Father Z Needs a Hand

He asks over at What Does the Prayer Really Say:

I need to be educated about something and I hope some of you readers who were/are Anglicans now in union with Rome can help me.  When in doubt, ask.

Is the modified Anglican liturgy considered part of the Roman Rite or do you consider it to be something related to the Roman Rite but separate?

I know that very high Anglican’s used a form of “Mass” that was virtually the Roman Rite, but what is the thought of members of the Anglican ordinariate about this?

Could some of you knowledgeable folks please go on over to Father Z's blog and help out?  Thanks!  And if you have never bothered to register at his site, put your answer here then.

Author: Deborah Gyapong

Deborah Gyapong is a member of the Sodality of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (www.annunciationofthebvm.org) in Ottawa, a former parish of the Anglican Catholic Church of Canada (Traditional Anglican Communion) whose members were received individually and corporately into the Roman Catholic Church on April 15, 2012 by Ottawa Archbishop Terrence Prendergast at St. Patrick’s Basilica. Under the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus, the community will celebrate an approved Anglican Use liturgy and hopes to soon join with other sodalities across Canada to form the Canadian Deanery of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter under Msgr. Jeffrey Steenson, Ordinary. As we wait for our priest(s) to be ordained as Catholic priests, God willing, Archbishop Prendergast will provide priests to celebrate our Sunday Eucharist according to the Anglican Use. Deborah is a journalist who covers religion and politics in Canada’s national capital, writing primarily for Roman Catholic newspapers since 2004. Her novel The Defilers, published in 2006, was not a best seller, alas. She spent 17 years at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in news and current affairs, including 12 years as a television producer.

20 thoughts on “Father Z Needs a Hand”

  1. I'm only an Anglican formerly in communion with the Apostolic See, but FWIW I'd have thought those of us who look to Petrine norms for the celebration of the Anglican liturgy would naturally have held as a consequence that we were celebrating a use of its rite. Surely the whole rationale of volumes like Ritual Notes rests on the premise that we are doing here is, in fact, a local application (an English Catholic one, as Fr Chadwick would say) of the Roman Rite, and therefore worth "doing" with reference to the authorities on that rite. The most diehard Sarum enthusiasts will be the first to correct anyone who dares dub it a "rite" rather than a use of the Western Catholic church!

    (*personally, since swimming the Thames I've shifted closer to an Anglo-Orthodox perspective if anything, and am at least as likely to look to the Usus Providentiae for the mind of the "wider Western church," but I still think this is a fair characterization of my indigenous English Missal churchmanship).

  2. I cannot seem to get registered at Fr. Z's site, but the answer is that the Anglican Usage liturgy, as set forth in the Book of Divine Worship, is a usage of the Roman Rite. The Book of Divine Worship was approved by the proper Roman disasters and has an imprimatur from the then delegate for the Pastoral Provision. I have also personally seen it on sale at the Ancora bookstore right off Piazza S. Pietro, which was, I believe, then Cardinal Ratzinger's favorite Catholic bookstore. As I understand it, for the moment there is no other Anglican-derived liturgy authorized for use in either the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham in the UK, or here in the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of Saint Peter. A joint commission is working on something, but it is still some time off from being finished and approved.

  3. Personally, I wouldn't bother trying to register at Fr. Z's site. His blog is full of vitriol and sarcasm, much of it directed at fellow Catholics. Unbecoming of any Christian, much less a priest. He's the sort that gives traditionalists a bad name.

    1. I think you'll find that many of the traditionalists don't really regard Fr Z as one of them despite his preference for Latin and orthodox belief. He's too obedient to the magisterium of the "Novus Ordo" church (which many trads think not quite, or at all, the same thing as the pre-Vatican II Vatican).

    2. Your characterization is correct.

      Furthermore, there is an implicit understanding among those who are his greatest fans that "Fr. Z is ALWAYS right".

      I know this first hand, as I am persona non grata among them after I once dared to correct him regarding something he said that was factually incorrect.

      Yes, with friends like these, etc.

      Part of that comes from his being a celebrity convert without pastoral duties. It provides him with a sort of "bully pulpit" (pardon the use of that phrase – but within the context I'm sure you get it).

      Gaudete in Domino Semper!

  4. "much of it directed at fellow Catholics"

    Hardly, unless you mean advocates of women's "ordination" and of "sanctified sodomy" within the Catholic Church, people who are not in any meaningful sense professing the Catholic Faith at all (e.g., his recent postings on the LCWR and the Vatican "slap-down" recently sent their way). I am an enthusiastic follower of his blog, and I wish its tribe may increase.

    1. His casual adoption of the pro-abortion euphemisim, "Safe, legal, and rare", with regard to his view on concelebration is truly offensive.

      Gaudete in Domino Semper!

  5. His targets are more than the two groups you mention, Mr. Tighe, as anyone who has read his blog will know. And you can go down the road of deciding who's Catholic enough for your tastes and who isn't. I leave that sort of stuff to higher authority. Enough said.

    1. His targets are many and all are deserving. And it is generally regarded as proper manners when responding to a person to address said person by their proper title.

      1. Then he ought to use his proper title when identifying himself. He's not in my rolodex. And no sincere person (target) is deserving of riducule, not matter how misguided.

        1. "And no sincere person (target) is deserving of riducule, not matter how misguided."

          Cf. St. Irenaeus on the Gnostics or St. Athanasius on the Arians (or "Ariomaniacs" as he termed them). Sit anima mea cum sanctis.

  6. May I refer you to an article by Bp. Peter Elliott of Melbourne, Australia, posted on 17 June, 2011 in The Anglo-Catholic which I hope is relevant:
    "As we can see in England, Anglicans are entering full communion within a distinctive ecclesial community, maintaining the Anglican Patrimony …. At the same time, these Personal Ordinariates will be part of the Roman Rite." Antony

  7. As a former Anglican now Byzantine Catholic, I felt the Anglican Liturgy as encapsulated in the prayerbooks was different enough to be considered its own creature. However, it sounds like the Missals put together in the 19th and 20th centuries borrowed heavily from the Roman Rite, so what you get is a sorta varied version of the Gregorian Mass. Correct me if I'm wrong, but even the "Sarum RIte" was a usage of the Roman Liturgy. I don't think saying this degenerates the Anglican Spiritual tradition anymore than you could say Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites are related to both the Gaullic and Roman tradition and draw from them. Yet, they both contain and continue to show that there was once a diversity of Western traditions in the Church as you can still see in the Near East.

    You could even say the Armenians are a little Byzantinized. = D

  8. Since 1549, the Anglican rites (the authentic Books of Common Prayer) have developed invarious ways. Many Anglicans do NOT consider the 1979 EC book and/or its relatives to be authentic BCPs. Those responsible for developement of anything resembling an authentic BCP for the Ordinariates will have to assimilate all the authentic books in order to come up with a replacement for the Book of Divine Worship, which simply cannot continue as it now exists. Further, there will have to be an assimilation of theceremonial usages involved. It is not wise for the Ordinariate to simply adapt the Tridentine or Novus Ordo usage. The liturgical use of the Ordinariate must be authentically within the Anglican tradition. Otherwise, the Ordinariate will gradually cease to have any separate identity. I would suggest the study of the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Uses and the minimal adaptations made. For example, the Mozarabic Rite had its own Words of Institution but the norm was to use the Words from the Gregorian. Otherwise, the music and ceremonial were the ancient forms for this very different rite. This is the sort of thing the liturgical people have to work out. They cannot simply adapt the Anglican Service Book or the Anglican Missal and Breviary. They must create an authentic BCP, according to the requirements. It is not easily done.

  9. The Anglican Use Liturgy is a Use of the Roman Rite, but it is what is called a 'proper' use rather than a 'local' use; that is, it is attached not to a certain place or places but to a certain group of people dispersedly. In this case, the group is not a religious institute or an occupational group (like the navy) but a group of Latin Catholics who are not bound together by vows or a way of common life but by adherence to a specific patrimony–to customs and liturgical traditions in which elementa of the True Church were always present at least as a reflection or shadow of something else. Really, there is no close parallel I can think of. The Anglican Use is a new animal but it is an animal one might have expected to find in the liturgical zoo. One might go through a zoo and see a zebra and a giraffe and one might expect to see a gazelle but not see one. However, that gazelle was there all along, even if hidden behind a shrub for a while.

    Welcome home Anglican Catholics!

    Peter Karl T. Perkins

  10. "The liturgical use of the Ordinariate must be authentically within the Anglican tradition."

    Well, that depends on what means by "the Anglican tradition." It has long been clear to me that "the Anglican tradition" as "legitimated" within the Catholic Church means the "tradition of English Christianity from 597 onwards," and not primarily "the tradition of the Church of England since 1559," many aspects of which are incompatible with the magisterial tradition of the "Roman Communion." I daresay that this is the view of most, and probably all, "episcopal converts" to Rome in recent years in both England and the United States.

Leave a Reply