clear expectation expressed in Anglicanorum coetibus, to maintain those good things from our Anglican heritage which have nurtured our faith.

Author: Fr. Christopher Phillips

Fr. Christopher G. Phillips is the pastor of Our Lady of the Atonement Catholic Church in San Antonio, Texas, where he has served for the past twenty-eight years. He is the founding pastor of the first Anglican Use parish, erected in 1983 under the terms of the Pastoral Provision. Fr. Phillips was ordained as an Anglican for the Diocese of Bristol, England, in 1975. After serving as Curate for three years at St. Stephen Southmead, he returned to the United States and served in two Episcopal parishes in the Diocese of Rhode Island. In 1981 he left the Episcopal Church and moved with his family to Texas, where he was subsequently ordained as a Catholic priest in 1983. Fr. Phillips and his wife, JoAnn, have been married for forty years. They have five children, all grown and married, and three grandchildren.

84 thoughts on “Some Thoughts about the Ordinariate Liturgy”

  1. Surely this is an Anglo-Catholic patrimony as mainstream Anglicanism never used the Missal. In fact use of the Missal was deemed illegal in the Church of England, and less than 5 per cent of parishes ever used it.

    As a former Anglican I can honestly say I never was taught to pray to the Saints or for the dead, or to understand the eucharist as a propitiatary sacrifice for the living and the dead. I belive my experience is that of most Anglicans.

    1. I believe I made that point by stating that the Missals were not authorized by Anglican officialdom; however, the fact that they were used (apparently far more extensively in "the Colonies" than in England) makes them very much part a part of our Anglican tradition.

      1. The Episcopal Church in the Philippines started out as very Anglo Catholic. When the clergy were interned by the Japanese in WWII, they celebrated Mass according to the Knott Missal. Early disputes with some PECUSA bishops focused on that this missal was unauthorized.

        The Anglican clergy were interned with Roman Catholic clergy. The Romans noted this "We celebrated Mass in Latin, the Anglicans celebrated Mass in English. Otherwise the Mass was the same. There was nothing that really separated us."

        So if ever (God willing and in God's time) a Filipino Anglican Ordinariate is established, then the Missal tradition will be part of its Anglican patrimony.

  2. Dear Fr. Phillips,

    Thank you for your essay on Ordinariate Liturgy. Discussion of this calibre will certainly enrich the ordinariate life. Although still some times away, I have been seriously considering what a Spanish language translation and Spanish-speaking contribution would look like in the ordinariate liturgy once the American ordinariate is up and running. There is much liturgical richness in the Spanish-speaking Anglican tradition that certainly can enrich the life of the church and honor the Holy Father's stated expectations as described in the Apostolic Constitution. Thank you again for your courage to put to pen your valued thoughts. I pray that the Holy Spirit would broaden the table and a multicultural voice could be heard in the forming of the ordinariate liturgy.

  3. Thank you for posting this, Father. Do you have the impression that the new liturgical books for the Ordinariates are being prepared along the lines you suggested?

      1. Father,

        To what "work" are you referring? I get the impression from your statement that our liturgy is being written by Romans (no offense meant there) who aren't familiar with the practical, everyday usage of the Anglican liturgical ethos. I imagine I'm wrong to think that, but am I? Do we know who is compiling the new Ordinariate liturgy?

        Regardless, thanks for sharing the post!

        1. Sorry Jim, I was "speaking in shorthand." There are excellent people in various places outside of Rome who are working on this project, some of whom have an Anglican background, and if not from that background, nonetheless have a serious feel and understanding for our liturgical heritage. All the work being done, however, needs to receive proper consideration and approval, which will be done through the CDF and the CDW.

        2. Fr. Phillips, Thank you so much for your thoughts on the Ordinariate liturgy we are all so anxiously awaiting. I hope we can expect a quality of English translation markedly superior to what we find in the missal going into effect this Advent for the Latin rite.

          I'm somewhat nervous about what I suspect is tinkering behind locked doors in the Vatican with very few consultations with Anglican experts. I have dreams we may end up with the Novus Ordo of 1970 containing a few Cranmerian prayers stuck in here and there, with perhaps a couple of rubrics borrowed from the Sarum missal, and with the translations from ICEL we're seeing in Vox Clara's new missal.

          The delay in introducing the Ordinariate's liturgy gives one reason to be concerned.

          1. What seems to be a "delay" is really indicative of the care that is being given to this project. It would be very easy to shove a couple of Cranmerian prayers into the existing Novus Ordo, and call it done. But that is precisely what is NOT happening.

            There are very good people working on this, who know what is needed to fulfill the Holy Father's vision for the Ordinariates.

  4. Thank you Father for sharing your talk with us. I most certainly think you hit the nail squarely on the head, and I hope that your audience got the point.

    I was wondering if you could share some of the reactions of those that were there to hear your talk.

  5. Father, thank you for an insightful paper.

    I agree with much that you say but I think the point that you make about the use of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite by members of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham is slightly misleading.

    Whilst it is true (and to some degree unfortunate) that a distinctively Anglican liturgical patrimony was not preserved after the reforms of the Roman Rite following the second Vatican Council, there is a parallel between the situation in the UK and that of Anglicans elsewhere (both in and out of communion with Canterbury).

    Whilst British (for want of a better term) Anglo-Catholics made use of the Roman Rite, this is at one level no more or less problematic than those in the US or elsewhere using non-Anglican liturgical books such as the Anglican Missal, the English Missal, the American Missal or other texts.

    Basically, unless an Anglican group has been using directly Anglican liturgy or the Book of Divine Worship, it is in a precarious situation whereby it is arguing for the reclamation of a liturgical use which it has not, to this point, employed.

    Where there is the argument for the use of non-Anglican missals and texts in the compilation of a new Ordinariate Use, this must surely be questioned at the same level as those who insist on using only the Roman Rite (in either Form). In other words, what is actually Anglican about it?

    If the Anglican liturgical patrimony is about more than a quasi-Tudor language, then the fundametal starting point of any future Ordinariate Use must be strictly Anglican (i.e. texts actually approved within the Anglican Communion at some point in history).

    To argue that there is some sort of hierarchy between those who have chosen not to use Anglican liturgical books in favour of the Roman Rite, and those who have chosen not to use Anglican liturgical books in favour of other (equally unauthorised in Anglican circles) liturgical books, is somewhat misleading.

    The 'great liturgical divide' between Anglicans looking to the Ordinariate on either side of the Atlantic is not as great as we think – both sides moved away from Anglican texts in favour of stronger and better theological language and a shape more closely identifiable with the Western Rite. We approached the problem differently, but in fact we are both in an equally obscure position when it comes to finding a way forward for a single Ordinariate Use.

    1. Patrimonious, I welcome any correction necessary, and I had no intention of misrepresenting the present situation in England. I thought I was simply stating what is the case; namely, that at the present time, the clergy and laity of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham are using the Ordinary Form for the celebration of the Mass. I meant to pass no judgement on that, and in fact made the point that it is perfectly legitimate according to Anglicanorum coetibus.

      One of the points I was hoping to make clear is that the tradition of the Anglican Missal is not simply using a form of the Roman Rite; rather, worship using a traditional Missal includes much of what is found in the Book of Common Prayer. To my knowledge (and I am happy to be corrected) there is no such practice of incorporating BCP prayers with the Ordinary Form.

      1. Father – you are right there is no such provision in the Catholic Church. We wait to see what happens there.

        I think the point I'm making (and I'll make it over at The Other Blog too) is that whilst there is a more tangibly Anglican 'feel' to the liturgical rites in place in Anglo-Catholic parishes outside the UK (apart from those in the UK which used Anglican books), the starting point for a future Ordinariate Use should be Anglican books, not the Roman Rite in either form, nor liturgical books which have already taken material from both traditions.

        I would be particularly interested to hear how you celebrate the Ordinary Form and how, if you aim to, you incorparate elements of the Anglican tradition into that celebration.

        1. Patrimonious, you wrote:

          "the starting point for a future Ordinariate Use should be Anglican books, not the Roman Rite in either form, nor liturgical books which have already taken material from both traditions."

          The starting point for a future Ordinariate Use is the Book of Divine Worship, which was already approved by Rome (hence the purpose of this talk). The Book of Divine Worship itself used the American 1928 and 1979 Books of Common Prayer as its starting point, so what you are proposing has already been done nearly thirty years ago.

          What Father Phillips is proposing is how to properly supplement and correct the Book of Divine Worship for the future ordinariates. What is appropriate to use to do that? Well, the material from Missals.

    2. "If the Anglican liturgical patrimony is about more than a quasi-Tudor language, then the fundamental starting point of any future Ordinariate Use must be strictly Anglican (i.e. texts actually approved within the Anglican Communion at some point in history)."

      Approved by whom? Anglican Catholicism has survived and grown largely in opposition to the authorities; if it is their approval you iinsist upon, you are impoverishing the Liturgy before you start. ( you will not be able to use any of the Anglican missals.) There are Anglican traditions (and this doesn't need saying) that are far wider and richer than what has been "approved".
      (One essential piece of patrimony, not merely approved but authorized is the Church of England bible of 1611. Will the ordinariates be encourage to treasure and use that?)

  6. Thank you for this thoughtful article. Those of us "waiting in the wings" are in anxious expectation of what is to come in the way of the Ordinariate Liturgy. The Holy Father has been most generous so far, it is my hope that this generosity will extend into the liturgy as well. What a wonderful opportunity to share with the Church Catholic the rich treasures of the Anglo-Catholic liturgies as found in the Anglican Missal, Knott Missal, Anglican Breviary, and certainly not least…Sarum. Indeed, an exciting and hopeful time.

  7. Wonderfully and Beautifully stated Father, thank you. I love the way the BDW liturgy is celebrated even with its 'inadequacies'.
    Be not anxious people. Celebrate what has been given, pray for what shall be given and be faithful to what is received.

  8. From my understanding, correct me if I am misinformed, most of those Anglicans entering the Ordinariate in the US are from an Anglo Catholic background. During my time as an Anglo Catholic each of these parishes used one of the Missals for the Liturgy of the Mass.

    Of course as time goes on there will probably be more Anglicans from a more evangelical background entering the Ordinariate and just as Catholics today must adjust to the new translation of the OF, I believe that those from a non Anglo Catholic background will in time be able to adjust to an Anglican Liturgy based upon both the BCP and one of the missals.

    As far as England goes, I recall reading that the Ordinary of Our Lady of Walsingham stated that they will also have a revised liturgy within three years, which I assume will be closer to a more Anglican flavor than the Roman Rite now in use.

  9. Fr. Phillips, when you write that "there is some evidence of the Missal tradition" in the BDW, may I ask what specific elements you have in mind?

  10. Dear Father Phillips:
    Thank you for the assessment. The Book of Common Prayer Canada 1962, both in the Mass and the Offices, Baptismal Office, Litany, etc. has always held me in its linguistic sway, and is enhanced now by the Missal recently published by the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada, which I use for every Mass. I do not look forward to changes, even though I presume there will be some. I attended the BDW Mass you celebrated in Missassagua last March, and found the language different enough and the flow strange enough to throw me off. But of course, it comes from the American '79, I suppose, which came through the Scottish liturgical line rather than the English. I await with anticipation to see what the Ordinariate will be provided with.

    1. I like the Anglican Church of Canada's selection of eucharistic prayers. There's one in particular similar to EP-IV (using the liturgy of St. Basil as a model) in the Roman rite which I much prefer to the Roman form by Father Cipriano Vagnozzi OSB. Then, I'm also very fond of the 1979 Episcopal Church's version of the BCP. In fact, I prefer it to the CofE version which I find flat and lifeless by comparison.

      I would earnestly hope the Vatican will be giving a good close look to both the 1979 and the Canadian BCP for guidance and ideas.

  11. The problem, Fr. Phillips, is that the B.D.W. is seriously deficient in many important respects, most of which you have admitted. In particular, it includes an Offertory that very much reflects the revolutionary spirit of Annibale Bugnini, a Protestant spirit from the Latin side of the Tiber (ironically here), one that sees the Eternal Sacrifice as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving alone and not as a propitiatory Sacrifice of a Divine Victim, as Trent affirms and even the revised 1970 GIRM finally had to 'admit' after the intervention of Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci.

    Your points are all quite valid and very helpful but the difficulty is that many incoming traditionalist Anglicans will not be able to use the B.D.W. in good conscience, just as many Latin traditionalists cannot use it or the N.O. in good conscience. So this will tend to discourage such men from entering the ordinariates until the problem is fixed. The order is wrong here: the Liturgy should be fixed first and the canonical structure should follow. It is the Mass that matters, not ordinariates.

    What guarantee is there that the serious defects in this Missal will be fixed? What we see already is one ordinariate in England using the N.O.M. and a coming one in America using a modernised 1979 B.C.P. with the anti-traditional N.O. Offertory intruded into it. Not a very promising beginning. I will continue praying that the B.D.W. can be replaced as soon as possible.


    1. Mr. Perkins, I wouldn't presume to meddle in matters which truly are matters of conscience; however, I believe we have a duty to form our consciences according to the teaching of the Church. If one's conscience is telling a person to stay outside the visible communion of Christ's Holy Catholic Church because an approved rite of the Mass does not validly consecrate bread and wine to be the Body and Blood of Christ, then I would question whether that person's conscience is properly formed. I think sometimes people make "conscience" into an excuse because they don't happen to like something.

        1. In the Prayer Book tradition, there are no offertory prayers other than a short communion sentence. I could argue that the Novus Ordo offertory prayers are "Catholicizing" improvement over nothing. On the other hand, I am enough of an eeeevil liturgical modernist to note that these offertory prayers are essentially private prayers of the celebrant – – not all necessary to the celebration of the mass and could have even be legitimately deleted by the eeeevil Bugnini and Paul VI if they so chose. So long as the prayers are not heretical (which the Novus Ordo ones are not), then there are quite legitimate. To think otherwise is, with all due respect, soul-destroying scrupulosity.

          Indeed, in my proto-ordinariate community, I have never heard one person say that the BDW offertory prayers are an issue for them. I have heard other issues, but not that one.

          I happen to like the Tridentine offertory prayers than the one on the printed page than the Novus Ordo, but as a laymen…it makes no practical difference to me since I will never hear the Tridentine offertory prayers even if they were included in the Anglican mass.

          1. Dear Disgusted in D.C.:

            The Mass is a divine dialogue between God and the people, not between the celebrant and the people. Therefore, even the priest’s private prayers, whether at the Offertory or the Communion, are, in a sense, the prayers of everyone assembled. When we follow the Mass from the pews, we should be following all the prayers.

            The problem with the N.O., with its Offertory and with E.P. No. 2 in particular, is that they are not unambiguously Catholic and that can pose a problem for celebrants’ consciences.

            As for the Anglican tradition, I note that the opening and closing traditional Offertory prayers antedate the Reformation and can be found in the Sarum Use (Suscipe, sancte Pater & Suscipe, sancta Trinitas). The others have ancient foundations and were added at Rome early in the fourteenth century. These prayers became essential later on, after the Protestant reformers denied the Eucharistic theology they express. That is why those reformers abolished them. It was part of Luther’s programme: everything from the Offertory on “stinks of sacrifice”, in his colourful locution. Luther would be entirely at home with the Offertory of the New Roman Mass and that should give us pause. Where is the Divine Victim in the New Roman Offertory?

            Thank you, Fr. Phillips, for your excellent analysis of the situation. I am confident that you have the right liturgical orientation and that you have worked hard over the years to assure it. For example, the B.D.W. allows use of the revolutionary new Eucharistic Prayers and yet, nearly always, the Roman Canon is used at Anglican Use Masses. Bugnini’s new concocted prayers do not reflect a true sensus catholicus but I think that Benedict XVI recognises the problem, which is why he has recently moved responsibility for the Sacraments to a new dicastery, so as to allow the liturgical Congregation a better opportunity to consider a reform of the reform. I am hoping that the C.D.F. will allow the new ordinariates the traditional Offertory precisely because the C.D.W. is planning to restore it to the New Roman Mass.


            1. Doesn't E.P. No. 2 originate from Hippolytus of Rome's 'Traditio Apostolica'? As such it would not be a new invention.

            2. The authenticity of the EP attributed to Hippolytus has been to a degree discredited since the 1960s, some thinking its author may be another Hippolytus than the so-called "antipope," but more believing that even if it did stem originally from that Hippolytus, the version we have, which was copied in the early Fifth Century and discovered a century ago on the "Verona palimpsest," two hundred years later in other words, was almost certainly altered and adapted by whatever group — possibly an Arianizing one — that produced that manuscript.

              It is yet another example of how so many of the "liturgical re- (or de-) formers" of the 1960s took for "the assured results of modern scholarship" what will probably turn out to have been no more than a passing fad.

          2. Disgusted, Why not have both the Ordinariate and a future revised Roman-rite liturgy drop
            the offertory prayers? In Pope Gregory's time,
            the Roman liturgy had no offertory prayers.
            The rite was conducted in silence with the
            large paten and chalice elevated–nothing more.
            An alternative might be the Sarum rite practice (taken from the last missal prepared
            in Queen Mary Tudor's time.

            1. Dear Fr. O'Connell:

              We are traditionalists, not archæologists. Read Mediator Dei, 1948.

              The mediæval Roman Offertory prayers are essential precisely because they were completely unacceptable to Protestantism. And that is also why Bugnin removed them, for he openly admitted that he wanted a Mass that would be 'acceptable' to Protestants. Hence the six heretic advisors to the Consilium.

              The Holy Ghost knew in the fourteenth century that the Roman Offertory prayers would be needed in the sixteenth.


      1. Dear Fr. Phillips:

        I never mentioned validity. I never suggested that the N.O. or any part of it renders a Mass invalid. Nor did I suggest that one need remain outside communion with the Holy See, since there are other ways of achieving that, like joining the Latin Church and then using only the T.L.M., for instance; or joining an Eastern Catholic church. The aim here, however, is to bring aboard Anglo-Catholic priests together with their patrimony and using a liturgy that fosters and reflects its spirit and that integrates this into the perennial Latin liturgical tradition and not something cooked up in the 1960s by revolutionaries.

        There are other reasons for finding the N.O.M. and B.D.W. too objectionable to use. They are a breach of tradition in liturgy, and they move significantly away from a focus on the propitiatory nature of the Sacrifice. They suggest a very different and quite unCatholic orientation towards a Protestant sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving alone. That is certainly what Cardinals Ottaviani and Bacci believed, and they were definitely Catholic in their thinking, unlike Annibale Bugnini and unlike the heresiarch Thomas Cranmer.

        Again, it is the Mass that matters and the liturgical problem should be solved before the ordinariates are erected, not afterwards. The aim is to encourage Anglo-Catholic clerics and laity to find a home in the Church.

    2. PKTP, Please be aware that Pope Paul VI held the "traditional" offertory prayers of the Roman Mass in low regard as did many liturgists in the 1950s and periti at the Council. He was determined to change them and he did.

      Contrary to what many continue to believe and to espouse, archbishop Bugnini did not foist them upon anyone. What you see and hear in the Pauline rite's offertory prayer today, like or not,–basically a Jewish (Berakh) form of blessing from the Seder–
      had the Pope's full blessing and approval. So, please, let's cease providing a conspiratorial twist to the history of the Pauline Mass when there is no justification for it.

      1. Dear Father:

        The fact that our Lord used the form of the berakh at the Last Supper does not make the Mass a berakh or merely a passover meal. It is not primarly a meal but a propitiatory Sacrifice, and all hint of this primary meaning has been excised by Bugnini and his tribe of revolutionaries. Yes, Paul VI went along with it. I never suggested otherwise. Why do people here constantly overinterpret my meaning? The Pope made a mistake–one for which there is no justification even in the documents of Vatican II.


        1. If you feel that you are being "overinterpreted," it is your own fault because you say outrageous and offensive things like "[t]here are other reasons for finding the N.O.M. and B.D.W. too objectionable to use" and you have inflicted us with your idée fixe about the offertory prayers on this board for months and months. I am sympathetic with those clergy who mourned the loss of the old offertory prayers and wouldn't mind seeing their return. But, when you grossly oversell your position, you should expect to be challenged on your exaggerations. That is all.

          1. Dear Disgusted in D.C.:

            The reason the N.O. Offertory Prayers are a bête noire for me is that they are not optional but mandatory. I feel just as negative about the new Eucharistic Prayers. These new Eucharistic Prayers are optional in the B.D.W. but you wouldn't know it, since they are very seldom used. That is partly because most Anglo-Catholic incomers have a sure sensus catholicus.

            Like Fr. Phillips, I also think that the 1979 prayers in the B.D.W. are very unfortunate when the much better 1928 version was available, but this is more of an Anglican æsthetical issue and, even at that, one regarding the U.S.A. more than more own country. All the more reason I hope that prayers from an American book are not forced down the throats of Canadian incomers, who have inherited a different liturgical tradition, one of their own.

            The problem both with the Novus Ordo Offertory and Eucharistic Prayer No. 2 (in particular) is that they are not only interpretable as Protestant in regard to the nature of the Sacrifice but, a fortiori, their forms suggest the Protestant perspective and even a Teilhardian worldview, replete with those "human hands", not to mention the direct reference to Cranmer's "spiritual drink". This is not some minor issue. I refer here to the principal meaning of Holy Mass. Pardon me, but that's rather important. It's like having an idée fixe about the meaning of life.

            From what I have seen, there is reason to suppose that certain prelates share some of my concerns about what Bugnini and his Consilium was up to. One of these prelates even bears a postnumeral. But you still cast my position as more extreme than it is. I would be quite relieved if, in revision, the B.D.W. allowed the celebrant to choose between the excellent Offertory of the ancient Roman Mass and the revolutionary one of Annibale Bugnini. I am confident that most Anglo-Catholic incomers would make the right choice every time, just as they do in regard to the Eucharistic Prayers.

            Praying for all my friends coming into the ordinariates, I remain, yours very truly,


      2. "PKTP, Please be aware that Pope Paul VI held the "traditional" offertory prayers of the Roman Mass in low regard as did many liturgists in the 1950s and periti at the Council. He was determined to change them and he did."

        One of many reasons why I hold Paul VI in low regard.

  12. Dear Fr Phillips,

    Thank you so much for this – particularly for exposing how those desirous of a Eucharistic "liturgy for modern man" (whoever he is) took the 1979 US BCP as the Anglican parallel to the modern Roman Rite (the "OF"), and hybridized the two, so to speak, while rejecting as then-unthinkable (pre-Summorum Pontificum) the use of either the older, classic BCP's (the 1928 US in particular) or those Anglican unofficial compilations which were essentially translations of the immemorial Roman Rite (the "EF").

    While you well defend the proposition that the Anglican liturgical heritage vis a vis the Eucharist is best expressed using the unofficial Anglo-Catholic adaptations of as much Missale Romanum and as little BCP as each dared (!), I would like to ask your response to those, both American and especially Scottish, who are "Prayerbook Episcopalians", and, while intent upon the Papal offer of union, wish to maintain the BCP insofar as that is possible. I understand that the American BCP is in a sense the daughter of the Scottish, and that the Scottish 1929 BCP has the most satisfactory Eucharistic rite from a doctrinal point of view – indeed, I recall reading that those Scottish Episcopalian clergy who approached the Cardinal Archbishop there about Anglicanorum cœtibus, presented him with a copy of that book, to testify to their current use of an acceptable liturgy. Do you feel that any regard will be had to providing a rite drawn as much as possible from "official", classic Anglican sources, particularly from those of the Scottish type?

    1. Hear, hear! It would be wise and imaginative to authorize the 1929 Scottish Prayer book as it stands to be one of the rites available for use. I think it is the only BCP in which the intercessions are bound up with the Canon of the Mass.

  13. I guess I am in the minority here, but the 79 BCP is what shaped my world as an Anglican and as a priest. Yes, I used the English/American/Anglican Missals, and even the NO, but the backdrop to all of this was the 79 BCP, and I said the office from that book. Due to that, the BDW has made my swim across the Tiber much easier! As far as the Daily Office goes, it is almost exactly the same as the BCP. Honestly, the only changes I hope for are the for the old offertory and the private prayers for the priest to be put back in.

    But hey, the 79 BCP is older than I am, so what do I know: 😉

  14. In any future revision of the Book of Divine Worship the older 1549 version of the Prayer of Humble Access should be included. I give it here, wIth the later omitted phrase IN UPPER CASE:

    "Grant us therefore, gracious Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood IN THESE SACRED MYSTERIES, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our souls washed through his most precious blood . . . "

  15. Father,

    If, God willing I pray, those of us who are former Anglicans now Roman seminarians are accepted into the Ordinariate, what do you think the liturgical formators of the Ordinariate will want us to use as we start practicing saying the Mass? The new translation of the Novus Ordo or the B.D.W. at least until such a time as a new Anglican Use liturgy is approved? Or perhaps both? I just ask because such liturgical training is rapidly approaching in my seminary formation, as is the founding of the Ordinariate and these issues are becoming more pressing. Thank you for a wonderfully informative piece.

    Yours in Christ Jesus,

    1. Robbie, it would be to your benefit – and to the benefit of all Ordinariate clergy – to learn well all the liturgies available for use within the Ordinariate: the Ordinary Form (3rd Edition), the Extraordinary Form, and until the new Ordinariate Anglican Use is approved, the Book of Divine Worship.

      The Mass is the Mass, so learning the different forms and uses will prepare any priest well to easily adapt to the new liturgy when it is finally approved and published.

  16. As far as I can gather, the main contribution of the Missals, as opposed to just the Prayer Book, was the use of the minor propers. As I understand, these can be used now with the Book of Divine Worship (e.g. David Burt's Anglican Use Gradual and others). I would see the other main contribution as being the prepratory prayers and offertory prayers. However, these are not heard by the congregation and have been used with the Prayer Book.

  17. As far as Britain is concerned, I wonder how many Ordinariate clergymen will have either the desire or opportunity to use an approved rite when it is made available. Not all of them are, by any means, looking forward to it. In the interval they and their people will have become used to the newly-translated Roman Rite. In their ministerial work at large they will also use this rite. There are relatively few Ordinariate groups of any size that can make a local Ordinariate congregation. Many lay members are widely dispersed and can only meet rarely – say, twice a month – to attend Mass together. This often involves complicated journeys. I suspect that many will settle down as ordinary Catholics in local parishes, like the majority of converts.

    In their Anglican days the majority were used either to modern Anglican rites take from the Book of Common Worship or the Novus Ordo. The Book of Common Prayer played little, or no, part in their worship. To cobble together sanitised parts of the Prayer Book with insertions from the Sarum Use and the Roman Rite will not only be hybrid but unfamiliar. But the foreseeable bi-ritualism will lead more to confusion than the unitive value of having an indigenous rite that will form a distinct liturgical identity. I sometimes wonder if the Ordinariate Rite will be destined to be a volume on a library shelf.

    1. JB I'm only deigning to reply to your post to ask you politely to refrain from posting misinformation. The truth is, unless you have personally spoken to every single priest and seminarian of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, you really can't have an authoritative view on whether or not such clergy are likely to use the Ordinariate Use. Whose work are you doing in writing such posts?

      Actually there is a diverse range of views on liturgy in the Ordinariate, but the guiding factors for sensible clergy will be the various pastoral needs of their parishes. All the issues you seem to raise have been elegantly dealt with in the Apostolic Constitution itself.

      1. Thank you for your condescension, Mike of Devon. By now I have had the pleasure of meeting several priests of the Ordinariate, but none so far from the South-East. I was also present at the recent fund-raising event in the throne room of Archbishop's House, Westminster, and overheard some interesting conversations that represented a wide variety of opinion.

        But, above all, I noticed the incredulity of many members of the great and the good who could not understand what the Ordinariate was and why it had come into being. Some had Anglican wives and were under the impression that this would admit them to Holy Communion; that certainly was the wives' expectation. Others asked why Catholic priests could not marry in the light of so many married clerics belonging to the Ordinariate. One grand lady bemoaned the fate of priests who had left to marry but were prevented from exercising their priestly ministry. In other words, in part of the room confusion reigned.

        Mgr Newton said that so far £53,000 had been raised but he did not mention the £250,000 given by the Bishops' Conference, nor the £1m by the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, nor the lavish subventions made by the Catholic League and the St Barnabas Society. Money is certainly essential to enable a beurocracy to come into being. Chaplaincy posts have been found for many younger clerics with families; the retired have their Anglican pensions and these, too, will become available to the rest in years to come, dependent upon their years of service. All Ordinariate priests will be eligible for stole fees and Mass stipends when they act as supply priests. Generally, the majority of Ordinariate priests will have a similar income to diocesan priests, although this will not be enough for married men with young families. I suspect that the St Barnabas Society will make generous provision for them, as they have in the past. Accomodation has been found for those who need it. All of this represents stability. But it remains to be seen how successful the recent appeal will be.

  18. Father Phillips,

    Thanks so much for lifting the curtain just a wee bit. It's much appreciated.

    Someone far above in the thread mentioned a timeline. Do you know what the target date might be for the new Missal? I know it was "hoped" the liturgy would be ready by Pentecost. Is it perhaps "hoped" now to be ready by Christmas?

    You remain in my prayers.

  19. Of the Missals "…namely, the supplementing of the Book of Common Prayer to make it a more Catholic expression of our faith." "…this enriched form of Prayer Book worship into the fertile soil of full Catholic communion."

    Perhaps its just an English thing, but I believe the original desire of the Missal collaborators was to offer a more Catholic liturgy inspite of the Prayer Book i.e. they would happily have celebrated the Tridentine Rite "as is" without the BCP components at all! I don't think there was any real desire to preserve or Catholicise the BCP by the majority of Edwardian Ango-Catholics – that was the purpose of the Dearmerite campaign or "Prayer Book Catholic" – rather than the Missal toting lace-drenched Italianate missions to the poor of the Anglo-Catholic shrine churches.

    1. Have no fear, there is no way the vast body of Anglicans beyond the Anglo-Catholic wing will ever be comfortable with the "lace drenched. . Italianate" liturgy of Dearmer's Prayerbook Catholicism. A liturgical drama with a very limited clientele.

      If this is the one size which fits all Anglicans "patrimony" Rome has in mind, I fear the pope's Ordinariate will have about as much appeal as the the Polish National Catholic liturgy or Western Rite have within the Anglican Communion now. Which is to say, not much.

      Cranmer's patrimony,that of the 17th century divines, and the grand musical heritage of the English cathedral boys choir is what most Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Lutherans associate with Anglican patrimony, not this more-Roman-than-Rome make believe Tridentinism arising in the late 19th century.

      If many "high", "broad" and "evangelical" Anglicans are drawn to this tradition, they're more likely to find far better expressions of it within the Western Rite of the Orthodox Church. Or, they'll embrace Byzantine and other eastern liturgical practices and graft them to the 1928 or 1979 rite. As I've seen done in any number of Anglican parishes.

      1. 'Lace drenched Italianate liturgy' has nothing to do with 'Percy Dearmer's Prayer Book Catholicism'. The latter was a strong reaction against the former which sought refuge in medievalism applied to the implementation of the Book of Common Prayer. It became the hallmark of moderation and is still to be found in Anglican cathedrals..

        'Lace drenched liturgy' was the preference of those Anglo-Catholics who were 'westernisers' or 'papalists'. Now that lace is once again being brought out from tissue paper in the Catholic Church, many of these people think they have been vindicated in their preference for froth. But you are right, it represents a limited constituency that so far finds little place in the Ordinaraite. Upon the whole, the Walsingham Matildas have stayed where they are, lace and all.

  20. The final decision on the Liturgy for the Ordinariates will be determined by the Church with input from Anglicans coming into the Ordinariate or those who are already Catholic who have been invited to participate in the final outcome.

    It is not really any concern to those who wish to remain within the Anglican Communion or one of Continuing groups of Anglicans. These decisions have no effect on them.

    God requested that the temple be built with all the beauty man could muster, with gold and prescious stones etc.

    Anglo Catholics who choose to give their best in worship whether from the vestments or liturgy are glorifying our Lord.

    1. Gay, You said, "The final decision on the Liturgy for the Ordinariates will be determined by the Church with input from Anglicans coming into the Ordinariate or those who are already Catholic who have been invited to participate in the final outcome."

      I sincerely hope little if any of that "input" will be coming from the latter group because they will be more inclined to "Romanize" the rites than the Anglican participants would. In the final decision, very well meaning men I have no doubt, will be making the recommendations for the pope's approval, but they will be men of a decidedly Latin rite bias and persuasion. Some will barely be able to speak English.

      1. Just out of curiosity, if you don't mnd, are you planning on entering the Ordinariate?

        As far as those former Anglicans who are now Catholic, I am speaking of the ones who have carried on as much of the Anglican traditions as they have been allowed.

        Since I have no inside information on who is on the committee or who is allowed to give suggestions to Rome, I, as I assume everyone who has their own personal agenda for what they prefer regarding the liturgy, are as much in the dark as I am and all of us are just speculating on the outcome of the final litugy that will be approved.

        From all the comments it appears that there are so many different opinions that it would be impossible that even if two liturgies are approved that there are some who would never be content.

        Yes Latin Rite Catholics have diverse opinions, however, I don't see that the very traditional ones are running the Vatican. Also I find nothing wrong with either the EF or the new translation of the OF liturgy. The Catholic Church has 23 different rites in addition to several Uses, including the Anglican Use.

        At least for me coming home to the Catholic Church means having the assurance that whether a Bishop, priest or some laity would like to see changes within the Church, i.e. women priests, the homosexual agenda accepted, or rejection of the truths of the faith from the beginning of the Apostles, the Church holds firm to these doctrines and doesn't cave in as the Anglican Communion has done.
        Also there is no question as to whether I belong to the Church that Christ started, this is the crux of why many Anglicans are entering the Ordinariate and accepting the leadership of Peter.

  21. why does there have to be a one size fit all liturgy? Can we not have at least two: a prayer book based one and one for those who prefer the missal traditions? One size fits all is hardly Anglican. Why cant we take the current BDW, drop Rite II, bring Rite I more in line with 1928 and replace the NO material with the same from the Sarum: the Coverdale translation of the canon and material from the Sarum offertory? Is there no place for more prayer book Catholics? We can have a fully Catholic rite without Romanizing it.

    1. Edmond, You're right of course about a one-size fits all liturgy for Anglicans. Unfortunately, there are many traditionalists trying to capture the pope's ear to get him to impose a one-size liturgy for
      Latin Catholics. Let's earnestly pray they haven't got the pope to think along the same lines.
      Personally, I think most of these very vocal Latin Catholics are fronts for the Society of Saint Pius X and other extreme groups looking to impose a one-size, Latin Mass on a Latin Church.

      They will not succeed because they don't understand Pope Benedict. Many will spin off into break-away churches in time. Pope Benedict is a traditionalist in many, many ways, but still largely supports the Novus Ordo, with thoughtful and judicious changes, and the concept behind it as it was enunciated after Vatican II. However, he's not about to throwthe Pauline baby out with the bath water. No matter how much the lovers of lace-drenched liturgy on the far right think he will.

  22. A few years back I published an Anglican Use Sacramentary in two volumes and made it available to Anglican Use Pastors. It was well received because it included chants for the preface and for Holy Week as well as propers for the lesser Holy Days. The concept is simply to follow the same principles that were in place when The Book of Divine Worship was defined. Now an obvious need for revision has come about because of the new English version of the Roman Missal. This revision is nearing completion and the Third Edition of the Anglican Use Sacramentary will have the BDW Rite One version of the Mass with the new wording of the parts which must come from the Roman Missal. I have also added the minor propers using the arrangement for the Novus Ordo Lectionary. The pdf files for the most recent drafts may be found here:—volume-one/17264313—volume-two/17342341

    1. David,
      Thank you for posting these links. The standard of typography looks wonderful in the sample pages.
      However, try as I may [I am a bear of very little brain in matters technical] I cannot locate the download for the pd files.
      Can you help?
      Kind regards
      John U.K.

  23. With all due respect, Father, I think the answer to the question of how to get the various Anglican liturgical traditions in use by the several Ordinariates is staring us all in the face.

    The crucial lines in Anglicanorum Coetibus are ". . .the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments, the Liturgy of the Hours and other liturgical celebrations according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See (italics in the original Latin are ab Apostolica Sede adprobatos)

    The previous paragraph of AC also makes clear that the "Personal Ordinariate is . . . subject to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and the other Dicasteries of the Roman Curia in accordance with their competencies."

    My Modest Proposal (with a wink toward Dean Swift) is, Why don't the several Ordinariates each submit their favorite liturgical texts to the CDF for approval?

    The CDF would appear to be both the Congregation to which the Ordinaries would be subject, as well as the competent Congregation in this case. I also have found that His Eminence, William Cardinal Levada, took great care while in San Francisco to aid his priests in a devout service of the modern Roman Liturgy. You might find an able friend in him. You might even get the Sarum Use and the Latin version of the Book of Common Prayer through that way (both of which I would very much wish to see, by the bye).

    On the principle that "those as don't ask, don't get", you could do better than just wait for liturgicides in the Roman Curia to try to prevent the Ordinariates from forming, as they tried (and largely succeeded) with the earlier Anglican Use.

  24. In addition, I will note that the franchise given to the several Ordinariates in Anglicanorum Coetibus, and as stated above, is far more liberal than that given in the Pastoral Provision of His Late Holiness (Beati Ioanni Pauli Magni, that is), which states:

    The group may retain certain elements of the Anglican liturgy; these are to be determined by a Commission of the Congregation set up for this purpose. Use of these elements will be reserved to the former members of the Anglican Communion.

    In contrast, Anglicanorum Coetibus gives a full franchise to those liturgical texts which the Sedis Apostolicis has given its approval.

    I would strongly advise those Ordinariates that have knowledge of the intricacies of Canon Law, and connexions with the appropriate Congregation, to draft their submissions immediater (as Bertie Wooster would say).

    1. I am not a liturgist or a canonist, but as you seem anxious for an early response…

      1. There is only one Ordinariate at present, so having "several Ordinariates each submit their favorite liturgical texts to the CDF for approval" would seem to be premature at the very least.

      2. Work on a revised BDW seems well advanced, so seeking CDF approval for an ecclectic set of Anglo-Catholic rubrics at this point would seem premature on these grounds as well.

      3. There is no suggestion that the revised BDW will be the final word on possible Anglican Use liturgies, and as Sarum is clearly an orthodox rite, it would probably get quick approval if any ordinary requested authorization for its use. On the other hand, can it really be claimed as part of the Anglican patrimony? I am not claiming it can't, but the arguments I have heard so far are mainly esthetic, antiquarian or pseudo-nationalistic, whereas arguments based on continuous historical use would be more compelling.

      4. As Anglican Use is not limited in principle to an English idomatic expression, one could envisage a Latin translation of a revised BDW, but what exactly would be the point? English can serve as a reference language for vernacular translations as much as Latin. What specific eucharistic community would be best served by the Anglican use in Latin (Sarum excepted)?

      1. Sarum is the branch of the Vine from which the BCP was taken. Therefore, in grafting the daughter liturgy back into the Vine, it would be helpful to have Sarum as a reference point. The BCP makes more sense in a Sarum context; one can see clearly which bits of the liturgy Cranmer and his advisers jettisoned. For the Ordinariate in E&W, the BCP is viewed affectionately, but not uncritically. What that means in practice is that it is not, in its received form, a perfect Catholic liturgy at all, but parts of it express the Catholic faith very deeply indeed (perhaps unintentionally on the part of the author).

        The Use of Sarum on the other hand was the liturgy of the Church of England when it was last in full communion with the Holy See by virtue of legislation enacted by Mary I (probably on the advice of Reginald Cardinal Pole) and, therefore, rightly could be described as an "Anglican" Use. The Ordinariate is part of the Latin Church and its members should look back at the entirety of their journey, including Sarum, because that way we can point more clearly to where we are going.

        If you subscribe to 'shard' theory regarding English Catholicism, you could say it is the strength of the Use of Sarum and its influence on the BCP which allowed the Catholic flame never truly to be dimmed within the Church of England. Praise be to God for that.

      2. I would like to thank Msgr. de Verteuil for his kind response to my request for a reply to my comment. I am personally indebted to the good Monsignor for, among other matters, his brief monograph on the history and vita of the Patriarch, Michael Cerularios, and am honoured that a gentleman, a scholar, and a priest of his calibre should see fit to respond to my poor offering.

        That said, I would like to respond in turn to the points which Msgr. de Verteuil has raised to my original comment, as follows:

        1. My understanding is that in addition to the Ordinariate now founded in England and Wales, a second Ordinariate is on the verge of starting in the United States as well, not to mention the possibility of other Ordinariates forming in other territories continuous with the Anglican communion. A fair reading of Anglicanorum Coetibus would lead one to the conclusion that the formation of Ordinariates, and not a single Ordinariate, was the intent of its author or authors. Finally, it has been the practice of at least some of those making entries in this weblog to refer to Ordinariates in the plural. For these reasons, I would venture to disagree with the good Monsignor regarding the prematurity of referring to a plural noun here.

        2. While I am pleased to hear that work on the Book of Divine Worship is 'well advanced', it has also been my experience that the wheels of the Roman Curia grind fine but exceedingly slow. Thus, I think it but simple prudence, and by no means premature, for the members of newly formed Ordinariates to make discreet inquiries of their older Sister regarding the texts under discussion for the current BDW, compare them with their own regularly used liturgical texts, and make their preparations accordingly.

        3. While I would be happy to address the issue of the Sarum Rite, I find that Mike from Devon has already done so. I would only add that in asking for 'a continuous historical use' of Sarum, the good Monsignor is in effect 'crying for the Moon': the Henrican and post-Henrican persecutions of that Rite made sure of its extirpation, at least for the past several centuries.

        4. On the other hand, 'a continuous historical use' of the Prayer Book in Latin can be shown, from 1560 (when Elizabeth I instituted it, a year after her Prayer Book in English was promulgated) to the present. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and their several colleges, have been its communities, and its continued use in the Ordinariate of England and Wales would have the effect of a unique Anglican encouragement of Latinitas, for which the last five pontificates have given lip service, but about which only the latest of those pontificates have actually done something.

        1. I have to start by disavowing any clerical status whatsoever. I have a distant cousin who is a priest, and some have confused me with him; but far from being a Monsignor, I am but an interested layman.

          I also want to express my appreciation for your taking my observations in the spirit in which they were intended. My writing style on religious matters tends to be rather formal, and that puts some people off. I also appreciate your kind words regarding my feeble attempts at partially rehabilitating Michael Cerularius' reputation.

          Specifically with respect to my earlier remarks, by "premature" I in no way meant "inappropriate." The difficulty is that only the ordinariate in the UK has the standing to make such a request at present. This will change, of course, once the other ordinariates are set up, but until then the CDF is not likely to entertain case-by-case requests for approval of particular rubrics for Anglican Use from all and sundry. It strikes me that a better approach might be to ask those currently working on a revised BDW to incorporate those particular rites, prayers and forms you would like to see included either as general options, or for use on particular feast days. The revised BDW also need not be the last word on authorized Anglican liturgy, and further revisions, expansions or alternatives could always be considered later once a core liturgy has been settled on.

          You make an interesting point with respect to a Latin form of Use for the Universities (which could possibly also be extended to future international monastic communities under an Anglican Use umbrella), though I have my doubts whether these might still be as Latinate as they once were. But as I suggested earlier, there is no reason a revised BDW or other authorized English text couldn't be translated into Latin or any other language other than the time and costs involved.

          As for Sarum, I wouldn't be looking for continuous use since the Reformation. The Ordinary Form can hardly claim that level of antiquity, after all. Occasional use (even if just once a year) by some stable Anglican community over the last fifty years would probably be sufficient. I just haven't heard of one such.

          1. While I stand corrected as regards M. de Verteuil's clerical status, I would like to affirm his standing as a gentleman and a scholar. Well written, sir!

            And for my part, I would like to affirm the words of those eminent philosophers, Monty Python's Flying Circus:

            I'm here for an argument; not abuse, nor contradiction.

            1. The "Latin Prayer Book" (the "Liber Precum Publicarum" of 1560) is hardly suitable for Catholic Use. It purports to be a Latin translation of the 1559 BCP, but into it have been "slipped" some features of the 1549 BCP and a form of absolving intending communicants that comes from the 1548 "Order for Communion." Additionally, it has provision for "Requiem celebrations of the Lord's Supper" that are sui generis to it, and its Kalendar is much ampler than those of 1559, 1552 and 1549. However, its eucharistic rite follows that of 1559 closely (IIRC). At some later date in Elizabeth's reign it was, in any case, replaced by a new Latin translation that followed the 1559 BCP faithfully — and it is this Latin translation, and not that of 1560, that has been used ever since for "Latin services" at Cambridge and Oxford.

              I cannot imagine the 1560 Latin BCP as suitable for anything more than being considered as a liturgical curiosity.

            2. While I welcome as warmly the eminent Dr. Tighe's comments as I did those of M. de Verteuil, and while I am in full agreement with those comments, I must say that my point in drawing attention to the year 1560 was in showing that a Latin use of the Prayer Book went back to that year, and not that I had any commitment to that year's edition of that work.

              Though in fairness to that edition, I find that it considerably softened the endemic anti-Roman Catholicism to be found in the 1559 edition of the Prayer book, including but not limited to cutting reference in the Litanies to the 'tyrannies of the Bishop of Rome, and all his detestable enormities'.

              That said, I thank Dr. Tighe, and welcome the comments of a fellow Eastern Catholic, especially one of his acumen and repute.

  25. Father Phillips, The legislation which approved the Book of Divine Worship in 1987 provided that "The use of this book is to be supervised by a special episcopal commission made up of those bishops in whose dioceses are established these [pastoral provision] communities, and is to be presided over by the Bishop Ecclesiastical Delegate. This commission has the responsibility of ensuring that the liturgy is celebrated according to this book and in the event of determining the opportuneness of inserting variations into this book, with the due approval of the Apostolic See." Am I correct in interpreting this to mean that only these bishops and the Vatican have the authority to change anything in the Book of Divine Worship? As you very aptly pointed out in your article, AC makes it very clear that only liturgical books specifically approved by the Vatican can be used in any Ordinariate.

  26. What a previous person here brought up was quite interesting-the 1959 West Indies BCP. It is an interesting part of the prayer book tradition. Even if the prayers at the foot of the altar may not be to the liking of some here-I personally would not include them, people who want that should have a Missal based Book to use-, the changes to the Canon are very interesting. Maybe we could use that EP in place of the NO ones. We could have a Prayer Book that is fully Catholic and still be a Prayer Book. The ordinariate should try to include as many of those attached to Anglican traditions as possible. There should be a Missal-base liturgy, but those whose idea of Anglican liturgy is not an Anglicanized Tridentine Mass in King James english should have a liturgy that would be keeping with their own traditions. I know in Boston they have their adaptation of the BCP canon. This 1959 one may be the best such adaptation.

    1. If by

      "I know in Boston they have their adaptation of the BCP canon"

      this is meant the Anglican Use "Congregation of St. Athanasius" this is most certainly NOT the case.

      I like to speculate as much as anybody else, but it became pretty clear to me well over a year ago that Rome was pretty unlikely to approve any "Canon" or "Prayer of Consecration" stemming from post-Reformation Anglican rites, and I have not heard that there has been a change of Rome's attitude in this respect. We are spealing of "the Anglican Use of the Roman Rite," for Heaven's sake, not of "the Anglican Rite of the Catholic Church."

      Still, some people commenting on this thread may find this old posting of mine of some interest:

  27. Two points: The first is clearly I did not mean the Anglican Use group as we know what such groups use. There are Anglo-catholics in Boston. Church of the Advent is more to the point, if you wish. Secondly, I mentioned liturgies and books. I did not say anything about it being distinct rite. Might I remind you the various missals of pre-Reformation England were USES, not RITES. Just calling it a use and not a distinct rite does not make it another form of the missale romanum. Rome wont change its mind if no one pushes for them to do so. Did the Tridentine people get where they are by simply going along with whatever Rome decided? There are people here on this site who do have a hand in this project. If they want to truly have a distinctly Anglican set of liturgical books and spiritual life, then they will push for their positions with Rome. Pray, pay, obey, and you get nothing out of Rome. Ask Fellay about that one.

    1. "There are Anglo-catholics in Boston. Church of the Advent is more to the point, if you wish."

      No, thank you, I don't "wish." They may be "Anglo" but hardly Catholic, content as they are to remain under the authority of a bishop who both "ordains" women and "sanctifies" homosexual pseudogamy. How long before they go "the way of all flesh," or at least the way of St. Mary the Virgin in Manhattan?

  28. Perhaps, but the point was the adaptation of the Anglican Canon, not their unavoidable drifting down to Affirming Catholicism, which cannot be avoided if you stay in TEC. After all, someone here mentioned the 1959 adaptation in the West Indies, of which I had not been aware of, and I was comparing it to some unofficial ones done by Anglo-Catholic parishes here in the US. They are not going to pass the Catholic faith on to the next generation, not in TEC. Good Catholic minded parents whose children believe really nothing concrete. They just dont care enough to have beliefs, and get married at resorts or non-denominational churches if they bother to marry at all. I hope and pray that the Anglican ordinariate allows for such passing down in the Anglican tradition. It is not simply `disgruntlement` but seeing too many of my generation drift off to nothing. The local continuing church does not impress me and wouldnt them. It will end with such having as many bishops as churches like old catholics.

Leave a Reply