The interview is especially interesting inasmuch as the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus and its Complementary Norms clearly foresee not only the reception of married Anglican bishops, priests, and deacons coming into full communion with the Catholic Church, but also the possibility of the promotion of married men (from within the personal ordinariates) as candidates for Holy Orders in the future (AC VI. § 2; CN 6. § 1.); far from the Church becoming more permissive of non-celibate clergy, Fr. Touze suggests that an ever-deepening understanding of priestly celibacy portends just the opposite.  Most astonishingly, Fr. Touze claims that priestly celibacy ranks somewhere between a discipline and a dogma, intimating that what was once considered disciplinary could one day be regarded as revealed truth.  According to Fr. Touze, the practice of a married parish clergy in the Eastern Churches is a corruption based on a manipulation of texts, is contrary to Holy Tradition, and is permitted only by way of exception to the universal norm.

ZENIT: Is celibacy a dogma of faith or a discipline?

Father Touze: Neither one nor the other. It isn’t a dogma of faith because we see married priests in the Church today such as, for example, some [priests] of the Eastern Catholic Church. Not all but some admit married priests. Or as has been reminded recently in the Holy Father’s motu propio “Anglicanorum coetibus,” published last Nov. 4: Among the ex-Anglicans who want to return to communion with the Catholic Church, there will be married priests admitted.

ZENIT: With this measure, do you think that one day, celibacy might become voluntary also for priests of the Latin rite?

Father Touze: No, because the Church is understanding more and more the relation between priesthood, episcopate and celibacy. It is something that could be likened to the revelation of a dogma, though it isn’t so at this time; one tends increasingly to understand that a practice must be promoted among all priests and also among Eastern Catholic priests which is truly similar to the one lived in the first centuries.

ZENIT: But in the first centuries there were many married priests, including the Apostles?

Father Touze: Studies have convincingly shown that this must be questioned: Celibacy of all clerics wasn’t lived, but from the moment of inclusion in the priestly order these men had to live continence with the permission of their wives, because this was a commitment of the couple.

ZENIT: Why, then, are exceptions made?

Father Touze: Historically because there has been a manipulation of texts and I believe a bad translation that the Eastern Church, which has separated from Rome and has recognized that what they had declared contrary to tradition, could be accepted. In this connection there truly are some exceptions. The Church discovered that she had the possibility of admitting exceptions but that these should be understood as such. Respectably, as the Second Vatican Council stressed, there are very holy married priests in the Eastern Catholic Churches who have contributed much to the history of the Church and to the faith in times of persecution, but they are truly exceptions and must be understood as such.

ZENIT: However, these exceptions are not made with bishops. Does episcopal celibacy have a special meaning?

Father Touze: Undoubtedly. It is very different, both theologically as well as historically. What’s more, with the constitution “Lumen Gentium,” Vatican II defined that the episcopate is the fullness of the sacrament of Holy Orders. It is necessary to discover the specificity of the episcopate and, hence, episcopal celibacy. And it can be demonstrated with the fact that for the celibacy or continence of a bishop an exception has never been made.

This is something studied by the Church on which the Roman pontificate has had to reflect more recently in contemporary history on two occasions: after the French Revolution, where some bishops, or better, former bishops, asked to marry.

This has been studied and it has been said that it is impossible, that this had never been done, that at stake was the dogmatic issue. Or still recently with the ordination of married men and married bishops that were effected in former Czechoslovakia by imposition or with the pressure of the Communist Party in power. There also the Church affirmed on the fact that the bishop must always be celibate or if he had married before his ordination because he would have to live continence from the moment of his episcopal ordination.

[Translation by ZENIT]

What do you think about Fr. Touze’s thinking and what ramifications might it have for the life of the personal ordinariates in the future?

“Anybody publicly espousing an anti-life stand against the clear teaching of the Church and the commandments would be immediately removed from any office, and certainly would be told they can’t receive Communion,” he explained.

Archbishop Hepworth further notes the challenges faced by Catholic bishops in maintaining the Church’s discipline in the public sphere.

“Since Vatican II, the Church has been squeamish about its ability to discipline its laity,” he continued.  “This has been a moment at which the Church has tried to rediscover collegiality, the role of the laity, the ministry of the laity, and it causes some mental conflict to then have to say to somebody, quite publicly, ‘you’ve abandoned the teaching of the Church and you are now being disciplined.’”

The Archbishop opined that it was the fear of a public rupture, where priests may side with the layperson being admonished, that has caused many Catholic bishops to hesitate in applying discipline to notorious dissenters from the Church’s teaching.  Interestingly, he suggests that the greater historic role for laity found the Anglican tradition may make it easier for Anglican bishops to admonish the erring faithful.

But Anglicans are more accustomed to “disciplining their laity,” he opined, “because we’re more used to lay roles.”

“If we get the life issues right, then we get the Incarnation right, the nature of God right, the nature of Christian worship right,” he explained.  “This is actually an entrance issue, not a side moral issue.  It’s the issue on which Christianity actually defines itself against the others.”

LSN spoke with Archbishop Hepworth in Halifax, the capital of the Canadian province of Nova Scotia, where he made an overnight stop to address the local TAC parish, St. Aidan’s.  The Australian native came to Halifax as part of a worldwide tour that he began four weeks ago to encourage TAC communities to accept the Vatican’s offer to Anglicans, issued in October, to reunite with the Roman Catholic Church.

Hepworth told LSN that the TAC’s commitment to life is “total.”  “It’s one of our founding premises,” he said.

He continued by explaining that the TAC is “absolutely stark and clear on where we stand” on life issues because of the environment they have left in the worldwide Anglican Communion.  The Communion, he says, has come “to an extremely liberal position where many provinces are totally shaky on abortion, if not regarding it as compulsory.  It is shocking the extent to which they’ve slipped – contraception, marriage, all the life issues are denied.”

But he also explained that the TAC has needed to be clear on life issues as part of its efforts for unity with the Catholic Church.  “Our position is not to fight the Catholic Church, it’s to fully absorb its teachings,” he said.

In both his interview with LSN and his homily to the parishioners of St. Aidan’s, Hepworth spoke out against the practice of embryonic stem cell research, comparing it with cannibalism.  “Killing embryos in order to harvest stem cells to make drugs is simply our form of cannibalism, and it’s just as wrong as cannibalism,” he told LSN.

He described the experience of a tribe in New Guinea, which can still remember when war canoes would come down the river and take a young person to eat for strength before a battle, a practice which only ended in the 1960s.

Using stem cell drugs derived from killed human beings in order to wave off disease is no different in the human attitude,” he said.  “Same temptations everywhere, we just think our temptations are more civilized.”

* * *

There’s more. And this is only part one!  The joys.

I must do some writing for Catholic papers today on last night’s excellent Catholic Christian Outreach event where Cardinal Levada spoke, so I must be brief. I posted some pictures from yesterday over at my blog, which I have been neglecting of late. I also put up a link to the article I wrote about the Cardinal’s talk on Anglicanorum Coetibus as edited and published by the Catholic News Service in the United States.   So please head on over to take a look, but if you want to make comments, come back here.

Here are a couple of other things to call your attention to.  Ottawa Archbishop Terrence Prendergast, who is an indefatigable blogger, wrote the following, giving the Traditional Anglican Communion and our Ottawa suffragan bishop a nice mention. Archbishop Prendergast has been most kind and generous to us, even though our cathedral is a humble place and our congregation, in Roman Catholic terms, miniscule.

He writes:

CCO FUNDRAISER FEATURES CARDINAL LEVADA AS SPEAKER

After speaking at the Consecration of the new seminary for the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (FSSP), who are present in our archdiocese at St. Clement’s Parish, Cardinal William Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has come to assist with the evangelizing work of Catholic Christian Outreach (www.cco.ca) headquartered at the Diocesan Centre (and on whose board I am pleased to serve).

Last evening he spoke at the St. John Fisher Dinner to benefit CCO at Queen’s University on Anglicanorum coetibus, the Holy See’s proposal of a Personal Ordinariate (a type of diocese on a larger scale, somewhat akin to military ordinariates) in response to the request by bishops of the Traditional Anglican Church around the world (Bishop Carl Reid heads up a diocese in our city).

The Canadian bishops, I believe, will greet the Ordinariate with generosity.  But Damian Thompson seems to think the opposite will happen in England. He writes:

Reading Australian Bishop Peter Elliott’s magnificent exposition of the Ordinariate plan, I thought (as did many of you): why don’t we hear similarly imaginative responses from the Bishops of England and Wales? Here are two of my fears. Do you share them?

1. The English and Welsh bishops fundamentally don’t like the Ordinariate scheme, so will come up with the least they can get away with.

Someone told me the other day that the TAC has its detractors in Rome, people who say it exists only on paper.  Yet this individual said that they keep meeting members of the TAC who are vibrant and alive.  “Yes, we are small,” I admitted. “But the Ordinariates will be like mustard seeds.”  I added that when the graces begin to flow through our being part of the Church Catholic, those seeds will sprout and the Ordinariates will flourish.  This individual agreed.  I know we also have friends in the Vatican, including someone special who lives inside the Apostolic Palace.

Yet we can be tempted sometimes to get a little chippy and defensive because of the negative things that have been said about us over the years.  Even in my short time — ten years — as a TAC member, I have seen some elements of the Anglican Communion treat us as the off-scouring of the earth, evil schismatics and cultists who deserve to gnash our teeth in outer darkness until we come back to Canterbury suitably chastened, our tail between our legs, begging for mercy.  Alas, there have been some Catholic bishops who have built warm friendships with Canterbury bishops who have come to share the view that we are insignificant, highly annoying and do not deserve to be welcomed anywhere, least of all as members of the Catholic Church.

But I exhort us to be generous now.  Let us shine with the love of Jesus Christ, confident that, through the Holy Father, God has opened up a way for us to come home.  Last week I attended a lecture on ARCIC talks by Saskatoon Bishop-elect Donald Bolen, who worked for several years in the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity in charge of relations with Anglicans and Methodists.

Over the years, he had developed warm relationships with his Anglican ecumenical partners and they clearly love him and he them.  But upon meeting him for the first time, I realized this about him.  He loves. Period.  This is a man who loves everyone because Jesus Christ is alive and he knows it. There is nothing wobbly about his faith.  He knows what he believes.  But out of that faith, he is generous and kind and welcoming to everyone and consequently everyone trusts him.

He was as warm and kind and welcoming to TAC Bishop Carl Reid, who also attended the event.

Can’t we all be like that?  We can afford to be generous now. And that generosity of spirit is what will win people to us. There is no need to be defensive or chippy or snarky (I remind myself!) because God will open up a way for us.  We can rest in Him.

The picture shows Bishop-elect Bolen, who will be installed on March 25, the Feast of the Annunciation, as Bishop of Saskatoon.

It appears that the latest thing is an electronic detector in your household trash bin so that you pay as you throw away. England is possibly the most policed country in the world, other than perhaps North Korea and China. Am I like a Russian in 1917, condemned to take an increasingly greater distance from my native land, or might we really be at the beginning of that new spring?

A Cardinal for Canterbury? This is the title of an article here. Someone seems to be wildly hyping and having romantic notions. But that is not in the character of the streetwise and pragmatic Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop Emeritus of Westminster. Does he really think that England is going to be as Catholic as, say, Poland in the nineteenth century or the countries of the Hapsburg Empire in the really old days?

We can lament that the Reformation ruined England, as the 1789 Revolution ruined France to the core. But, will the English people and political institutions really forgo secularism and return to Catholic Christendom? Perhaps this is not the idea for some in the Magic Circle.

We are still getting a good dose of ‘London fog‘ when we hear of the Apostolic Constitution associated with the old ecumenism, as if everything was going beautifully in the Church of England (no one is reminding us of the inconvenient facts of women’s “ordinations” and same-sex “marriages”), and the Queen was about to bring the whole of England into communion with Rome. It isn’t happening like that! These myths were exploded as Anglicanorum Coetibus came into existence without interference from Cardinal Kasper. I really am surprised to read this stuff still coming from conservative Catholic sources.

It does not suffice to go on with secularised “religion” and kid people that it is moving into communion with Rome. The former Archbishop of Westminster said:

So, the English Church is a Church united and strong. It is out there in the areopagus, the market place of our diminished secular society which is looking for meaning and hope. This English Church would speak to the nation of true belief, of the dignity of the human person from the beginning of life to its natural end.

Uh? Sorry, I need a new pair of glasses and a hearing aid, or he does! The Cardinal dreams of

… this Church as one that would speak for life, the poor and all those without a voice. It would be one that defends the family and that “would continue to respect and dialogue with those who differ from us, people of other faiths, people with no faith, the agnostics and atheists. The English Church would be a strong voice, witnessing to all that is good and true. It would be a Church, sustained not only by Scripture, tradition and reason favoured by the Anglican Church but, crucially, by Scripture, tradition, reason and teaching authority. It would encapsulate that authority in teaching the truth and the beauty of the Christian faith.”

These are strong words indeed, but from a source I wouldn’t trust further than I could throw him! We have already read reams about an English Catholic Church that was doing everything to stick its heels in, promote the liberal Tablet line and keep ignoring “inconvenient” directives from Rome when it came to cleaning up the town.

Nice  try, Your Eminence, but you will have to do better to convince this sceptical Englishman.

There are some very small groups of Anglicans living in countries where there is no such jurisdiction that would provide the ‘material’ for an Ordinariate. In the TAC, there are certainly some communities that are far too insignificant. For example, other than my chaplaincy on the European Continent, there is a tiny community in Japan. There is a small community in New Zealand under the able leadership of Canon Ian Woodman. Unfortunately, one of their priests seems to have aligned with another Anglican body. There must be others dotted around the world.

In the Traditional Anglican Communion, there is a canonical entity called the Patrimony of the Primate, allowing priests to be under the Primate’s jurisdiction without residing in his territorial jurisdiction (Anglican Catholic Church of Australia). This is my own canonical title within the TAC. It would be interesting to see whether such a concept can continue to exist under the Ordinariates.

In the 1970’s and 80’s, there were Catholic priests in Rome who made it their business to help more traditionally-minded seminarians to find a canonical jurisdiction in which they could be ordained. They found that bishops in places like southern Italy and Eastern Europe were less weighed down by diocesan bureaucracy and were inclined to incardinate clerics without requiring them to reside in their dioceses. The seminarians then did their studies in Rome, were ordained and returned to their own countries as priests. It was then a relatively simple matter for one of these priests to go to the local diocesan bishop, show his papers and obtain permission for ministry in that jurisdiction. The diocesan bishop has no need to consult his Council for such a simple thing, as he would if it were a question of incardinating that priest.

This was a canonical anomaly that was tolerated for a time, since canon law was observed and there were no breaches of discipline. Eventually, it became necessary and possible to establish permanent institutes and societies for these priests to give them a canonical framework and a more normal priestly life. The same principle holds when it comes to pastoral ministries: they obtain permission from the local diocesan bishop. Some diocesan bishops are mean and stingy, and others are generous to the point of allowing a personal parish in application of Summorum Pontificum.

The Ordinariates will be different, as they will enjoy the canonical status described by the Pope in Anglicanorum Coetibus. Perhaps for an isolated cleric or a group that is too insignificant to be considered for being made into an Ordinariate, it will be possible to belong to an Ordinariate in another country. With such canonical status recognised in the Church, it may be possible to collaborate in some way with the local Catholic diocesan bishop, or at least obtain permission to minister to the faithful.

I was tempted to call this article Crumbs from the Master’s Table!

How many TAC folk are in this kind of situation? Have you any ideas about how these things can be organised?

The recent Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus, establishing—I don’t need to translate this, I suppose, it won’t come out so well in translation: “groups of Anglicans”—establishing personal ordinariates for groups of Anglicans seeking full communion with the Catholic Church, was not created in a vacuum. For many Anglicans, the possibility opened by this initiative has seemed to be a logical development of the official dialogues between the Anglican Communion and the Roman Catholic Church during the 45 year period since the end of the Second Vatican Council. Any discussion of Pope Benedict’s initiatives regarding Anglicans might therefore begin with a glance at this important history.

Cardinal Levada presents the Apostolic Constitution as the natural outgrowth of the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) dialogue, of which he proceeds to provide a general outline.  He recounts the several stages of the ARCIC process, set against the backdrop of the collapse of Catholic Faith and Apostolic Order in the Anglican Communion, of which women’s ordination and the homosexual movement are perhaps the most notable symptoms.

For Catholic Anglicans, he hits the nail squarely on the head.

The fundamental issue here, as many have noted, is the question of authority. This may be briefly summed up in the following two points. Does the revelation of God in Jesus Christ and in Scripture intend to let us know God’s will in a way that requires our obedience (for example, the imitation of Christ, the Ten Commandments)? And secondly, has God, in Christ, left His Church, founded on the Apostles, an authority by which it can assure that can know the correct meaning of the revelation, amidst sometimes varying human interpretations (for example, the sensus fidei, the ecumenical councils, the Magisterium of the Pope and bishops)?

The bishops of the Traditional Anglican Communion have found the expression of the Church’s Magisterium in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “the most complete and authentic expression and application of the catholic faith in this moment of time” (as they put it in their original petition for corporate reunion).

Pope John Paul’s Apostolic Constitution Fidei depositum promulgating the Catechism, points out that, “It is meant to support ecumenical efforts that are moved by the holy desire for the unity of all Christians, showing carefully the content and wondrous harmony of the catholic faith.”

As we met with Anglican consultants in the preparation of Anglicanorum coetibus, these bishops and theologians themselves proposed the Catechism of the Catholic Church as the norm of faith for the corporate groups of Anglicans who might avail themselves this new instrument for full corporate union with the Catholic Church. Thus, I would also characterize the Catechism as an ecumenical initiative of Pope Benedict XVI and of his predecessor.

As Cardinal Levada notes, far from the Catholic Church imposing the Catechism on incoming Anglicans, it was the Anglican inquirers themselves, chief among them the bishops of the TAC, that suggested the text as a doctrinal standard for any future reunion.  In Anglicanorum Coetibus, the Holy See is simply echoing the words of the Portsmouth Letter of the TAC College of Bishops.

Turning to the Anglican Communion, we can see the many elements that impel toward full unity: regard for the unifying role of the episcopate, an esteem for the sacramental life, a similar sense of catholicity as a mark of the Church, and a vibrant missionary impulse, to name but a few. These are by no means absent from the Catholic Church, but the particular manner in which they are found in Anglicanism adds to the Catholic understanding of a common gift. These considerations help us appreciate the Catholic Church’s insistence that there is no opposition between ecumenical action and the preparation of people for full reception into Catholic communion.

I like this!  As Anglicanorum Coetibus itself states, the “liturgical, spiritual and pastoral traditions of the Anglican Communion [soon to reside] within the Catholic Church” are “a precious gift nourishing the faith of the members of the Ordinariate and as a treasure to be shared.”  The particular gift of the Anglican tradition will serve to enhance the common gift of revealed truth already subsisting in the Catholic Church– but imperfectly or incompletely expressed so long as brethren are separated from the One Fold.

Indeed, the first ecumenical action logically leads to the second: reception into full communion. Unitatis Redintegratio, that is, the decree on ecumenism, asserts that almost all people long for the one visible church of God, that truly Universal Church whose mission is to convert the whole world to the Gospel so that the world may be saved to the glory of God.

The Apostolic Constitution is the consummation of the Anglican-Roman Catholic conversation.  The end of genuine ecumenical dialogue is reincorporation into the fullness of communion with the Successor of St. Peter and the bishops in communion with him.

This is the first time that the Catholic Church has reached out in response to men and women of Western Christianity who desire full communion and accorded them not just a place among many, but a distinctive place. This is not surprising. Twenty-eight years ago, the great historian of ecumenism, Fr. Yves Congar, wrote that if we take seriously that the Holy Spirit has been working among our fellow Christians, we have to take seriously the ways they express their beliefs. When their particular expression of faith adds harmony to ours, and ours add harmony to theirs, the logical step is to pass from talking longingly about unity to living in unity, a unity whose essence is revealed in harmonious diversity. The unity Christ desires is visible; it is not elusive or even unreachable. Likewise, the totality that Christ desires is visible. These assertions lie behind the famous teachings of Lumen gentium that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church, but it is equally true to say that the unity Christ desires for His Church can always be added to, just as there is room for another instrument in the orchestra. The totality that Christ desires does exist in terms of the elements of sanctification and truth that the Church possesses, but the sharing of those elements, then the manner of celebrating them, is still far from complete. We sometimes do not know the value of what we possess and we need the spirit-filled insights of others to recognize the treasures we have.

While taking care to disabuse his audience of too strict a comparison between the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Anglican personal ordinariates (which are situated firmly in the tradition and law of the Latin Rite), Cardinal Levada makes it clear that the new structures are revolutionary in the life of the Catholic Church.  The personal ordinariates facilitate the reunion of Anglican groups which will retain their distinctive gifts and corporate identity, sharing the elements of sanctification and truth in ways that will strengthen the witness of the Church in the world.

But in reality all of us fool ourselves.  We suppose that by moving our clocks forward an hour we give ourselves more daylight.  In reality, we do not change anything; we simply kid ourselves into rising an hour earlier.  If we really wanted to enjoy all the daylight there is, we would get up with the sun and go to bed with it – though that might create problems for those North of the Arctic Circle.

No man, by taking thought, can add an inch to his stature; or, come to that, a day to his span of life.  And no one, by messing about with the clocks, can add any daylight to what we are given by the rotation of the earth on its axis. We so want to fool ourselves.  I have written another piece in my own blog ‘Ancient Richborough’ expounding similar ideas about weights and measures.

The trouble is, we are all dissatisfied with what we have.  What a blessing it is to be able to get up on a summer’s morning and enjoy the daylight before anyone else is about.  Soon it willl be the Spring Equinox, and not long after that, Easter.  Now that IS something to look forward to!

Visible union with the Catholic Church does not mean absorption into a monolith, with the absorbed body being lost to the greater whole, the way a teaspoon of sugar would be lost if dissolved in a gallon of coffee. Rather, visible union with the Catholic Church can be compared to an orchestral ensemble. Some instruments can play all the notes, like a piano. There is no note that a piano has that a violin or a harp or a flute or a tuba does not have. But when all these instruments play the notes that the piano has, the notes are enriched and enhanced. The result is symphonic, full communion. One can perhaps say that the ecumenical movement wishes to move from cacophony to symphony, with all playing the same notes of doctrinal clarity, the same euphonic chords of sanctifying activity, observing the rhythm of Christian conduct in charity, and filling the world with the beautiful and inviting sound of the Word of God. While the other instruments may tune themselves according to the piano, when playing in concert there is no mistaking them for the piano. It is God’s will that those to whom the Word of God is addressed, the world, that is, should hear one pleasing melody made splendid by the contributions of many different instruments.

My colleague at the Ottawa Citizen, Jennifer Green, has a report in today’s paper on Cardinal William Levada’s talk in Kingston, Ontario Saturday night, March 6.

I will be writing a longer version for Catholic papers that I hope to file about midday today.  Here’s an excerpt of Jenny’s piece, with my bolds.  I think she did a pretty good job of encapsulating some of the key points, though I have some minor quibbles (see below).

William Cardinal Levada, prefect the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, told a dinner of about 300 in Kingston that “union with the Catholic Church is the goal of ecumenism (at least), we phrase it that way.”

“Yet the very process of moving towards union works a change in churches …”

The Catholic Church is enriched when another group adds its means of worship, although he hastened to add it would not be any “essential elements of sanctification or truth.” Those were already provided to the Church by Christ.

“Visible union with the Catholic Church does not mean absorption to the greater whole, as a teaspoon of sugar would be lost in a gallon of coffee.”

Instead, he compared it to an orchestra with “… all instruments tuned to the piano, … all playing same notes of doctrinal clarity … the beautiful and inviting sound of the world of God.”

The issue has become pertinent after Pope Benedict XVI made overtures to traditional Anglicans, particularly in Britain, who cannot agree with recent moves to ordain female bishops and accommodate gay clergy and “marriages” or unions of gay congregants.

In October, Levada announced that new rules would allow disaffected Anglicans to convert by parish or even by diocese. They would have their own governance within the Roman church, meaning they could keep traditions such as their liturgy.

Rome said it wasn’t “poaching” Anglicans, just responding to requests from traditionalist bishops.

Just as I don’t like the word “disaffected” as the adjective to describe us, I’m not crazy about “traditionalist” either.   “Traditional” is better and more accurate.   The “ist” smacks of ideology, as if our being traditional is some kind of fetish, or form of legalism, a focus on the externals of rites and rubrics without regard to the content of the Catholic faith.  We are capital “T” Traditional in that we believe in Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition as our authority. And interestingly, the bishops in the U.K. are not “traditionalist” in the sense of being Prayer Book traddies, while we in Canada can be accused of that.

Cardinal Levada did not (as I recall) mention the TAC in his talk.  I’ll correct this if I discover in going over my notes this morning.  Were gay blessings on the horizon in the early 1990s, shortly after the TAC came together, and the first informal talk with Rome took place? I don’t think so.

Our desire for unity has always been a positive desire, one of obedience to Christ’s command and prayer that we be one in Him.

One picture shows Cardinal Levada greeting Traditional Anglican Primate Archbishop John Hepworth for the first time at the gathering.  The group shot shows the crowd at the Catholic Christian Outreach fundraiser.  Jenny Green is in the bottom right corner, wearing the blue/green dress.  The empty seat next to her is mine.  For more pictures of the event, go here.

Bishop Michael Gill, Diocesan Bishop of TAC’s Anglican Church in Southern Africa (Traditional Rite), consecrated by Archbishop Hepworth in Portsmouth in October 2007, has been, with his family, victim of a violent robbery. It frequently happens down there, and priests are often murdered for no more than a small amount of money.

We should pray for Bishop Gill and his family, and perhaps find ways to help in some modest way as our Lenten almsgiving. I’m sure this would be possible through diocesan bishops of the ACA and other parts of the TAC — or through the International Anglican Fellowship.

I would like to examine another part of the Mass that needs attention for the purposes of a revised authorised Anglican liturgy in the Catholic Church. This is the beginning of what is often called the Communion rite following the Canon of the Mass.

There has been some variation as to the place of the Our Father at Mass, but that was settled fairly rapidly. There is evidence to suggest that Gregory the Great moved it from after the Communion to its present place in the Roman rite. Its place in the Eastern Rite is always just before the elevation and fraction. In all rites then it comes at the end of the Eucharistic prayer. The embolism is an expansion of its last clause, praying the Lord to deliver us indeed from all manner of evil.

Its form in the older Roman form and the Use of Sarum is thus:

Deliver us, O Lord, we beseech thee, from all evils, past, present, and to come: and at the intercession of the blessed ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with thy blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and with Andrew, and all the Saints, graciously grant us peace in all our days: that by the help of thine availing mercy we may ever both be free from sin and safe from all distress. Through the same Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. R. Amen.

The Byzantine Liturgy, imitated by the modern Roman rite, ends this prayer by another ending –  “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory”. This ending is often added to the Lord’s Prayer in the Anglican tradition, but with the Embolism entirely omitted.

The modern Roman rite (new ICEL translation) gives this abbreviated form:

Deliver us, Lord, we pray, from every evil, graciously grant peace in our days, that, sustained by the help of your mercy, we may be always free from sin and safe from all distress, as we await the blessed hope, the coming of our Saviour, Jesus Christ. R. For the kingdom, the power and the glory are yours now and for ever.

The old Roman rite and most uses thereof have the Fraction during the doxology of the Embolism. The modern Roman rite does not. Instead the order is radically altered to incorporate the Pax before the Fraction. Only after the Fraction and Commixture is the Agnus Dei said:

Taught by the Saviour’s command and formed by the word of God, we have the courage to say: Our Father …

Deliver us, Lord, we pray, from every evil, graciously grant peace in our days, that, sustained by the help of your mercy, we may be always free from sin and safe from all distress, as we await the blessed hope, the coming of our Saviour, Jesus Christ.

R. For the kingdom, the power and the glory are yours now and for ever.

Lord Jesus Christ, who said to your Apostles, Peace I leave you, my peace I give you, look not on our sins, but on the faith of your Church, and be pleased to grant her peace and unity in accordance with your will. Amen.

The peace of the Lord be with you always. R. And with your spirit.

Let us offer each other the sign of peace.

Fraction.

May this mingling of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ bring eternal life to us who receive it.

Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.

Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us.

Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, grant us peace.

The present Anglican Use Mass is even more terse:

And now, as our Saviour Christ hath taught us, we are bold to say,

People and Celebrant

Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy Name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen.

The celebrant breaks the consecrated Bread and puts the third part of the Host into the chalice saying:

May this mingling of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ bring eternal life to us who receive it.

A period of silence is kept. Then shall be sung or said.

[Alleluia.]  Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us; Therefore let us keep the feast.  [Alleluia.]

In Lent, Alleluia is omitted, and may be omitted at other times except during Easter Season.

The following anthem may be sung or said here:

O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us.

O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us.

O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, grant us thy peace.

Our Lord at the Last Supper took bread and broke it, and so it follows that the consecrated bread is broken in all liturgies. The Gallican and Eastern rites have always been much more elaborate.

The Commixture is intrinsically associated with the Fraction, and this is the dropping of a part of the Host into the chalice containing the Precious Blood. The ancient Roman rite (Ordines Romani I, II, III, etc.) was highly complex, and present practice is but a remnant. At the end of the Embolism, the archdeacon held the chalice before the Pope and he put into it the Sancta. The Sancta were a particle consecrated at a former Mass and reserved till now: the Pope had saluted it at the beginning of Mass. He made three signs of the cross over the chalice and put the Sancta into it at the words: Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum. This rite illustrates the continuity of the Sacrifice between one celebration of the Mass and the next, for in the absolute, there is only one Mass, that of Christ.

The Pope then took a loaf (yes, it was leavened bread at the time, or large unleavened breads like Jewish families use for the Seder), broke off a part, left it on the altar and went to his throne. It was only at the moment of the Pope’s Communion that he would make the three signs of the cross with the small piece of consecrated bread over the chalice held by the archdeacon, saying: Fiat commixtio et consecratio corporis et sanguinis Domini nostri Iesu Christi accipientibus nobis in vitam aeternam. Amen. Pax tecum. R. Et cum spiritu tuo. and put it into the chalice. He communicated under the species of wine. There were thus two distinct commixtures, first of the Sancta at the Pax, secondly of the newly consecrated species at the Communion. By the eleventh century, the rite of the Sancta disappeared, leaving the second commixture, as we have it now. This is seen in Ordo Romanus XIV.

It would seem that the distinction between the Sancta and the Fermentum come from this. The latter is the Blessed Sacrament sent by the Pope to all the churches of Rome to emphasise the communion of the Church. The order of this rite in the Roman rite and the slight variations thereof in northern European local uses thus come from a long evolution and simplification of the rite. The Sancta is certainly the origin of our practice of reserving the Blessed Sacrament in a tabernacle or a hanging pyx. It emphasises the unity between yesterday’s Mass and today’s.

I would very much like to see the Embolism and Fraction / Commixture rite restored in the Anglican Use to the Sarum model:

Let us pray. As our Saviour Christ hath commanded and taught us, we are bold to say :
Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy Name, thy kingdom come, thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen.

Deliver us, O Lord, we beseech thee, from all evils, past, present, and to come : and at the intercession of the blessed ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with thy blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and with Andrew, and all the Saints, graciously grant us peace in all our days : that by the help of thine availing mercy we may ever both be free from sin and safe from all distress. Through the same Jesus Christ thy Son our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God, world without end. R. Amen.

The peace + of the + Lord be + always with you.
R. And with thy spirit.

O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us.
O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us.
O Lamb of God, that takest away the sins of the world, grant us thy peace.

May this holy + mingling of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ be unto me, and to all who receive it, salvation of spirit and body, and a wholesome preparation for eternal life, through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.

“The Anglican Use of the Roman Rite:” this phrase indicates that whatever form of liturgy this will be, it will take the form of a subset of the Roman Rite, and not a separate “Anglican Rite.”  There has been a good deal of terminological and historical confusion in these areas.  One often sees in the context of the Latin Church references to the “Ambrosian Rite,” the “Braga Rite,” the “Carthusian Rite,” the “Cistercian Rite,” the “Dominican Rite,” the “Lyonnaise Rite,” the “Mozarabic Rite,” the “Sarum Rite” and the like, but this seems to be a confusion of the past four centuries (or a little more), reflecting the dominance of the 1570 codification and reform of the “Roman Rite of Rome” as the “Tridentine Rite,” which was to replace all other variants save those that could document 200 years of history.  All of these “rites,” save the Ambrosian Rite and the Mozarabic Rite, are or were, variants of the Roman Rite, and so more properly termed “uses” (as, in England, with the “Use of Sarum,” the “Use of Bangor,” the “Use of Hereford,” the “Use of Lincoln” and the “Use of York” before the 1540s); only the Carthusian and the Braga (that of the Portuguese diocese of that name) uses survive today in their integrity (the Carthusian “unreformed,” the Braga “reformed”) although occasionally one encounters celebration of the old Cistercian and Dominican Mass “rites.”  The Ambrosian Rite of Milan (and neighboring areas) is either a very ancient variation of the Roman Rite, which since at least the Fourth Century has been subject to both Gallican and Eastern influences, or an originally distinct rite that has undergone waves of “romanization” from a very early date, while the Mozarabic Rite, which until recent decades, when it was revived (and “restored,” that is, “reformed”) in the Spanish monastery of San Juan de Silos and in several parishes in Toledo that were Mozarabic until the 1490s, was celebrated only in a side chapel in Toledo Cathedral, is an entirely distinct rite from the Roman.

One strong implication of “Anglican Use” is that it will have no other Eucharistic Prayers (EPs) or “Prayers of Consecration” than those found in the Roman Rite.  The Mozarabic Rite aside, none of these other “uses” or “rites” — call them what you will — had any other than the Roman Canon; this was so even of the Ambrosian Rite, although for Maundy Thursday and Holy Saturday only it had versions of the Roman Canon into which substantial proper prayers for those festivals were inserted, a practice unique to Milan. (The 1970s “reform” of the Ambrosian Rite introduced two new EPs, additional to the three new EPs introduced into the Roman Rite in 1969.)  I have to say that I agree with the distinguished English Anglican liturgist and historian of the Early Roman Rite, Geoffrey Grimshaw Willis (1914-1982), regarding his dislike of these banal and (as he thought) un-Roman disfigurements of the Roman Rite (see his outspoken “The New Eucharistic Prayers: Some Comments,” The Heythrop Journal, XII:1 [January 1971], pp. 5-28), and if the reports are right that in whatever reconfigured Anglican Use Mass is eventually promulgated by Rome the “contemporary English” Rite II will wholly disappear, and with it these EPs, I would judge it no loss.

And well it should disappear, along with the 1979 Psalter.  An Anglican Use based on, and following the pattern of, the 1979 Episcopalian Prayer Book makes no sense on a world-wide basis.  Moreover, since the lame and dreary ICEL translation of the Roman Rite liturgical books is soon to be replaced by one occupying a distinctly higher linguistic “register,” it makes little sense to use any other “contemporary English” than that in use in the Roman Rite itself.  However, if one of the advantages of the Anglican Use of the Roman Rite is, from a “Benedictine” vantage, to inspire and in its distinctive way exemplify a “reform of the 1960s ‘reform‘” of the Roman Rite in the direction of resacralization and a recovery of lost ground, then it makes much more sense that it should be one distinctive and consistently traditional thing, in style as well as substance, than an attempt to be all things to all Anglicans.  Those Anglicans whose liturgical sensibilities are “contemporary” may well prefer to seek out the more elevated version of the Roman Rite which I hope will soon make its appearance.  This is leading us fairly clearly towards the “Missal tradition” of Anglo-Catholicism in the last century, the effort that produced the English Missal, the American Missal and the Anglican Missal.  To adopt or adapt one of these — my own tastes incline me more towards the English Missal — would produce a coherent and dignified rite, and would eliminate once and for all the bizarre phenomenon of the 1970 Roman Rite Offertory in ICEL English thrust into the midst of the “Cranmerian English” Rite I.

Still, and despite what I wrote above, I have speculated at times about the possibility of alternative “Anglican-like” EPs, perhaps for weekday celebrations or for certain set days on which the length of the Roman Canon, especially if said or chanted aloud, might be an inconvenience.  I am going to avoid (with one partial exception) Twentieth-Century Anglican EPs, and likewise the “mainline” 1552, 1559, 1662 English rite, and its derivatives, as inadequate for Catholic purposes — by which I mean, impossible for the Catholic Church to accept the use of which as a valid EP [1].  The leaves the 1549 English rite, and the Scottish Episcopalian tradition from 1637 onwards down through 1764 to 1929, with the American Episcopalian tradition from 1789 to 1928 as a side-branch of this.

As to the 1549 rite’s EP I have never been able to understand its attraction for some Anglo-Catholics.  I accept the reading of Cranmer’s theology underlying that prayer as fundamentally Reformed (in the Swiss sense) that has been advanced by Anglican scholars such as Dom Gregory Dix (1901-1952) and Professor Edward Craddock Ratcliff (1896-1967) — the former a well-known Anglican Benedictine monk and Anglo-Papalist, the latter the holder of various academic posts in Cambridge, Oxford and London, culminating as Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge, and who was on the verge of entering the Orthodox Church at the time of his death — even if expressed in the most ambiguous of ways and in very “traditional,” that is, “Western-Catholic-looking” — forms.  An EP of such an ambivalent, if not heretical, nature would certainly not be suitable for Catholic use.  The 1549 EP is also, very clearly, an attempt at “reforming” the Roman Canon, the traditional and unique EP of the whole Western Church for centuries before the Sixteenth Century, save in the Mozarabic Rite, as well as (until the time of the post-Vatican II “reforms”) the unique EP of the Roman Church, and it seems to be that an EP conceived with the presumption of setting to right the presumed errors of the Church of Rome, the prima sedes and mater et magistra of all churches, is to act very much as Ham did towards his father, Noah, and with even less occasion to do so.  Like Geoffrey Grimshaw Willis, I admire the Roman Canon for its unfathomable antiquity, as perhaps the oldest EP in continual use in Christendom, alongside that of Addai and Mari in the Semitic Christianity of the Catholic Chaldeans and the “Nestorian” Assyrians, the roots of which probably extend back into the Third Century or earlier.  Of course, as a Ukrainian Catholic I cherish as well the marvelous, and typically Hellenistic, integration of form and content in those EPs such as those of St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, St. James of Jerusalem (possibly the work of St. Cyril of Jerusalem), and many others (most of them preserved in Syriac versions) which form one of the great glories of Christendom, and which were possibly the gift of the Church of Antioch, on the crossroads of the Hellenistic and Semitic worlds, to the Christian world — and which had so beneficent an impact on Anglican high-churchmen in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth centuries, to whose work we must now turn.

The ill-fated Scottish Prayer Book of 1637, which occasioned the overthrow of episcopacy in Scotland in 1638 and began the process which culminated in the outbreak of civil war in England in 1642 and the temporary downfall of the monarchy there and the execution of King Charles I, rearranged the sequence of prayers around the eucharistic consecration in the 1559 English Prayer Book (the mild revisions of 1604 did not touch the Communion Service) to give a fuller, and more traditional looking, EP, although their wording was not altered.  When episcopacy was restored in Scotland in 1661, the Prayer Book was not, and it was only after the reabolition of episcopacy in 1689 that, in the years immediately after 1700 the remaining Scottish Episcopalians began to adopt set liturgical forms, some of them the 1661 English Prayer Book service, others the 1637 service, and still others their own rearrangements or revisions of the 1637 service.  In this they were influenced to a considerable degree by the liturgical revisions of the English Nonjurors, although the never went so far as the main body of the English Nonjurors, who in 1718 substituted for the 1661 Prayer book EP a translation of the long anaphora found in the Liturgy of St. James of Jerusalem.  In 1764 a group of Scottish Episcopalian bishops produced a revised “Communion Office” whose use subsequently became general among Scottish Episcopalians.  There were, however, a number of “English Chapels” in Scotland which were under the authority of the Church of England and followed the 1661 Prayer Book, and after these were transferred to the Scottish Episcopal Church from the 1840s onward a determined attempt was made to replace the 1764 Communion Office with that of the 1661 English liturgy as the normative one.  The 1764 service was never abolished, but various canons enacted in 1863 and in force until 1912 effectively marginalized its use — but then the tide turned, and in 1929 the SEC adopted a Prayer Book, the EP of which was a moderate revision of that of 1764.  This remains the official Prayer Book of the SEC, although since the 1970s it has effectively been replaced by a more anodyne set of “contemporary Anglican” style of services, issued in 1970 and 1982.  Meanwhile, however, and as a result of the consecration of Samuel Seabury on November 14, 1784 by bishops of the SEC and of Seabury’s promise to attempt to secure the adoption of the 1764 Scottish Communion office as that of the the newly-formed Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, in 1789 the Episcopal Church adopted a modified version of that 1764 service — “modified,” it has to be said, in a more Protestant and “Cranmerian” direction — which, as modified in 1892 and 1928 (neither of these modifications affected the wording of the EP, although that of 1928 removed the “Prayer of Humble Access” from its position between the Sanctus and the Prayer of Consecration, where, following its position in the English 1661 rite, it had been placed in 1789 to a position after that Prayer and the immediately ensuing Lord’s Prayer; in the 1637 and 1764 Scottish rites, as in the English 1549 rite that Prayer also was positioned subsequently to the EP and Lord’s Prayer) remained the official rite of the Episcopal Church until 1979.

The texts of these three EPs can be found here:

• 1764 Scotland
• 1789 USA
• 1928 USA
• 1929 Scotland

for those who wish to consult or compare them at this point.  What I will now do is to present excerpts from these three prayers, make a few comparative remarks, and then, as one rushing in as a fool where angels fear to tread, to produce a melded version of the 1764 and 1929 EPs which may seem to some suitable, and almost ideal for use in any Anglican Use liturgy.  I will thereafter, in a subsequent post, go on to consider the EP of the “Liturgy of St. Tikhon” which has been used in the 1970s in some “Western Rite” parishes of the Antiochian Orthodox Church in North America, which affords a striking example, as I see it, of how not to do this sort of thing.

Passing over the dialogue, preface(s), sanctus, we come to the beginning of the prayers, the exordium preceeding the Words of Institution:

Scotland 1764:

“ALL glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou of thy tender mercy didst give thy only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world, and did institute, and in his holy gospel command us to continue a perpetual memorial of that his precious death and sacrifice until his coming again.”

Scotland 1929:

“ALL glory and thanksgiving be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption; who, by his own oblation of himself once offered, made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memorial of that his precious death and sacrifice until his coming again.”

and America 1789/1928:

ALL glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou, of thy tender mercy, didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious the death and sacrifice, until his coming again.”

The Scottish EP of 1929 adds “thanksgiving,” I suppose out of a sense of the meaning of the Greek word “eucharistia,” but it seems needless, and seems also to spoil the flow of the prayer itself, and it restores “thine only Son” as in all earlier versions from 1549 onwards.  In altering the Cranmerian phrase concerning the Lord’s death on the cross “who made there (by his one oblation of himself once offered)” — which was restored to its original form in the 1789 Episcopalian EP — to “who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made,” however, the Scots made a significant change.  Cranmer’s “there” associates Christ’s self-offering and sacrifice exclusively with his death upon the cross, and underlines this by “one oblation” and “once offered;” the Scottish Episcopalian bishops, following in this the developed early Eighteenth-Century theology of the Nonjurors, that Christ offered his self-sacrifice at the Last Supper when consecrating the bread and wine to be the representative tokens and perpetuation of his sacrifice, and what followed on the cross was the consequent slaying of the already self-offered victim, removed the “there” and softened the “one oblation” to “own oblation.”  The original Cranmerian phraseology, if it is susceptible of a Catholic gloss, which I doubt, could be given one only in the face of its framer’s intentions and its own historical sense; the Scottish variant removes the Cranmerian edge, and can be used more easily, even though I have to admit that I find the parenthetical phrase lumbering and orotund.

In all three versions the Words of Institution follow immediately; then “the Oblation:”

Scotland 1764:

“Wherefore, O Lord, and heavenly Father, according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, we thy humble servants do celebrate and make here before thy divine majesty, with these thy holy gifts, WHICH WE NOW OFFER UNTO THEE, the memorial thy Son hath commanded us to make; having in remembrance his blessed passion, and precious death, his mighty resurrection, and glorious ascension; rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same.”

Scotland 1929:

“Wherefore, O Lord, and heavenly Father, according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, we thy humble servants do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee, the memorial thy Son hath commanded us to make; having in remembrance his blessed passion, and precious death, his mighty resurrection, and glorious ascension; rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same, and looking for his coming again with power and great glory.”

and America 1789/1928:

“Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, we, thy humble servants, do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee, the memorial thy Son hath commanded us to make; having in remembrance his blessed passion and precious death, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension; rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same.”

which are identical (although the capital letters in the 1764 version demonstrate the importance that the Scottish bishops attributed to what they saw as the moment at which the consecrated elements were offered to God as the great Christian sacrifice, itself a memorial of Christ’s historical sacrifice), save for the addition of a common feature of Eastern EPs, “and looking for his coming again with power and great glory,” in the 1929 Scottish EP.

Next, and finally, “the Invocation:”

Scotland 1764:

“And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us, and of thy almighty goodness vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy word and holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may become the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son.

And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness, mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanks giving, most humbly 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 our sins, and all other benefits of his passion.

And here we humbly offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy and lively sacrifice unto thee, beseeching thee, that whosoever shall be partakers of this holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious body and blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, and be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one body with him, that he may dwell in them, and they in him.

And although we are unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice; yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service, not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences, through Jesus [Christ] our Lord: by whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honour and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world without end. Amen”

Scotland 1929:

“And we thine unworthy servants beseech thee, Most merciful Father, to hear us, and to send thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that, being blessed and hallowed by his life-giving power, they may become the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son, to the end that all who shall receive the same may be sanctified both in body and soul, and preserved unto everlasting life.

And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness, mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, most humbly 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 our sins, and all other benefits of his passion.

And here we humbly offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee, beseeching thee that all we who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, and be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us and we in him.

And although we be unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice; yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service, not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences, through Jesus Christ our Lord; by whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honour and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world without end. Amen.”

and America 1789/1928:

“And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, of thy almighty goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood.

And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness, mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly 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 our sins, and all other benefits of his passion.

And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, our selves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee; humbly beseeching thee, that we, and all others who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion, may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, be filled with thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and we in him.

And although we are unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice; yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service; not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences, through Jesus Christ our Lord; by whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honour and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world without end. Amen.”

I have presented each one of these in full, standardizing, however, the arrangement of the paragraphs, which differs in each of these liturgies, and separating the final three paragraphs in each one from the first, since in these final paragraphs the variations between them are matters of phrasing and, in one case, word choice.  By contrast, the differences between the first paragraphs of each version are significant and striking.  The 1764 EP’s invocation is in large part a return to Cranmer’s wording in his 1549 rite — where, however, it came before the Words of Institution, and was not identified as “the Invocation.”  It ran, “Hear us (o merciful Father) we beseech thee; and with thy Holy Spirit and word, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ,” from which we can see how the “may be unto us” of the 1549 rite has been strengthened to the “may become” of 1764.  The American revisers 1789 simply substituted Cranmer’s “receptionist” words from his 1552 rite for that version, thus enabling to be more clearly susceptible of a Reformed Protestant reading, in which Christ’s presence to communicants need not be associated with any special presence in with or under the eucharistic elements, or with any transformation of the elements.  The 1764 invocation was frequently criticized, in the Nineteenth Century and beyond, for its abruptness; the 1929 Scottish revision added to it a statement of the purpose of the transformation, a feature of many eastern EPs, and they also recast its earlier part as well, seemingly to make it resemble more closely the wording of the epiclesis (a Greek word meaning “invocation”) of many of those same eastern prayers.  There is no reason to prefer, in a Catholic context, any of the peculiarities of the American version, but as the 1764 and 1929 Scottish EPs have strengths and weaknesses, perhaps we can keep the 1764 version but “tweak” it towards 1929.

This, then, is what I have come up with (words and phrases in bold represent variants from the 1764 rite):

“ALL glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption; who (by his own oblation of himself once offered) made a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world, and did institute, and in his holy gospel command us to continue a perpetual memorial of that his precious death and sacrifice until his coming again. For in the night that he was betrayed, he took bread; and when he had given thanks, he brake it, and gave it to his disciples saying, 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 given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of this, for THIS IS MY BLOOD, of the new testament, which is shed for you and for many, for the remission of sins: do this as oft as ye shall drink it in remembrance of me.
Wherefore, O Lord, and heavenly Father, according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, we thy humble servants do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, which we now offer unto thee, the memorial thy Son hath commanded us to make; having in remembrance his blessed passion, and precious death, his mighty resurrection, and glorious ascension; rendering unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same, and looking for his coming again with power and great glory.

And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us, and of thy almighty goodness vouchsafe to send thy Holy Spirit to bless and sanctify these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may become the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son, to the end that all who shall receive the same may be sanctified both in body and soul, and preserved unto everlasting life.

And we earnestly desire thy fatherly goodness, mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, most humbly 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 our sins, and all other benefits of his passion.

And here we humbly offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and living sacrifice unto thee, beseeching thee that all we who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion may worthily receive the most precious Body and Blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, and be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction, and made one body with him, that he may dwell in us and we in him.

And although we be unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice; yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service, not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences, through Jesus Christ our Lord; by whom, and with whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honour and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world without end. Amen.”

In both the Scottish rites, the prayer of Consecration is followed by the equally lengthy Prayer for the Whole State of Christ’s Church, which would come better earlier, if used in that form at all.  Some may think that the omission of any intercessory paragraph from “my” Anglican EP, and in particular the lack of any petition for the pope and the “ordinary,” is a defect in need of remedy.

[1] I am aware that this assertion needs elaboration and defense, perhaps especially in the light of Rome’s acceptance of the theoretical validity of the anaphora (EP) of the East Syrian Liturgy of Addai and Mari, which lacks the Words of Institution.  I hope to discuss this further at a later time.

Some time ago, it was decided that we would augment our weekday Mass schedule to provide for daily celebration.  These celebrations have been sparsely attended, and occasionally the priest is faced with a dilemma.  What is the celebrant to do when, having prepared himself in the sacristy and arriving at the altar for a regularly-scheduled Mass, he finds no one present to assist?

I myself have recited the Holy Rosary with a small group just prior to a scheduled Mass, departed for the sacristy to vest, and, upon returning to the sanctuary, found the nave of the church empty.  Did my putative communicants resort to the restroom? ..step out for a phone call or a breath of fresh air?  What should I do?

Should there be some soul in the chapel, lighting a candle and saying a prayer before the statue of Our Lady, ought I to assume that he is present for Mass?  Perhaps I begin the Mass, but, by the reading of the Gospel, I find that the person has left the church.  Do I abort the celebration?

I will post more on this later, but here are some pictures from this excellent event.

The pictures also include the cardinal with a Queen’s University student who is a member of Catholic Christian Outreach (CCO), a wonderful evangelistic organization reaching university students (last night’s dinner was a fundraiser for CCO); the cardinal with Kingston Archbishop Brendan O’Brien, former president of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops; and the cardinal with Anglican Catholic Church of Canada Suffragan Bishop for Central Canada Carl Reid (my bishop in Ottawa); and the cardinal with me.

ORLANDO, Fla. — The bishops of the Anglican Church in America have voted to accept Pope Benedict XVI’s invitation to bring their 3,000 members into the Catholic Church.

The unanimous vote of eight members of the House of Bishops, who met in Orlando, Fla., brings 120 parishes in four dioceses across the country into the Church.

Also present at the March 3 vote and in support of it were representatives of “Anglican use” parishes admitted on a one-by-one basis to the Catholic Church in accordance with the Pastoral Provision of Pope John Paul II in 1980.

The move is seen as significant for both the “AngloCatholics” in the Anglican Church in America and the worldwide Traditional Anglican Communion — and the Catholic Church.

“We are returning to the Roman Catholic Church as community with a common past and a common future,” commented Christian Campbell, a Florida lay member of the Anglican Church in America and coordinator of a blog called theanglocatholic.com.

One of the greatest lights in the twentieth century in this work of reconciling Anglican Catholicism (in the widest understanding of this term) with Catholicism was Father Louis Bouyer (1913-2004).

When this great theologian died, Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger said these words at his funeral: “He was the least conformist of theologians and among the most traditional”. This was not to say he was unorthodox, but he was unconventional. He worked alongside the great biblical scholar Jean Daniélou, Henri de Lubac and many others of the theological renewal of the years between the end of the war and Vatican II.

Born in Paris, he was originally a Lutheran and became a pastor. His spiritual journey brought him to visit Orthodox and Catholic communities, and he was received into the Catholic Church at the Abbey of Saint-Wandrille in 1939. From 1943, he was very involved in the liturgical movement, but also was very keen on Patristics and Biblical studies. His whole Christian vision was influenced by the monastic life, and his work was very much in harmony with that of Joseph Ratzinger become Benedict XVI. Bouyer worked with the then Fr Ratzinger, Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac, Jorge Medina and others during Vatican II and founded a periodical called Communio.

Bouyer did not renounce what was good in his original Protestantism, but saw his journey to Catholicism as a fulfilment, not a rupture. He was particularly influenced by Archbishop Ramsey, and by Fr. Serge Bulgakov and Vladimir Lossky of the Russian Orthodox Church. His discovery of Newman was a turning point in Bouyer’s intellectual life.

Bouyer’s passion was ecumenism, bringing Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox intellectuals together to rediscover the meaning of the Church, the Sacraments, the liturgical life and the life of prayer. It was reading Newman’s books that brought Bouyer to become interested in that Roman Socrates – Saint Philip Neri. Bouyer joined the French Oratory of Cardinal de Bérulle.

In his liturgical work, he brings us to discover that great German Benedictine liturgical theologian Dom Odo Casel and the Kultmysterium, the continuing real presence of Christ in the Church in his whole salvific Mystery through the liturgy. Bouyer was of the high theology school of the liturgical movement. He promoted reforms in the liturgy, but violently denounced the post-conciliar excesses and abuses in his famous works La Décomposition du Catholicisme (1968) and Religieux et clercs contre Dieu (1975). He denounced the substitution of the traditional liturgy with a fabricated pseudo-liturgy, the loss of the sense of the sacred, the despising attitude of clerics for the ordinary lay folk. What was good in the liturgical reform was never applied! Never had the religion of priests (or lack of religion) been imposed so impertinently on the faithful!

A pioneer of the ecumenical movement, he was equally critical of false ecumenism – “a kind of pan-Christianity whose fundamental pragmatism leads to indifference in regard to revealed truths”. Authentic Christianity could only lead to Catholic ecumenism following the example of the Oxford Movement. Hating mitred bureaucrats as he did, he doggedly defended the mystery of the Church: “Do away with the Church, and Christianity will be no more than a dream that each person lives to his tastes, and Christ would be no more than a myth”.

Bouyer spent most of his teaching life at the Institut Catholique in Paris, and went on many lecture tours. In 1982, he retired to the Abbey of Saint-Wandrille.

His output in terms of the books he wrote is phenomenal. Many of them have been translated into English. We will find him promoting a fairly Platonic kind of philosophy and a moderate and non-heretical Gnosticism. His book on the Divine Wisdom is awesome. It stands on my bookshelf under the title Sophia ou le Monde en Dieu. The influence of Fr Serge Bulgakov is striking! I find a beautiful synthesis between good solid Judeo-Christian biblical theology and Hellenic and Alexandrian wisdom.

Bouyer, like the present Pope, was also a Christian humanist following the example of the Renaissance. He studied Saint Thomas More and Erasmus in depth. The only real humanism is eschatological humanism, because it is integral humanism (influence of Maritain?) – a humanism that opens self to the other, a reflection of divine life in the community of the Trinity.

He read Mircea Eliade, the great Christian anthropologist who wrote on the sacred, myths and symbols. Here we find a theory of the psyché very similar to that of C.G. Jung, the great Swiss psychiatrist who sought a less materialistic view of the human soul than Freud. We are led to a depth of anthropology, philosophy and theology that no “apologist” could ever imagine. But, let us leave the absurd to one side!

I recommend you to discover this wonderful mind and the whole movement of Ressourcement theology, and perhaps I would recommend one book that no Anglican joining an Ordinariate should forgo reading: Tracy Rowland, Ratzinger’s Faith which is a recent book and still in print. Discover and enjoy!

Here in England, there appears to be broad support for the continued use of the Roman Missal and Lectionary, these forming the Eucharistic rite of choice for most priests who might consider themselves likely to take the Holy Father’s offer. The use of the Roman Breviary would seem to be nearly universal in private recitation. Retention of the Roman Use ought not to be a problem at all, and here the fact that Anglicanorum Cœtibus has established the Ordinariates not as a separate juridical rite, but considers it a department of the Latin Rite, should be most useful. Since the Roman Missal (presumably in both Ordinary and Extraordinary forms) is available to all priests of the Latin Rite, then it is ipso facto available to priests of the Ordinariates, and there is no need even to specify it as a rite of the new groups.

Outside the UK, (and in a small but significant way among laity in the UK) there would seem to be a considerable support for the use of the Book of Common Prayer in some form. I think the words ‘in some form’ are important. We Roman Catholics (many of us, anyway) feel uncomfortable with the Book of Common Prayer as it is; while admiring its incomparable language, it nonetheless represents too much of a divergence from the Catholic faith as we understand it. Even Newman’s brilliant Tract 90 cannot entirely cleanse the 39 Articles of their redolence of Protestantism. If we are to be in communion, then we need also to have a communion in the public expression of our faith (more anon). But then, I don’t imagine that even the most ardent Prayer Book Anglo-Catholic would want to preserve every element of the Book. Presumably what is intended is that the offices (Mattins and Evensong) should continue to be available in toto, and that a modified form of the Holy Communion service be available—modified, because I presume the priest doesn’t want to begin at the ‘north end’ of the ‘table’, and, I hope, would want some form of Offertory and an improved Canon. In the short term, there is the Book of Divine Worship, but I hope (saving Fr Christopher’s presence) that something better might be produced in the longer term; the version that I have seen appears to be an uncomfortable cobbling together of elements that are too disparate. It reminds me of one of those mythical ancient beasts that were combinations of various other animals. Of the other offices, well, I don’t know, really. Perhaps some might like to retain the marriage rite and perhaps the burial. I imagine that baptism would need to be enriched with the anointings &c. I haven’t seen what the BDW has done in this regard.

There are minority interests also. One group treasures the rather antinomian view that individual churches have individual traditions and should be allowed to continue with them, whether this be a use of English Missal, Sarum Missal, Common Worship, or some locally composed variant on any of these. Some regard this licence as being part of the patrimony, but I think I beg to differ. At least, if it is part of the patrimony, then it is very recent, and not something consonant with either traditional Anglicanism (which historically has united people with different beliefs in the celebration of the BCP) or traditional Catholicism (which has united people, at least within a region, in the use of one rite). This is because rite is a dimension of communion (understood as meaning koinonia, sobornost, rather than Eucharist). This is not about minute observance of rubrics (as someone chose to misinterpret something I had written on my own blog), which inevitably will differ somewhat from place to place, but means that a priest of the same rite ought to be able to celebrate confidently in any church of his rite and a layman say Amen to all the prayers in all the churches of his rite.

Another group, represented here by the estimable Fr Chadwick, enthusiastically supports the Sarum Use. Now he is, of course, preaching to the choir as far as I am concerned (as many of you may know), for I am a passionate lover of the Sarum Use. However, can it really be regarded as part of the Patrimony? Surely it can be regarded as familiar by only a very few Anglicans except in a few details, such as the general layout and decoration of churches. Familiarity, I think, really needs to be an important element in discerning what is patrimonial.

Is there any other element that needs preservation? Common Worship, where used by Anglo-Catholics, would appear to be a minority sport, with the elements selected that most closely approximate the Roman Rite.  I am not familiar with the 1928 prayer book; from what I remember, it doesn’t seem to differ that drastically from 1662, I think, though if I remember rightly, it adds Compline to the offices. I don’t know anyone who uses it these days.

Some in the UK are passionately attached to the English Missal. Use of this might need to be negotiated as an alternative way of celebrating the Extraordinary Form. At the moment, this may only be celebrated in Latin.

So, Bishop Edwin Barnes, in his excellent post of a few days ago, has got there before me; all the above is simply my rather long-winded way of saying that I think he is right. From what I have read and seen, it appears that you think that (an improved) Book of Divine Worship should suit most ordinariates within the new system, and for others, there is the general concession of the Roman Rite. If a gentle flexibility is allowed with respect to rubrics, there is no reason why these should not be celebrated in the style to which each parish has grown accustomed (with Sarum ornaments, or whatever).

At present, the Roman Use would appear (rightly, in my opinion) to be starting to rethink the use of hymns at Mass—in other words, using the proper chants. I suspect that hymnody is such an important part of Anglican Patrimony that their use in place of the chants needs to be reinforced with some form of legislation.

No doubt there is more to be said about the liturgy, but what does not yet seem to have been considered much is two other aspects of the patrimony:

Intellectual

and

Spiritual,

to which you might add,

Historical.

Liturgy has been uppermost in most people’s minds, but the other elements are going to be at least as important for the future. What I mean is that, for instance, I can see that elements might be in the historical section which you might not want to think of as doctrine, but which have nevertheless been part of the historical process which as resulted in what has become Anglicanism. Maybe the 39 articles might go in there, maybe Puritanism. There is the tradition of the non-Jurors.

It would be very useful if some scholars among you were to get to work and assemble a Corpus Anglicanum, consisting of the great works of theology and spirituality which have been distinguished not just through history but well into living memory (I am thinking of Dom Gregory Dix and of Eric Mascall). With publishing being now so easy (through Lulu.com & similar) it should be possible to actually print series of these works for today’s world, and, perhaps, even thus be able to give ‘ordinary’ Anglicanism a sense of itself once more. A commentary might be provided showing the relations with universal Catholic theology and spirituality.

Is there some wealthy and generous person who would be willing to finance such a project (it really needn’t cost much if privately published; Lulu will print and sell even one copy at a time)?

* * *

Whether or not Jesus Christ was born of woman, lived, suffered, died, was buried and rose from the dead to ascend in glory to Heaven cannot be established by ordinary historical evidence. The only witness is in the traditions and writings of the Church.

The story of Christ rests entirely on the word of His early followers. The New Testament, (which was not finally authenticated by the Church till three hundred years later,) supplements and in part embodies the traditional teaching of the Church. And in the New Testament we can read how Christ consistently refused to give the kind of’ sign ‘ which would have found its way into ordinary history. When tempted to perform a miracle by throwing Himself down from the Temple when Jerusalem was crowded with visitors from all over the world, He refused to do it. When He was on the cross and Jerusalem had come out to see Him die, He was challenged again: “Come down from the Cross and we will believe.” It would indeed have been stupor mundi, but again He refused. When He rose from the dead, He did not show Himself to Pilate or to Caiaphas or to the crowds who had watched him die. He showed Himself, as Peter admitted: “Not to all the people, but to us . . .”

Because Christianity is an historical religion, based on events in time and place, it is assumed too often, even by Christians, that those events are as historically verifiable as, for instance, the career of Napoleon is historically verifiable. Because we can point to classical references to a sect which believed in Christ, many jump to the untenable conclusion that that belief is objective evidence of the facts they wish to establish. But history comes in later and in a different way.

What is inescapable for the most sceptical historian is not the fact of the Incarnate Body of Christ, but the fact of his Mystical Body, the Church. Whether or not on a particular Thursday evening in an upper room in Jerusalem, Jesus of Nazareth ordered His followers till the end of time to eat his Body and drink his Blood under the species of bread and wine can never be ‘ historically’ established. But that for nineteen centuries this has been done cannot be ‘ historically ‘ escaped.

Dom Gregory Dix put the matter thus in a great passage in The Shape of the Liturgy: “Was ever another command so obeyed? For century after century, spreading slowly to every continent and country and among every race on earth, this action has been done, in every conceivable human circumstance, for every conceivable human need from infancy, and before it to extreme old age and after it, from the pinnacles of earthly greatness to the refuge of fugitives in the caves and dens of the earth. Men have found no better thing than this to do for kings at their crowning and for criminals going to the scaffold; for armies in triumph or for a bride and bridegroom in a little country church; for the proclamation of a dogma or for a good crop of wheat; for the wisdom of a parliament of a mighty nation or for a sick old woman afraid to die; for a schoolboy sitting an examination or for Columbus setting out to discover America; for the famine of whole provinces or for the soul of a dead lover; in thankfulness because my father did not die of pneumonia; for a village headman much tempted to return to fetich because the yams had failed; because the Turk was at the gates of Vienna; for the repentance of Margaret; for the settlement of a strike; for a son for a barren woman; for Captain So-and-So, wounded and prisoner of war; while the lions roared in the nearby amphitheatre; on the beach at Dunkirk; while the hiss of scythes in the thick June grass came faintly through the windows of the church; tremulously by an old monk on the fiftieth anniversary of his vows; furtively, by an exiled bishop who had hewn timber all day in a prison camp near Murmansk; gorgeously, for the canonisation of St. Joan of Arc —one could fill many pages with reasons why men have done this and not tell a hundredth part of them. And best of all, week by week and month by month, on a hundred thousand successive Sundays, faithfully, unfailingly, across all the parishes of Christendom, the pastors have done this just to make the plebs sancta Dei—the holy, common people of God.”

The unique phenomenon in history is the Church—that is to say, the company of people which no man now can number who eat, have eaten and will eat the Body, who drink, have drunk and will drink the Blood.

This company is by no means the same as the well-intentioned many who give general assent to the principles enunciated in the ‘Sermon on the Mount’ and, for that reason, inaccurately describe themselves as ‘christians.’ Such equivocal terminology is to-day so dangerous that it is worth emphasising the truism that the ‘ sermon ‘ is the epitome of pre-christian morality. (The famous ‘ golden rule,’ for example,— “Do unto others as you would they should do unto you”—was a commonplace of Rabbinical teaching and, outside Judaism, at least as old as Confucius.) As Bishop Thomas Strong put it in his Christian Ethics, the ‘ Sermon’ “takes its place rather with the older dispensation than with the new. It is still a law; it still gives commands to the will and sets before it an ideal. The will is left to find its own way to this perfect type; no guidance, no direct promise of guidance is given. So the Sermon on the Mount kills, to use St. Paul’s language, as relentlessly as the Law . . . The Greek ethical system, the Jewish Law, the Sermon on the Mount, have all this one character in common—that they command from without.”

Superseding and abolishing all such commands was the new and unique ‘ Do this.’ A personal relationship with God and a power to do his will replaced human aspirations after goodness expressed in ideal codes of conduct. For those from whom the gift of faith might be withheld or those who by circumstances could have no knowledge of the New Covenant, the way of salvation still lay—and lies—in obedience to the Old. But ‘ the law and the prophets,’ though endorsed by Jesus, are not specifically his commandments and stand on a different footing from his own ‘ Do this’ and the other two commands which are inextricably related to it—the command to be baptized and the command to love to the death fellow-sharers of the Meal: ” Anew commandment I give unto you that ye love one another as I have loved you.” Because of baptism, making clean from sin[1], the Christian may dare to partake of the meal; because of the partaking, he is bound in a unique way to the other partakers. “The Church,” Peguy once said, “is a city. The bad citizen belongs to the city; the good stranger does not.”

The Eucharist—to give the Meal the name which it has had since the first century—is thus in every way central not only to the life of the Church but to the understanding of Christianity. To know the prayer which accompanies the action is to know the Faith.

And the Faith is the faith of whole, undivided Church, before schisms had sundered it. The formula of the Eucharistic Prayer—the ‘ Canon of the Mass,’ as it is more usually called —has not varied since the end of the sixth century. Its final form was given to it by Gregory the Great, the Pope who sent Augustine to England. The Prayer as Augustine prayed it in that first Communion he celebrated in the ruined church of St. Martin in Canterbury in 597 is, word for word, the same prayer as has been said this particular morning at every Catholic altar all over the world.

Thus the Canon to-day is not only the prayer of unity within the Church itself. It is the potential point of unity for all those separated from the Church. The sects which have sprung up since the Reformation could all unite in saying the Canon. There can be nothing in the doctrine implied there from which any presbyterian or congregationalist or methodist could dissent, for no dissenter disagrees with the Catholic Church on the question of the original Christianity St. Augustine brought to England. There is in the Canon only the teaching of the primitive Church (for, of course, Gregory the Great only put the final touches to prayers which had slowly developed or hardened into particular forms from apostolic times) and nothing whatever of ‘ late mediaeval accretions’ against which the Reformers inveighed. The Canon had already been in use, in its present form, for six hundred years before ‘ Transubstantiation ‘ was defined in 1215.

In praying the Canon we unite ourselves with all fellow-christians ‘throughout all ages, world without end.’ In knowing the Canon, we become grounded in the teaching of the primitive Church which Protestants no less than Catholics accept and so we may find that the Lord’s Table, despite all the controversies which have disgraced His followers, is indeed the centre of unity. And in knowing about the Canon, we can detect the false arguments of those opponents of the Faith who have tried and who still try to perpetuate disunity.

Because one of the reasons for their success is the unfamiliarity of non-catholics with the form in which Mass is now said, a few paragraphs will be given to the vestments and gestures of the priest. Though strictly outside the subject of the book, (which does not pretend to be a liturgical guide,) they may be of some use to those who, studying the prayers of the Canon, may wish to go to join in it when it is said in church but are deterred by what they have heard described as ‘ outlandish vestments’ and ‘ meaningless gestures.’ Even some of the Catholic laity are not, perhaps, altogether conversant with symbolisms which have become second-nature to their priests and may find, in the vesting-prayers, a new preparation for approaching the Canon itself, the Great Prayer which, more surely than any other prayer in the world, is the way to Him.