Using What We Have Already…

Shawn Tribe over on The New Liturgical Movement voices what many of us have advocated for some time; namely, looking no further than one of the missals already in existence to be used as the Ordinariate rite of the Mass. Some Anglo-Catholics used the English Missal, others of us used the Anglican Missal or the American Missal (my personal preference is for there to be as much incorporation of the BCP material as possible), but the general idea is the same. The heavy lifting has been done, and there would need to be only minimal adjustments.

Of course, there are those who will protest, "But these were never approved!" Frankly, who cares? It is simply the case that most Anglo-Catholics used one of the versions of the missal. That is a fact of history in Anglicanism, and it should be recognized that it was that very brand of Anglicanism which has led us home to the Catholic Church. Many of us who have used The Book of Divine Worship for a generation have done our best to interpret the rubrics in such a way as to conform it as closely as possible to what we knew in the missals. Why go through all that? Why not just have the real thing?

I think the train may have left the station on this, but I do wish it would be given serious consideration before the final word is spoken.

Have a look at Shawn's article:

Some recent events put my mind once again to the matter of the English Missal.

The English Missal, as many of you know, is essentially a hieratic English translation of the pre-conciliar Missale Romanum. It was a missal which had been used by various Anglican Catholics, or Anglo-Catholics, in the 20th century.

Fr. John Hunwicke, who himself described the English Missal as "the finest vernacular liturgical book ever produced," summarizes its contents and its use accordingly:

For most of the 20th Century, Anglican Catholic worship meant a volume called "The English Missal". It contained the whole Missale Romanum translated into English; into an English based on the style of Thomas Cranmer's liturgical dialect in the Book of Common Prayer. The "EM" took everything biblical from the translation known as the King James Bible or Authorised Version.

I have often commented on my own hope — one which I know is shared by many others — that we would see the English Missal (or something closely akin to it) form one of the liturgical options made available within the context of the Ordinariate. Now it will no doubt be quickly pointed out that the use of the English Missal was by no means universal even amongst Anglo-Catholics and would be generally unfamiliar to many other Anglicans; from what I have gathered from others far more familiar with the situation within Anglicanism, this is certainly true. In light of that, it perhaps would not be the right choice to make it the sole liturgical book of the Ordinariate (which should presumably include a liturgical book which is much closer to something like the Book of Common Prayer) but it surely could be made available as an additional option, a kind of "Extraordinary Form" if you will — the analogy here is imperfect but I think it gets the basic idea across.

Read the whole article here.

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.

54 thoughts on “Using What We Have Already…”

  1. I too have a preference for the Missal despite most of my Episcopal Church experience was with the 1979 BCP (I'm still fond of it) as layman and priest. Is there any chance for the Council of Priests, the Synod, or even all of the clergy converts to discuss this in an official forum and at least make their thoughts known to our Ordinary and the Vatican? Considering that we as a group are dirt poor and can't afford to meet together I guess that is a vain hope.

    BTW, I also hope that a "Rite II" liturgy is also in the works so what is treasured in the the Anglican tradition is available to us in modern language as well; like it or not the last forty years are also part of our Anglican patrimony and modern language is accessible and welcoming to more of the Protestants — Episcopalian, Anglican, Methodist, Baptist, etc. — that are our missionary field.


  2. Could not agree more, Father. Why jump through complicated hoops only to come up with something uncomfortably unfamiliar?

    The English Ordinariate seems to have the reins on this, and they are quite happy to use only the novus ordo. (The Forward in Faith ethos was very much "And also with you.") I don't know how welcome the revised translation was in this set, but there was certainly little point inventing something just as novel, but somehow more Anglican as a contemporary language rite for the Ordinariate.

    The trouble is that cobbling together a vague amalgam of Prayerbook-like material for a more traditional rite is just as artificial an exercise. It does not preserve many of the very things that attracted people to the Anglo-Catholic tradition. The proposed marriage rite, for example, does not allow for a wedding followed by a nuptial mass, as was traditional, and instead imbeds the marriage in the mass in the modern manner. Not done in the parishes I attended.

    Far better to start from the tried and tested, then revise as needed.

  3. The lectionary as found in the missals is important. I think many folks who were not raised with it do not realize the power of the lectionary or the influence it has on one's spirituality. It was dissed very badly by the revisers. Most of the arguments in favor, though,are well summarized by David Curry in "Doctrinal Instrument of Salvation: The Use of Scripture in the Prayer Book Lectionary" found along with a lot of other useful stuff here: .

    My reading of the situation is that the powers that be are terrified by the thought of the pre-Vatican II Mass, especially in the vernacular. I am not a specifically INTEL guy, but I can still make a good guess at my opponent's strategic objectives, and this is where he seems to be going. They are therefore taking the tack they are to prevent this.

    Why are they so intent? Because they are committed, at some level, to a theological revolution (as my fellow KM Desmond Seward has pointed out). This revolution is usually set forth by terms like the new ecclesiology of the people of God promulgated by Vatican II. (You will look in vain for it in the documents, rather it is the so-called "Spirit of Vatican II"). It is, as my old prof Charles Caldwell pointed out, not just a new ecclesiology, but rather something radically different from Christian theology, namely pantheism or panentheism masquerading as Christianity. For a perfect illustration of this point read David Tracy's Blessed Rage for Order.

  4. Fr. Phillips a most heartfelt thank you for gracefully stating what many have voiced over the past two years.

  5. The English Missal is part of the history of some Anglican/Episcopal churches. In the Philippines, the use of the EM in the missions is the reason why the Episcopal Church (ECP) there is broadly Catholic. The argument that the EM is not approved by any Anglican jurisdiction remains valid, but if the Ordinariate Catholics can convince the CDF that indeed it is part of their patrimony, Rome can oblige.

    1. Ben,
      You commented elsewhere about the approval of the Eng;lish Missal by Anglican bishops. I have a feeling that it was approved by Frank Weston for use in the Diocese of Zanzibar, and possibly translated into Swahili.

      A somewhat revised version was certainly approved for use in the Diocese of Nyasaland in August 1931 (I have an altar copy before me, printed in 1933 by U.M.C.A.).

      It retains the Prayer of Consecration from the BCP, heavily "catholicized", as can be seen from the following extract:

      Truly thou art Holy, O Almighty God and Heavenly Father, an to thee do we give thanks for that thou didst givethine only Son Jesus Christ, to take our nature upon him and to suffer death upon the cross for our redemtption; who made there one all-sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue a perpetual memory of that his precious death, until his coming again.
      Hear us, O merciful Father, we humbly beseeech thee, and with they Hioly Spirit and with thy Word vouchsafe to sanctify these thy+creatures of + bead and + wine, that they may be unto us the + Body and + Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ. Who in the same night that he was betrayed took bread, and when he had + blessed and give thnaks he brake it and gave it to his disciples, sayong, take, eat, THIS IS MY BODY WHICH IS GIVEN FOR YOU.DO THIS IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME: Likewise after supper he took the cup, and when he had + blessed and given thanks he gave it to them saying, Drink ye all of this, for THIS IS MY BLOOD OF THE NEW TESTAMENT WHICHIS SHED FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. Do this as oft as ye shall drink it in remembrance of Me. Amen.
      Wherefore O Lord and Heavenly Father we thy humble servants, together with all thy holy people, having in remembrance the blessed Passion of the same thy Son Christ our Lord, as also his mighty Resurrection and glorious Ascension, do offer unto thy Divine Majesty of these thy Holy Gifts a pure and + holy Victim, this holy + bread of eternal life and this + cup of everlasting salvation; beseeching thee to grant that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ and through faith in his Blood we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of + sins and all other benefits of his Passin.
      And here we offer ubnto thee, O LOrd, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a holy and living sacrifice unto thee, humbly beseeching thee that whosoever shall receive the sacred + Body and + Blood of thy Son may be filled with thy + grace and heavenly benediction. And although we be unworthy through our manifold sins to offer unto thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech thee to command that this our Sacrifice, together with our prayers, be brought to thy Holy Altar on high, before the sight of thy Divine Majesty; through Jesus Christ + our Lord : By + Whom, and woth + Whom, and in + Whom, be unto thee O Father + Almighty in the unity of the Holy + Ghost, all honour and glory; world without end.

      Kind regards,
      John U.K.

  6. With some modifications, I'd be looking to the "Book of Divine Worship" to be the liturgical source for the Ordinariate. It takes a reasonable and balanced approach to tradition and modernity in both present day Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism. That will prove to be of immense appeal.

    I don't see a tweaked Anglican Missal because of a limited appeal to Anglo Catholics only. With almost no to most "broad" Church or evangelical Anglicans. So why go there when, as Father Phillips says, you already have missal which has withstood the test of time?

    The BDW appeals to non-Ordinariate Catholics and may be even more popular with Anglicans contemplating taking the plunge. Anglicans who might otherwise be stuck with the uneven quality of the OF outside the Ordinariate.

    Rome may be looking for an Anglican liturgy which blunts the continuing popularity of both the NO and the EF without having to make what would be controversial revisions to either form of the Mass. Thus worsening the already contentious atmosphere (let's face it a civil war) throughout the Church.

    The EF hasn't been able to take off as it's admirers and supporters anticipated in 2007. Bishops still do their level best to discourage it's growth, despite lip service to traditionalists and the Vatican indicating full support. So, the 1962 EF is largely dead in the water. Few Anglicans contemplating crossing the Tiber are drawn to it..

    With a view very minor revisions, "The Book of Divine Worship" may be the most successful repository of Anglican patrimony we have today. The 1928 BCP alone suffers a similar fate to the 1962 EF liturgy. On the other hand, the BDW will give non-Ordinariate Catholics bored with the bizarre aspects of OF praxis a place to turn to. It would be wonderful if the BDW liturgy could be celebrated as an alternative rite in non-Ordinariate parishes.

    The BCP may well be dead in the EPUSA in time, as it deteriorates into little more than a discussion club. Sherry and tea following Evensong is also becoming a thing of the past as the EPUSA attracts more philistines and barbarians.

    I think there are plenty of Anglicans, from the Anglo Catholic wing to the evangelical "low" church who have tired of their mix and match liturgies and the discordant themes so popular now, e.g. Coptic and Ethiopian offertory rites and processions complete with drums and cymbals accompanying Gibbons, Byrd, Brittain , Willan, and Williams. Circuses abound!!

    I predict these Anglicans, in time , will discover the BDW a welcome oasis of Anglican tradition and an outpost for dignified and beautiful liturgy.

    1. If you mean, Father, that the 62 missal is dead in the water at large, and not simply as regards the Ordinariate I'll have to disagree. True, someone looking for explosive growth will be hard pressed to find it, but locations have grown steadily, and more importantly, I have seen resistance wearing down.

  7. Would this love for, let us be frank, more or less the traditional Roman liturgy (a.k.a. the EF in current parlance), with some of the nicer bits of the BCP interspersed, not in fact be – even today – cause for alarm among the prelates and curialists who have now long used, happily, the modern Roman Rite (a.k.a. the OF), and have an almost irrational (because over-emotional) repulsion to the older forms?

    I am reminded of one of those old cartoons by "Brother Choleric" (Dom Hubert von Zeller): two monks are side-by-side in chains in a dungeon: next to the one on the left is written "For saying Mass in English before the Decree" and next the one on the right, "For saying Mass in Latin after the Decree".

    Allowing the use of some form of the English Missal – that is, of the traditional Roman liturgy rendered into Cramnerian English, that particular style of liturgical language properly a part of Anglican Patrimony, augmented with such godly additions as the Prayer of Humble Access – would, I am afraid, while being very much to the good of Anglo-Catholic devotion, fall foul of the deep internal divisions within the modern Roman Rite vis a vis the Latin Mass of yore.

    As a sympathetic observer, I had until recently taken what I now see was a typically Roman stance: allow the use – as found in the Book of Divine Worship – of as many suitable parts of the "official" BCP tradition as is consonant with Catholic faith and order, but eschew the whole "unofficial" Anglican Missal tradition, stemming from the 19th C. Ritualists, as being but an unapproved Englishing of the Latin Mass as it was before its reform. And remember, I am one who am all in favour of the EF Mass! The majority of Catholic clergy are not… they would take the view that agrees with that of the majority of Anglo-Catholics in England, who adopted the OF wholesale out of obedience to the Rome with which they were (until very recently) not in full communion.

    The Holy Father of course, as demonstrated by Summorum pontificum and like pronouncements, is in favour of a worthy place in Catholic worship for the older forms; but he is still rather alone in that position. The number of bishops and priests who understand and agree with that stance, let alone are full-bloodedly in favour of the EF's promotion and re-extension, is still small compared to those who at best aren't interested and at worst are quite opposed to such things, thinking them a false step backward that appeals only to tiny coteries of archconservatives. I fear that the odium and contempt suffered by self-described "traddies" would soon fall upon Anglican incomers if they push hard – as, be it said, they ought – for the English Missal.

    Sorry to sound negative! I do in fact agree with this, since it (as the NLM puts it far better than I) allows for all the benefits of the EF, in a reverent and worthy vernacular rendering, plus incorporation of suitable prayers from the Anglican Patrimony. I just fear that it will not come to pass.

    Let us be frank: Mgr Steenson, God bless him, by his comments available online is quite happy with the OF and has no interest in the EF; and, one suspects, as an Episcopalian until what was it? only five years ago, he probably used the 1979 US BCP, not the 1928, let alone the American Missal or the like. He may well be – and I mean him no disrespect – one who is quite happy with the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, and with the Book of Divine Worship as the ne plus ultra for such incoming Anglicans as prefer to keep some of the parts of the BCP in use; I suspect – and I hope I am wrong – he would not see the need to press for the English Missal.

  8. The problem with the English Missal is that it was not a rite, but a collection of material out of which anything from 1552 to Trent (albeit with only the canon in Latin) could be cobbled together. And there were numerous different editions. Every parish used it in a different way. I do not wish to deny that an acceptable rite could be extracted from this material, but the inevitable result would be change for everybody still using any particular English Missal in any particular way, and probably the need for a new and expensive publication of the approved form. One cannot ask for approval of anything and everything in any English Missal unless one believes 1552 was a valid Catholic rite!
    The bitter experience of the last fifty years is that central control of the liturgy is necessary (though not bound to achieve good results) and the centre, with limited resources, has to prioritise. It takes as much central effort to define and validate a rite for a thousand people as it does for a million. Another Trent derivative (or Sarum if you prefer the Anglican Missal) for very few congregations is not likely to be a high priority, therefore.

    1. What I do know is this – that the Missal I use as a Western Rite Orthodox Catholic Christian – is taken largely from a former Anglo-Catholic Knott missal – and it matches just about everything in the 1955 official Latin Tridentine Missals with (except for proper of saints, not much after 1054 there..) almost no admission or addition.

      It may be viewed there.

      There is no rational reason such a missal could not be used in communion with Rome.

  9. I'm a fan of the New Liturgical Movement!

    It sounds like people still are uncertain about things. Like there's the question "Why can't we use this?? There's nothing wrong with this, is there?" attached to this particular missal.

    I with Newly Catholic; we'd like to know if there's a committee or a synod or a group of representatives of the Ordinariates that can talk about which missal, what books, etc. is considered orthodox and allowable. I hope there IS one, or else I dread that the Ordinariates are just drifting on water with no direction.

  10. This reminds me of that poem in which it is said "we're strictly BCP… except for the Secret and the Canon and the Dominus vobiscum". I recall Fr Hunwicke reminiscing about ministering in a C of E parish that told him upon his arrival that they were "strictly BCP": to conform to this, he therefore celebrated the 1662 Holy Communion to the letter, standing at the north end, using the Julian Calendar, praying for King Charles II, etc. – and thoroughly shocked them; it transpired their previous vicar had in fact used the English Missal or somesuch, and what the locals called strict BCP was anything but!

    I heard from one of the TAC here in Australia that there is liturgical anarchy, in that every priest of the TAC celebrates whatsoever form of Eucharistic liturgy he likes: I have seen this in action! "In those days there was no king in Israel: but every one did that which seemed right to himself." (Judges 21:24)

    I certainly mean no disrespect for mentioning this: but it was emphasised to me that the move into Catholic communion would necessarily mean an end to such wholly independent liturgizing, and an conformity to the words and rules of the Missal.

    1. A uniform liturgy is good for creating identity. Which is the main argument against modern, liberalized liturgies in the Latin Church. If everyone is an individual, and the masses reflect this individualism, why is everyone uniformly an individual? It's like the teenager who talks about how edgy and non-conformist and rebellious and unique he is… just like every other teenager struggling with their identity. The illusion of a "special snowflake" becomes unraveled because of the fundamental truths that underlie every attempts at absolute uniqueness- if they DO become utterly unique, and consistent at this insistence, then there is heteropraxy, and if heteropraxy becomes orthodox, then there is no justification as to why the communal worship of God, in the Mass, as an expression of the people of God, should not be abolished all together, and we start to behave like worship is only a personal, private act, and everyone is his own pope, priest, deacon, minister of the sacraments, etc.

      1. Johannes, I can well remember priests, seminarians, and college educated Catholics in the 1950s talking about everyman a priest, everyman a liturgist. Liturgy belongs to everyone. It is no longer the preserve of the experts and the liturgy police with their reams of regs and rubrics.

        It has taken a long time, but liturgical culture is crumbling just as all cultures are crumbling. In time, I think you'll find more and more bishops and clergy talking of diocesan and national liturgies. This won't break out until Benedict XVI is gone. I fear the revolution is coming with tumultuous speed as the self-appointed liturgists and amateur rubricists, like Attila, get closer to the gates of Rome..

        1. Lord preserve us.

          Can't we fight this? Isn't the "Spirit of Vatican II" dying? What about the New Liturgical Movement? Is it not bearing fruit, or are our efforts too little and too late?

          I am a young man, and I feel that the cause of Tradition is worthy, and of what is modern, liberal and fashionable to be fleeting and untrustworthy. Surely, there must be something I can do. (Write Archbishop Gomez letters insisting on the availability of traditional masses at the Los Angeles Cathedral? Donate a percentage of my income to the Ordinariates? Facebook?)

    2. Joshua, If it's liturigical uniformity one wants in the Anglican Church today, one would have to join the Reformed Episcopal Church. They seem to be the only Anglicans here in the U.S. which at once adheres to the 1928 BCP, upholds the 39 Articles, the historic creeds, and also takes great pride in objecting to women clergy and the ordination of openly gay seminarians.

      As for the EPUSA, forget it. They celebrate pretty much what they want to celebrate. As for holding their members to core beliefs, that's largely a lot of lip service under this presiding bishop. You could be excommunicated more easily from "The Book-of-the-Month Club", than to ever fear excommunication from bishop Schori.

  11. Not everything done by individual Anglicans or groups of Anglicans can be considered part of "Anglican patrimony". One of the foundations of Anglicanism is liturgical conformity, i.e. that everybody uses the Book of Common Prayer. In the past century Romeward-leaning Anglicans have rejected liturgical conformity and made use of other liturgical sources: English Missal, Anglican Missal, Novus Ordo – but the mere fact that these have been used by some Anglicans does not mean that they can now be considered part of "Anglican patrimony".
    If the Ordinariates want to be true to Anglican patrimony, and a belief in liturgical conformity, then they should be using the Novus Ordo like most other Catholics.

    1. This post is absurd. Liturgical conformity has not been the situation in Anglicanism, anywhere, for well over 150 years.

      Longer, I would argue. Puritans who would not use the sign of the cross in baptism, wear a surplice, even use "a form of prayer" are there right at the start. Those who resist the Laudian reforms decorate the 17th century. In the late 18th century, Holy Communion was celebrated twice a year in many places, and the BCP rubrics about the offices and saints' days completely ignored. The early Tractarians were considered eccentric for insisting on observing those rubrics — and then the Ornaments Rubric itself was a source of bitter controversy. Right up to our own day in which Evangelicals merrily ignore liturgy entirely, clergy officiate in street clothes, and laypeople celebrate illicitly, while in the next-door parish, Fr Spike is torn between the last Roman Missal and the new version.

      In my view, what should matter most are the needs and preferences of those nurtured in the Catholic tradition of Anglicanism. It is they who have come into the Ordinariate, or otherwise converted to Rome, and that is where most future recruits will come from. I think the idea that the broad middle of, say, the Church of England is going to one day flood into the Ordinariate is barmy — delightful though such a prospect may be. I can't see the point of developing a liturgy aimed at this entirely fictional group, while alienating a frightfully keen core constituency.

      1. I heartily agree, Austin. Of course, given the present course of Anglicanism, it'll be running out of Anglo-catholics (if not actual Christians) before too long. The future of the Ordinariates will be found in the birth-rate of its own members, and converts from all sorts of backgrounds, whether vaguely Christian or even pagan!

        In our own parish, after thirty years a large part of our young families consists of those who grew up at OLA.

      2. The use of a single liturgical service book is a hallmark of Anglicanism. The fact that a relatively small number of fringe groups within Anglicanism have departed from that liturgical conformity doesn't mean that, "Liturgical conformity has not been the situation in Anglicanism, anywhere, for well over 150 years." In Canada (where I live) the overwhelming majority of Anglican congregations used the 1962 BCP until the 1985 publication of the BAS.

        Liturgy may be attractive, and it may draw people into the full communion of the Church. But liturgy should not be designed to be part of an advertising campaign to attract "future recruits".

        It should be possible to disagree with other peoples' posts without describing them as "absurd". That's just part of the online culture of hyperbole.

        1. Perhaps Canada is more obedient and conformist than other benighted lands. I have been to dozens of Anglican churches on four continents and I can honestly say not one of them used an identical text or ritual to another. And the situation has grown more diverse since publishing one's own order of worship grew easier.

          The idea that there was a Platonic standard was no doubt important, but I have not experienced it in practice over the last 40 years.

        2. "The use of a single liturgical service book is a hallmark of Anglicanism."
          That is disingenuous. It may have been the "foundation", as you said previously, but that was a long time ago. Some of the "patrimony" that is so much talked about would not have been tolerated for centuries in the Church of England.

    2. Do you think we can at least agree on what IS NOT Anglican patrimony? I would say it definitely is not a Sarum usage pontifical mass with a cast of thousands in the sanctuary carrying crosses, wearing tunicles, and dalmatics praying under the rood beam.

      I think Thomas Cranmer derived from this tradition the very best features of the Sarum rite for his reformed services in the form of the collects, prayers, and his selection of psalms and canticles together with two scripture readings–a Service of the Word for a reformed church. . He wisely excised the fanciful hagiographical writings of the Roman office. Perhaps, a reformed Ordinariate Anglican Matins will restore a sermon from the Patristic Fathers (from the Anglican or Roman breviary) as an added lesson to Matins.

      The Anglican patrimony IS NOT translating the Roman Mass, or the Roman office in the 1920s and putting it into Cranmerian English. Since Latin missals already possess this elevated English and so does the Western Rite of the Russian Orthodox Church. What's more, an insignificantly small number of Anglicans even use these services.

      I don't know how the CDW defines the" Anglican patrimony," but I define it as the elevated language (Cranmer, Coverdale, the King James bible) and music from the 16th century to today's composers. With a place for the offices of Matins, Evensong, and Midday Prayer in the parish life of Anglican parishes for each day, Sundays, and feasts , and as found in the Book of Common Prayer from 1549 to present editions. Unfortunately, this feature of the patrimony is declining rapidly today. Maybe the Ordinariate will restore it in ways Anglicanism itself can't or won't. restore it

      Furthermore, we have the spirituality of the Caroline Divines minus the anti-papal polemics so typical of the era. Against which the Jesuits and English Catholics delivered equally acrimonious diatribes measure for measure.

      1. Oh, Cranmer. Even in death, you divide Christ. If only you were resurrected like Trajan in the Golden Legend, be reconciled, and go back to sleep, everything would be peachy.

        But I suppose we gotta go through this the hard way.

        Why can't Canterbury and Rome host some sort of summit to determine what goes into the Ordinariates as "Anglican Patrimony"? It feels as if even an ignorant Roman Catholic layman can have a say; at least, bishops, tend to your sheep. It becomes absurd when sheep start to herd sheep.

        There may even be wolves that got into the flock due to this. And it's causing severe confusion and despair.

        1. Why should "Canterbury" be involved in any of this? First, it is Rome that decides, not Canterbury, even if Canterbury were unimpeachably orthodox; secondly, as the present Archbishop of Canterbury "ordains" women, like his predecessor, and also, unlike his predecessor, has written in favor of accepting "homosexual partnerships," even if, as archbishop, he seems to think that "the time is not yet, the idea of involving Canterbury in determining these matters is an absurdity.

          1. Am I glad Canterbury doesn't have to be involved! Okay!

            Rome defines Anglican Patrimony, but has it defined Anglican Patrimony?

            Or are the Ordinariates expected to define this patrimony based on consensus on what it is, then submit it to approval in Rome?

            I'm not sure what anyone is doing here. (Or supposed to be doing.)

            1. (It would be a strange patrimony if we're just making things up now.)

              Johannes, as in putting an infamous "clown masse" into Cranmerian English? Maybe celebrated by Cardinal Burke in cappa magna beneath a rood screen?

        2. Canterbury is not a sister church like the Orthodox Churches of the East. This means the Catholic Church does not recognize Canterbury's sacraments (except baptism) as valid. And I don't think it is ARCIC's mandate to do liturgy! Rome may get the opinion of Anglican liturgists but she alone makes the decision.

          1. Yes, and Msgr. Burnham, together with any additional information the Vatican might need in matters pertaining to Anglican liturgy, theology, and practice are always a stone's throw away. Lambeth palace has been and would continue to be cooperative in such efforts . Other Anglican depositories and centers of scholarship as well.

  12. Whenever I read comments about what was or wasn't approved under the Anglican hierarchy, or about the difficulties in coming up with any singular thing or book which defines the Anglican patrimony, I cannot help but think that at the end of the day, we essentially see that one way or another something is being "cobbled together" and that there is no clear and distinct solution to this. Any book seems like it is going to have be modified somehow.

    It seems to me that the Ordinariate, and ultimately Rome, can pick and choose what they want to have going forward. So in that regard, I'm not sure how relevant it must be whether something like the English Missal was or wasn't approved or how widely it was or wasn't used, or whether there would need to be some "cobbling". Rome and the Ordinariate can decide for itself if they want to approve that going forward now.

    Shouldn't the question really just be what the core characteristics of an Anglican patrimony is and which particular liturgical book would be good, require the least tampering and best fits into a Catholic context?

    One other thought about the idea of uniformity as mentioned by the last commenter. I don't think we want to see chaos and some choices have to be made and stuck to. It cannot be a buffet. At the same time, surely one of the lessons we've seen in recent history is how impoverishing it was to lose all these distinctive liturgical rites (think of all the religious orders who dropped their books). In other words, there is room for some diversity too.

    1. I'm all in favour of preserving the legitimate liturgical diversity of various historic uses. But that must be distinguished from the Anglo-Catholic desire to do things differently and to be special. The ways in which individual Anglo-Catholic clergy on their own authority took parts of the Roman liturgy and used them in Anglican churches cannot be compared to an historic liturgical rite of one of the Catholic religious orders.

  13. Technically, the problems as far as the Catholic Orthodoxy is concerned reside with the KJV Bible, and NOT with the Order of the Mass itself.

    The Anglican Liturgy, which is a work of great beauty, does absolutely need to be preserved as much as is humanly and Catholically possible.

    If the means towards that end were to be a cleansing of the KJV of its translation, bibliogical, and theological errors — whilst maintaining its literary beauty — and do not be mistaken, this would be a MASSIVE undertaking — then this would surely be pleasing in the eyes of the Christ and of the Communion of the Saints, both quick and dead !!!

    If I had better health, I'd honestly be warm to the idea of contributing to such a godly project myself.

    1. Technically, the problems as far as the Catholic Orthodoxy is concerned reside with the KJV Bible, and NOT with the Order of the Mass itself.
      Yes, and liturgy is not just a matter of rites, formulas, and ritual movement. Liturgy first and foremost is a question of language and meaning framed within a beautiful context of prayer and music. The rest is mummery and theatrics until anchored with language.
      Something I fear which has been lost in the Roman Church today .The strongest evidence for it being the Roman Missal, 3rd edition.

      1. Hey…. What's wrong the the 3rd ed. Roman Missal? It seems legit.

        Certainly better than the "And also with you" sort of thing before.

        Also: I've read the Roman Rite is supposed to be sober and not as frilly as, say, the Eastern Orthodox?

        1. "the Roman Rite is supposed to be sober and not as frilly as, say, the Eastern Orthodox?"
          Curt and blunt perhaps compared to the more expansive Greek oratory which influenced the Orthodox liturgy and the energy of the prayers. English elevated language is perfect tor that.

          I'm not so sure the Latin prayers hold up as well for Catholics brought up in an English-speaking world. I'm for keeping "sober" Roman prayers in Latin. That sobriety once put into English comes across as boring, just plain flat compared to the Cranmerian, or hieratic English.

          1. It makes me wonder how English-speaking members of the Orthodox Church or their authorities have translated their own liturgy and missals, etc.

            I'm a Roman at heart and my personal ideal is straightforward simplicity. But growing up and learning and speaking in English, and not Latin, I can appreciate how hieratic English is so… baroque, or proto-baroque and so, so, so appropriate in comparison to the perpetually uncomfortable English translations of Latin. (Maybe before the 3rd edition translation.)

    1. Note: one important difference is that the Korea order used the prayer book canon. I suspect that in the "good old days" in England, the prayer book canon was said aloud while the Roman canon was said silently over the sanctus/benedictus, or however the so-called "sandwich rite" actually worked in real life.

      I don't think anyone wants a "sandwich" rite.

  14. Wasn't the EM Canon derived from Coverdale's Translation [deliciously to be found today in Foxe's Book of Martyrs!!].
    I find the idea of "cleansing" the KJV extremely disturbing. In any case, its "errors" must be preferable to the various horrors of the "fruits of the Spirit" that came as a result of Vat.II.

    1. The KJV is also immensely preferable to what is found in the "Vox Clara"/CDW's disaster, the Missale Romanum, 3rd edition. Let us hope and pray a Rite 1 is permitted for the Novus Ordo of Pope Paul VI which permits the use of KJV for scripture readings, or, at least the Douai-Rheims hieratic English for the Mass texts.
      Otherwise, I can just see many cradle-born Catholics applying for admission to the Anglican Ordinariate. Bishops may not like that prospect, so could get behind an enhancement of the NO liturgy to keep them at home and continuing to fill non-Ordinariate coffers.

      1. if the KJV is such a problem (because of supposed inherent heterodoxy in how certain verses are translated) what about the rhiems/doauy (spelling???) version—-of similar antiquity, similar phrasing and rythum, and completely orthodox? this "solution" has been suggested by others in other places so what are the obstacles/objections to this option?

  15. If you believe this to be a good idea, and I do believe it is, have people flood the congregation of worship with this request. The faithful can and should make their spiritual needs made known. Oh yes, and pray!

  16. The argument that the no episcopal conference ever approved the Anglican Missal was used by Msgr. Marini and Fr. Parker in 1984 against the more traditional elements of the BDW. The liturgical commission at the time ignored that argument as irrelevant and fortunately retained some elements of the Missals.

    It is interesting that this same argument appears again almost 30 years later. I hope that it is ignored now as it was then.

  17. Inventive – even archeologicalising – liturgies are not often well blessed; this long established (and wholly orthodox) catholic use cannot be consider anything other than a blessing .. even if only its basic format is sincerely renewed for present day Anglican Catholic use.

    If this is the form retained, and re-established, I want to be an Anglican Catholic (please). But if not, and some sort of Year A, B, C, in form I, II, III or IV, using a politically corrected version of the 1970s (interchangeable at whim) 'relevancy' codes is adopted – then I suspect the New Anglican Catholic Rite will be as much of a mish-mash as the (1970's) forms in either the Roman or Anglican Rites. So far an astonishingly reverent spirit has been shown to the rites set out for use (by all, in their common Ordinary, I hope), one can only hope in the Holy Ghost .. he has blessed this gift super-abundantly to date, may He add bountiful fruit to the labour and a secure harvest ..

  18. this is all so ridiculous…….. if somebody really believes that Anglican fudge is what is meant by patrimony then they had best stay put and make their piece with women priests and bishops. An Ordinariate where each group within it holds to a slightly different liturgy ('because that's how we've always done it') is totally against the whole ethos of AC (in my humble opinion). One would hope that the Ordinary will work hard to ensure that all the ducks are in line (to use a pathatic cliche).

  19. Every parish having a slightly different liturgy? Well, how is that different from the regular Roman church now has? They should fit in. Seriously, they have the EF liturgy and the OF liturgy comprehensive enough in practice to cover a very broad range from close to an EF liturgy to a very stripped down rite. Such liturgical comprehensiveness is already part of the Roman church. I do not see why the ordinariates cannot have an OF of their own comprehensive to cover the varying options that are not simply the idiosyncratic choice of one or two places but has some depth of use and an EF based on the Missal liturgies. There is no reason why they should not. The fact that they won't is not an argument that we should not argue for such. Someone has to.

    1. Very good point Edmond. I've never seen the same Novus Ordo Mass a second time. Novelty abounds and priestly "creativity". is the order of the day.

      Mind you, at a Novus Ordo liturgy there's often something for the traditionalist and offering for those who favor innovation and experimentation. Some of it can be very impressive and quite beautiful and uplifting, but all too often the attempts at creativity by choir and celebrant fall illustrate the work of philistines and barbarians. "Beauty" is not always a word in their lexicon.

Leave a Reply