Deo Gratias!

Finally, some superb news about the future — and hopefully permanent — Eucharistic Liturgy of the Anglican Personal Ordinariates! Following on Msgr. Andrew Burnham’s address at the recent Sacra Liturgia Conference in Rome, there is very strong evidence that indeed the established Liturgy of the Anglican Personal Ordinariates erected under the auspices of Pope Benedict XVI in his motu proprio Anglicanorum cœtibus, and currently being developed by the interdicastrial group Anglicanæ traditiones and reportedly being auditioned in four Ordinariate parishes around the world, will incorporate much from the Vetus Ordo, the so-called Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite — and the Anglican Missal tradition. The prayers at the foot of the Altar, the Last Gospel, the traditional Offertory, &c…

Stay tuned and keep praying!

Author: Christian Clay Columba Campbell

Christian Clay Columba Campbell is a Roman Catholic of the Anglican Use. As Senior Warden of the Cathedral of the Incarnation (Orlando, FL), he organized the process by which the parish accepted the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, petitioning to join the Catholic Church. The Anglican Cathedral is now the Church of the Incarnation in the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter. He is also the CEO of Three Fish Consulting, LLC, an Information Technology consultancy based in Orlando, FL. He can be reached via email at ccampbell at threefish dot co.

10 thoughts on “Deo Gratias!”

  1. I much regret your using this once widely respected blog to promote an agenda which is very obviously not that of mainstream Anglican Use Christians. The term Extraordinary Form derives from Pope Benedict and is thus hardly "so-called"! The Ordinariate Ordo does include elements of the Sarum Use and this is logical. The rubrics will however allow a great flexibility in using the various elements to suit local tradition or usage. We are in the process of developing a "catholic" Mass, meaning universal, and all will have to make certain compromises. I for one have a number of preferences which it would appear have not been included.. As yet the Ordo is being treated confidentially and you are requested to do the same, by the Prefect himself. Thank you.

    David Murphy

  2. What a ridiculous comment!

    I'm fairly certain that The Anglo-Catholic, though largely dormant, yet commands the highest respect in many circles and especially amongst those already members of or inclined towards the POs. Peruse the archives, friend, and you'll find the most detailed, accurate reporting on the birth of the Anglican Personal Ordinariates along with topical resources, devotional aids and, arguably, the largest corpus of Anglo-Catholic material available on the WWW.

    Your liturgical musings and purported finger on the pulse of Anglican Catholics are both shallow and uninformed. Msgr. Burnham in his paper presented at the Sacra Liturgia Conference in Rome affirmed that Anglo-Catholics in England would be "rediscovering" their liturgical roots and that rubrical "flexibility" in the way I believe you use the term is undesirable. And I can speak very, very confidently about the desires of Anglican Use Catholics on this side of the Pond. They indeed DO wish the restoration as much as possible of the Missal Tradition — which entails recoveries derived directly from the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite which so obviously displeases you.

    1. The tone and content of your response unfortunately speak for themselves.

      Of course your site was great in its heyday – I would be a fool to state otherwise and you deserve every credit for it and for bringing together all the important authors.

      However, I do believe that if you have not abandoned the mainstream it would seem that the mainstream has abandoned you. Perhaps you might "muse" on that yourself.

      I try not to be uninformed and shallow. Should this, however, be the case, I am thankful for correction. You will not find me insulting my commentators.

  3. David,

    The optionality of the Bugnini Mass is POISON. The details of the proposed Mass, although the exact details kept under wraps, are widely known.

    Several of the parishes using the liturgy ad experimentum are also known.

    I see no reason for the hostility, or the concern on the part of "the Prefect."

    Now, as to that optionality, or "flexibility" as you call it, the two most worrisome optional features to those "mainstream Anglican Use Christians" of which you apparently know very little (and the Prefect perhaps even less) are the inclusion of the Anaphora of St. Hippolytus, whose nearly fabricated version is otherwise known as the Second Eucharistic Prayer, and the entirely alien to the Roman rite Jewish grace prayers of the Preparatio. Of all the possible imports from the Novus Ordo, these two, along with the NO Consecration, are the most ahistorical, fantastically archaeologistic, and the worst.

    Utterly foreign to the historical Roman and Sarum rites as they are, they have nothing but a forty year tale of woe, and are part of no one's historical patrimony. Thus, the "mainstream Anglican Use Christians" you speak of want no part of them. As I'm confident the insistence of these features does not come from Monsignor Burnham or Father Nichols, you might relay that sentiment to your friend "the Prefect."

    Sarum or bust.

  4. Try a dose of Sarum and see that it's not so bad!

    "The Order of Vespers throughout the year : from the Salisbury use (Wantage : S. Mary's Press, 1968 (first edition 1934)" see link:

    "Fourteen ancient fauxbourdons; set to the Song of the blessed Virgin Mary, in English (1912)" see link:

    When you have the majority of the 1534 sarum use roman rite available in english, it hardly seems antiquarian, I use it every week.

    The majority of collects and gospel readings in the 1662 BCP come from the pre-reformation Salisbury use of the Roman Rite. There is nothing to fear but our own history. It is not so different than the dominican or carmelite religious orders particular uses. The more effort you expend, the more rewards you receive. :-)

    Yes, yes, Sarum or bust !!

    1. I was mistaken in my comment; it is indeed, and I have this on unimpeachable authority, the Second Eucharistic Prayer, not the third one.

  5. Mr. Murphy;

    I may have overreacted to your comment, and if so, I do apologise. I will note that it seems that other readers appear to have interpreted your contribution as being unnecessarily pointed and re-reading it myself now, it still appears a bit snarky — at best.

    I do not believe that I have abandoned the mainstream of the Ordinariate movement or that the opposite has occurred. Perhaps your perspective is different. If the editorial policy of The Anglo-Catholic rubs our readers the wrong way or is regarded as working at cross purposes to the mission of the Ordinariates and Holy Church, then I invite corrective comments.

    The hiatus on this blog was specifically intended to give the Ordinariates, especially that of the Chair of St. Peter, the freedom to work without constant criticism from a media force which was obviously interpreted as intimidating. Additionally, if you recall, the diocesan, USCCB, and Ordiariate powers-that-be were not particularly in alignment with the Patrimonial and evangelistic goals of one of our chief Contributors at the time.

    1. Dear Mr. Campbell,

      You are right; my tone was pointed, also in a comment to a later post, because of what you yourself have pointed out, namely the need for "the freedom to work without constant criticism from a media force which was obviously interpreted as intimidating".

      Not only you yourself were seen as intimidating but the multitude of not always eirenic commentators whom you hosted.

      All Ordinariate blogs and websites have shown restraint on the matter of the new liturgy (some posts published by mistake had to be removed, Mgr. Burnham's paper from the Rome liturgy conference has not been published), and I saw you upsetting the apple cart.

      None of us were happy about not making the liturgy process public, but we have complied – surprisingly unanimously. And then you break ranks – you can perhaps imagine my annoyance.

      By the way, in the matter of one of your chief contributors you will probably know that I personally did my best at the highest levels to rectify what I saw and see as an unacceptable situation.

      If you have viewed my comments as offensive, I apologise sincerely.

      David Murphy

      1. The commission could have used the "English Missal" as it was, the historic Tridentine Mass in English, [and] no issues would have arisen. The entire Vatican II liturgical ideology of change and updating and experimentation seems to have to make its way into everything. It is bizarre from my perspective. Secrecy around a committee based liturgy is only an additional bizarre aspect.

        A culture of liturgical secrecy: is that an aspect of "Holy Tradition" in the Roman Catholic Church? Is it this the code of confidentiality I read about on Wikipedia?

        "[P]apal secrecy is the code of confidentiality that, in accordance with the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church, applies in matters that require greater than ordinary confidentiality:

        "Business of the Roman Curia at the service of the universal Church is officially covered by ordinary secrecy, the moral obligation of which is to be gauged in accordance with the instructions given by a superior or the nature and importance of the question. But some matters of major importance require a particular secrecy, called 'pontifical secrecy', and must be observed as a grave obligation."

Leave a Reply