Some Words to the Wise

The following post was called to my attention by a commenter on the previous post. When I went to the blog titled CatholicLeft, I wasn't sure what to expect; however, I must say that after reading what the blogger had to say, I thought it was well-worth sharing with our readers.

* * *

Welcome home, please don't spit in our face.

As I have previously pointed out in an earlier post, I am fairly cheerful about the setting up of the Ordinariates for people of an Anglican tradition within the Catholic Church. I recently attended the Ordination of 3 men to the Priesthood in Nottingham Cathedral and it was very moving and there was a sense of history about the whole thing. I chatted to all the newly ordained and they came with all kinds of hopes and were full of joy – especially the 82 year old great-grandfather (in remarkable health) who spoke movingly of this being the result of a 58 year journey praying for unity. After the Bishop of Nottingham had ordained them for the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham (OLW), their Ordinary, Monsignor Newton, pointedly turned to the diocesan priests and made it clear that they would be working together with the Church in the Diocese to support the work of the Catholic Church: "We are Catholic Priests first and Ordinariate second". This was a good thing to have done and added to the good feeling among all those there.

Now, whilst I am fascinated about how the Ordinariate will grow (and I am sure it will), I would like to turn my attention to the febrile atmosphere that exists in the 'Blogosphere' among those who are waiting for the formation of Ordinariates in Canada, USA, Australia, the Torres Straits (google it) and elsewhere. I am frankly astonished by the number of commentators who seemed to think that the Catholic Church is desperately in need of their immediate arrival so that they might 'save us' from the horrors of our Liturgy, our Bishops and our – obviously very inadequately trained – priests.

Now, I have been to some appallingly prepared/celebrated Masses, which are usually due to the Presiding priest's political agenda and it disappoints/annoys me intensely, but this is a rare occurrence and not, as you would believe when reading some of the commentators, the case in every parish. There is a continual reference to the 'N.O.' (Novus Ordo) which, for all you life-long, committed and faithful Catholics out there, is a reference to how we have celebrated our Liturgy since the early 1970's. It is a shortened way of referring to the Novus Ordo Missae which means 'The New Order of the Mass'.

Put simply, a lot of those who are interested in the Ordinariate do not like the N.O. OK – I think that is pretty clear. They share this dislike with the Latin Mass Society who, given the recent issuing of the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum by Pope Benedict, have not too much to worry about as they can far more frequently have the Mass celebrated according to the 1962 Missal.

Now, I have been to some beautifully celebrated, Spiritually uplifting, celebrations of Mass and it is very rare where I am not deeply moved to be in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament and I always find peace in the reception of Holy Communion. So, I am not overly impressed by the constant sniping from those who have yet to become members of our Church.

Those joining the OLW are having a Liturgy prepared which will be in keeping with the Anglican Patrimony which the Ordinariate is set up to encourage and nurture. The thing is – and pay attention everybody – a lot of those who have yet to join an Ordinariate do not trust those preparing the Liturgy, even though they are led by Monsignor Andrew Burnham, former Anglican Bishop of Ebbsfleet. They believe that those who have already joined the Ordinariate were hardly Anglicans anyway as they already used the Roman Missal and celebrated using the N.O. (they have a point here, a lot of C of E priests did do this) so they are not 'sound'. I believe this to be nonsensical and a lot of those who are 'on the way' to the Ordinariates trust Msgr Burnham, who is not acting alone but with others from around the world to prepare appropriate Liturgies.

Indeed, if anybody wants to see what an Ordinariate Liturgy might look like, I point them to the Anglican Use Roman Catholic Mass: http://www.youtube.com/ which seems to this cradle Catholic a beautiful and appropriate Liturgy. I assume this is close to what the USA Ordinariate liturgy looks like when it is set up in the Autumn.

So – what is it with these people; why the lack of graciousness and the anger directed towards those who are inviting them home? In truth, I think it has little to do with the Catholic Church as such, it is to do with ongoing battles between groups of people in small breakaway Anglican communities. They have been so used to fighting with other Anglicans they don't know how to relax and trust; they have been let down too many times and still feel that is what will happen. I am sorry about that and encourage everybody to pray that they find peace and unity in the Body of Christ, the Church.

However, that doesn't mean that the snide comments and patronising remarks should continue; can we have a little more trust and a lot less vitriol, brothers and sisters, as we walk this journey of Faith together?

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!

Photos from Time Drawn into Eternity Conference

Mr. Joey Spencer, Director of the Te Deum Institute of Sacred Liturgy, of the Diocese of Tulsa, has forwarded these pictures from the recent Time Drawn in Eternity Conference, with Bishop Peter J. Elliot, Auxiliary Bishop of Melbourne, liturgical expert and Pastoral Delegate for the implementation of Anglicanorum Coetibus in Australia.

The photographs are from a celebration of the Novus Ordo Missae celebrated ad orientem.

Elliott Mass 1 842x1024 Photos from Time Drawn into Eternity ConferenceElliott Mass 2 688x1024 Photos from Time Drawn into Eternity ConferenceElliott Mass 3 1024x776 Photos from Time Drawn into Eternity Conference

Elliott Mass 4 654x1024 Photos from Time Drawn into Eternity Conference Photos from Time Drawn into Eternity Conference

Continue reading

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!

What Liturgy Do You Actually Attend/Celebrate?

One of the curious phenomena of The Anglo-Catholic (and other Ordinariate/Anglo-Catholic/High Anglican web sites) is the fascination of some posters and commentators on specific, often arcane, matters related to the administration of the Eucharistic liturgy (of course, a matter of supreme importance).  Advocates for this or that rite, use, ceremonial, or funny kind of hat sacrifice millions of photons each day defending their personal preferences online.  This has often led me to wonder, though, how many folks have actually witnessed some of the more obscure liturgical forms debated on this site and others?

This curiosity has led me to establish the first-ever poll here on The Anglo-Catholic.

What liturgy do you actually attend on Sundays?

View Results

loading What Liturgy Do You Actually Attend/Celebrate? Loading ...

Please note that the question is not "What is your dream liturgy?," but rather asks what form of the Holy Mass you actually celebrate or assist.

Once we've got some basic data, perhaps we can poll our audience on specific Anglican liturgical books?

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!

The Anchoress Has High Hopes for the Effect of Anglican Worship on the Wider Church

Over at First Things, the Anchoress has a made a prediction on how Anglican worship will have a ripple effect through the wider Church:

Teasing aside, I’m going to make one of my famous predictions, so hold on to your hats (hey, come on, I predicted that Hillary would cry on camera before the 2008 New Hampshire primaries!) I predict that eventually the beautiful Anglican Rite will top the Novus Ordo in popularity and attendance. I think the Latinists will keep to the Latin mass, but that we’ll see a slow migration by many Catholics, away from the Novus Ordo and the OCP hymnal and toward the exalted language and more classical presentment of the Anglicans. For those Catholics dissatisfied with the NO, but not inclined to Latin, the Anglican Rite will become the irresistible alternative that brings back “some” of babies thrown out with the bathwater “in the Spirit of Vatican II.”

Or (this is an extended prediction), we’ll see some parishes adapt a little, maintaining the NO, but perhaps reinstalling the altar rails, or ditching the handclaps and tambourines, for a bit more reverence.

Either way, it’s going to be quite a shake up.

Read the entire article.>>>

I think it is fair to say that she sums up the somewhat selfish hopes of some of the ordinariate project's Catholic well-wishers.  From her lips to God's ear.

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!

What of the Liturgy?

celebrating mass What of the Liturgy?Amongst those considering the offer of an Ordinariate will be priests who are thoroughly modern and inspired by Vatican II as well as those who are more traditional in their liturgical taste and expertise. Finding a liturgy that will inspire, unify and work is going to be a work of great importance and the final decisions will clearly not lie with simple parish priests like myself. Nevertheless here is what I think might be workable and useful both for us and for the Church we hope to join.

I feel some Ordinariate congregations will benefit from using the modern Roman Rite if that is what they are used to. It would be daft to ask for the removal of Roman practice in order to keep a patrimony alive! In such cases the ‘Anglican Patrimony’ will be found in the use of BCP Evensong, smaller congregations, a pastoral expertise, etc.

More traditionally minded parishes, such as our own, could dedicate themselves to ‘the reform of the reform’. My personal desire would be to find middle ground between the informal Vatican II service and Latin Tridentine Mass. Could we not use the Tridentine Mass in the vernacular? This was, after all, the intention of the original reformers- what patrimony! This type of service- comprising Vatican 1 ceremonial within a welcoming Vatican II culture- might be genuinely exciting and evangelistic. It would bring awe, mystery and wonder to the liturgy but would remain accessible to the non-churched and those who have never been anywhere near a Tridentine Mass. It would also make the step up to Latin more simple if the liturgy was first known in English.

A final idea, close to the ideal set out above, would be a return to the old English Missal. This would have the benefit of being truly Anglican but work would be needed to ensure the Eucharistic prayers etc were in keeping with Rome’s doctrinal teaching. The benefit here is that something similar already exists within Anglican use parishes in America and they clearly retain a patrimony. So which is it to be?

The one thing I remain convinced about is that whatever is finally decided it must be nailed down and insisted on from day one. Get Hunwicke working soon I say! Allowing for choice might be current practice in Anglicanism but it is destructive and unhelpful. You are what you pray and our unity depends on using the same rites based on the same doctrines. A modern and traditional option is fine- but both need bringing together as do we! As has been said elsewhere- we cannot bring our problems with us when we move and such things will need ironing out, with authority from the CDF, sooner rather than later.

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!

Helping Visitors?

My family and I recently attended a Novus Ordo Mass (no, it was not our first time). My children had similar responses to the last time; they had wonderful insights like, "its not reverent enough", "why didn't we kneel more?", "there wasn't even a confession of sin!", "the sermon was too short", and "they had a woman in the chancel again!" Those things I was expecting. I'm not going to get all bent out of shape by them, but I do wish they would change.

The thing that stood out to me the most was the manner in which the liturgy was not "user friendly". We were able to follow along and make many of the responses by memory because of the similarity to the Prayer Book and the Anglican Missal (though we used much older English), but there was no clearly written out liturgy to follow. Yes, there was a book in the pew that I took for a missalette but it was impossible to figure out what page to be on at any point in time. No one leaned over and told us the page they were on, nor was there a guide in the bulletin to tell us how to follow. We got along just fine, but if there had been another visitor who did not know what was going on, he would have been totally lost. This tiny little parish rarely has visitors, and if they ever do it likely is not someone who is new to the liturgy, so I do not fault them for not being used to having newcomers in the pews with them. The priest introduced us with a very gracious comment about Anglicanorum Coetibus and our process of reception into the Church, but that was after the service; during the Mass no one knew who we were.

At the ACA Cathedral in Orlando, where we attended a few months ago, the liturgy was clearly outlined in a handout that was explicitly easy to follow. I acknowledge and greatly support the idea that "wonderful things do not come easy" and that we have to learn them. The visitors should be given the impression that the liturgy is somewhat difficult and that it is worth it to take the time to learn how to "do the dance steps". It is like learning to ride a bike; it is uncomfortable and even a bit scary at first, but after much practice it comes naturally. I agree completely, and have no contentions about this. Yet, we should also be showing the visitors that the congregation is ready, willing and able to help them through it. To come alongside and guide a novice is part of showing brotherly love.

As the Ordinariates become established, it is likely that there will be many visitors who are coming just to "check out this new thing" and they will never show up a second time. Yet, there will also be visitors who will end up being hooked in and later convert. How they are received by the parish members and what assistance they are given will often make or break their decision to return. So then, this is not a criticism or an admonition. Rather, it is a question. How do you (as clergy or laity) work to help the visitor know that the liturgy is not impossible and that he will be helped through it? I am seeking honest examples from many different sources. Is there a plan for it, or does it usually just happen "on the fly" when a visitor shows up? Input, please!

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!

The Remarkable Gift of the Anglican Patrimony

I have been away on holidays for a little while.  During that time I finished reading Bishop Andrew Burnham's new book on liturgy.  Reading and reviewing this book it is not hard to appreciate the wonderful contributions to the wider Church which can come from the Anglican Patrimony.  Here is my review of this excellent tome.

* * *

Andrew Burnham, Heaven & Earth in Little Space: The Re-enchantment of Liturgy, Canterbury Press, Norwich, 2010

andrew burnham The Remarkable Gift of the Anglican PatrimonyThere are many books on the development of liturgy in which the discussion is principally about what is happening within one liturgical tradition while taking into account influences from other traditions.  This is not one of them.  What we have here is an absorbing discussion on contemporary developments in liturgy and their interplay between the Catholic Church and the Church of England.

To do this, the author Andrew Burnham, Bishop of Ebbsfleet (Anglican), takes us back to the way in which liturgy developed in England during the Reformation and why.  With all of the objectivity of the scholar that he is, and employing an engaging literary style, Burnham is able to navigate the reader through the turbulent waters of the English Reformation, the troubled waters of post Vatican II liturgy, and onward into the exciting possibilities opened up by Pope Benedict’s Apostolic Constitution, Anglicanorum coetibus. This is a book which will appeal to both scholars and laypersons.

Critics in both the Anglican Communion and the Catholic Church complain about the coarsening of much of modern liturgy, its banality, the over emphasis upon the ‘community’ at the expense of a sense of participation in the transcendent worship in the heavenly sanctuary, and its slavery to now dated 1970s experiments in ‘creative’ liturgy.  Many have voted with their feet and refuse to attend liturgical celebrations, especially those that have been ‘manufactured’ to attract the people.

In subtitling his book, “The Re-enchantment of Liturgy”, Andrew Burnham signals his purpose which is no less than to sketch out newer approaches to liturgical renewal which, drawing upon the best of the Church’s liturgical treasury, may assist worshippers to engage more fully in the transforming worship of heaven.  There is a pressing need, he argues, to find the way out of contemporary liturgical banality in order to rediscover “something of the mysterium tremens et fascinans” of what the sacred liturgy, at its best, can truly express.  Traumatic ruptures in the liturgical tradition, as distinct from organic development, has not served the Spiritual interests and needs of the People of God.

Burnham begins his task with a scrupulously honest evaluation of what happened to the liturgy in the Church of England at the Reformation.  He freely acknowledges that the traditional Anglican formularies of the Book of Common Prayer of 1662 (and to a greater and lesser extent the Prayer books of 1549, 1552, and 1559) seem patient of either a more Catholic interpretation or a more Protestant interpretation.  The rupture in the Catholic liturgical tradition engineered by Thomas Cranmer resulted in “a maddening ambiguity at the heart of Anglican Eucharistic theology.”

The differing Anglican Eucharistic theologies have become institutionalised in the Book of Common Worship which provides a variety of Eucharistic Prayers to meet the differing theological beliefs of different congregations.

Next Burnham turns his attention to what happened in the Catholic Church following the introduction of the Novus Ordo of Paul VI, and what is happening in the Church following the promulgation of the Motu Proprio of Pope Benedict XVI, Summorum pontificum (2007).  And, of course, full account is taken of Liturgicam authenticam (2001) with the resulting and soon to be published new English translation of the Mass.  Questions here are raised about the Catholic Church’s relative inexperience with vernacular liturgy as compared to the 500 years experience of the Church of England which allowed a sacral vernacular language to emerge.  Burnham takes seriously the possibility of how one Form of the Mass, the Ordinary Form or the Extraordinary Form, may influence the other.  As an example he suggests the replacement of the Offertory Prayers in the Novus Ordo with those from the Missal of Blessed John XXIII thereby recovering in its fullest expression the true doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass for the Novus Ordo.

In his lengthy discussion of Church music Burnham displays all of the acumen of one who has authority to speak in this important area of liturgical worship.  He correctly points out that hymnody has had a powerful influence on Anglican consciousness, with hymns providing a teaching modality as well as beauty in the worship of God.  Much Catholic Eucharistic theology is disclosed in well known and well loved traditional Anglican hymns.  The practical loss of these traditional hymns with their replacement by often very unworthy contemporary alternatives has eviscerated much of the Anglo-Catholic legacy of traditional Eucharistic understanding and worship.  In many ways, what was in Anglican hymns made up for what was, from a Catholic point of view, lacking in the Service of Holy Communion in the BCP of 1662.

Burnham’s discussion on the liturgical forms of Morning and Evening Prayer, and other Offices, is carried out in its dialectical relationship between the Catholic breviaries in their various amended forms, and the forms devised by Thomas Cranmer.  He carries that kind of discussion on into the contemporary revisions of the Church of England and the new Breviary now in use in the Catholic Church.

In this book Burnham does both Anglicans and Catholics a major service in explaining the ways in which Church of England liturgies changed at the Reformation, what were the factors at play which influenced the radical rupture the Eucharistic liturgy, and the importance of the ongoing process of change in the twentieth and twenty first centuries.  Burnham, while clearly Catholic in his understanding of liturgy, is nevertheless able to present in an objective and dispassionate way alternative views which are more widely accepted by Anglicans.

Importantly, Bishop Burnham also makes clear what is meant by the classic Anglican Patrimony which can suitably be retained and incorporated into the Catholic liturgical tradition, thereby enriching the tradition.

This book provides readers with a profound understanding of liturgical developments in both the Church of England and the Catholic Church, and the manifest shortcomings of much contemporary liturgical worship both Eucharistic and non-Eucharistic.  Usefully, the book goes on to suggest ways in which liturgy may not only be renewed in the light of tradition, but also re-enchanted such that active participation in the Eucharist will enable the believer to really experiences something of the sublime reality of heaven.

In concluding with a chapter on St Mary the Virgin Mother of God, the Bishop makes the traditional Catholic link between the meeting of heaven and earth in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and the meeting of heaven and earth on our altars as bread and wine are transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ.

* * *

Heaven and Earth in Little Space is published by Canterbury Press with a Foreword by Fr Aidan Nichols OP and an introduction by Fr Jonathan Baker SSC, Principal of Pusey House, Oxford and also a member of the Council of Forward in Faith.  Full details of how to order it, and how to take advantage of a generous discount on the recommended price, can be found here.

TO ORDER with a 20% discount please quote code Space 2010.
UK orders please add £2.50 for P&P (orders over £50 postage free).
International orders please call for details.  Offer price expires 31st Dec 2010.
Post: Send a cheque payable to Norwich Books and Music to
Norwich Books and Music, St Mary’s Works, St Mary’s Plain, Norwich NR3 3BH.
Tel: 01603 612614  Fax: 01603 624483  Emailorders@norwichbooksandmusic.co.uk

Copies of Heaven and Earth in Little Space may also be had through Amazon.com.

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!

An Illustration of the Benedictine Reform

I just found UK: Bishop with priests using new translation – wordy but a huge improvement on Fr Zuhlsdorf’s site. An English Catholic bishop has been using the new ICEL translation before the official date. How naughty!

Now, the point is that this part of the Benedictine reform is not being imposed on pain of sanctions. It is being joyfully received in a gesture of being at last rid of the banal “lame-duck” translations of the 1970’s – which are going the same way as statues of Lenin and Stalin in Russia, or swastikas in Germany in 1945. This illustrates my point about liturgical reform back in the traditional direction being in gradual stages and by being freely accepted, not imposed by authority. The relevance of this for Anglicans is that our own reform of the reform will be a gradual process before we get official books to which all must conform.

The new ICEL translation is at present optional, not required of all clergy. De facto, jumping the gun on this issue is allowed and tolerated. What an interesting way of doing things. It reminds me of Perestroika and Glasnost in 1989. First, people were allowed to leave the Soviet bloc without getting shot or arrested by the KGB, and then the Communist system collapsed. At the risk of lacking reverence for the Church, a parallel situation appears to be happening. The old liberal dinosaur is melting away before our eyes.

A priest on his diocesan clergy retreat writes:

I'm on the diocesan clergy retreat at Ushaw this week so this is just a quick post. Some priest bloggers have discussed recently using the new translation of the OF Mass before the official launch date. I thought readers might be interested to know that Mass at the retreat today was celebrated by our bishop and priests using the new texts. Everyone dutifully replied ‘And with your spirit’. No-one died and no horses appeared to be frightened. My impression was that it seemed a bit more wordy but it was a huge improvement on what we have had. I expect we’ll be using the new translation the rest of the week.

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!

The Use of the Modern Roman Rite in Anglicanism

I have given the decision of whether or not to post another liturgy-related posting a good deal of thought. However, in our reflection, a dimension has been neglected, one that exists whether we like it or not. For the sake of completeness, I consider a tendency that homogenously developed in the Church of England and the reason why most of the English Forward in Faith clergy considering the Ordinariate, to my knowledge, use the modern Roman rite. I resolve, in writing this article, to represent that tendency as best I can with the most positive and kindly spirit. It is something I can understand having consulted Michael Yelton’s Anglican Papalism (London 2005).

This clergy-driven Romeward movement is best understood in the light of history. The term Anglo-Papalism is a neologism of uncertain origin, but the tendency it designates can be found in the very early twentieth century. We find clergy like the Revd Spencer Jones, Vicar of Moreton-in-Marsh, author of England and the Holy See, recognising the Pope as the visible head of the Church and accepting the Council of Trent and Vatican I. They accepted the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady and even the Assumption (which was not defined ex cathedra until 1950). The only thing they refused was Leo XIII’s condemnation of their Orders!

I see Anglo Papalism as the most “extreme” version and a development of the Anglo-Catholic movement. However, rather than attempt an apologia of the Reformation and how Catholicism survived in the English Church despite Protestantism and a highly repressive persecution of recusants, Anglo-Papalists consider the Anglican Church as part of the western Church that was forcibly separated by the English Monarchy. Regarding the liturgy, the Prayer Book was seen as enjoying the authority of use, but that using the Roman Missal and Breviary was also legitimate. They also used all the para-liturgical devotions in use in Catholic parishes at the time. They saw corporate reunion with the Holy See as the only logical consequence of the Catholic movement. The most prominent community representing this tendency was the Benedictine community of Nashdom, numbering the distinguished Dom Gregory Dix amongst its members. Like the parish of St Magnus the Martyr in London, they went as far as celebrating the Roman liturgy in Latin.

This movement’s heyday as a parallel to contemporary Roman Catholicism in England ran from about the beginning of the century up to the 1960’s. Less “extreme” Anglican Papalists continued the Anglican way of celebrating in English, which they did by using the English Missal, first published in 1912. They reacted against Dearmer’s Parson’s Handbook and rejected the mediaevalist tendency. Their way was resolutely Roman and Counter Reformation.

In this optic, certainly vastly simplified, the Anglo Papalists logically followed all the changes and modifications during and after Vatican II, including the adoption of Paul VI’s reformed liturgy, which they called the Missa Normativa. It was in 1979 when I found this rite used at Saint Alban’s church Holborn, with sumptuous Tridentine ceremonial and music. The most well-known Anglo-Papalist parishes in London, other than St Alban’s Holborn, are St Magnus the Martyr near London Bridge, St Mary’s Bourne Street, St Augustine’s Queens Gate, to mention only a few. Their altars and internal appointments were characteristic, and quite often in baroque French style rather than Roman, marked by very high tapering candles and tomb-shaped altars. Mass facing the people came in relatively late in the Anglican world, and the temporary altar was often brought on only for some of the Sunday Masses. Solemn Mass would continue to be celebrated on the high altar in the traditional eastward position.

Going by most recent photos (I have been away from London Anglo-Papalism since about 1980 – thirty years ago), most Masses are celebrated facing the people as in Roman Catholic parishes. It suffices to look at the Forward in Faith website.

The use of the modern Roman rite is thus logical and understandable by Anglicans who rejected Anglicanism by the very beginning of the twentieth century, and rejected only one piece of Catholic teaching, the bull Apostolicae Curae of 1896 by Leo XIII saying that Anglican orders are invalid. Anyway, I don’t want to go into that subject and will not answer comments thereupon.

I have been though much of the thought that provoked this decision by some Anglican priests to use the modern Roman rite. I would reasonably deduce that there are two categories. One would comprise those previously using the English Missal, and believed it to be their duty to change as the Catholic Church changed through the 1970’s. The other group would be those who were disillusioned with the non-Papalist Anglo-Catholic group and English Use. I could imagine this second group saying – If you’re going to use the Prayer Book, use the Prayer Book, but don’t mess about with all those bits and pieces you put into it to make it into a Catholic rite! Such a mind could only conclude the bankruptcy of Anglican liturgy and either revive Sarum or adopt contemporary Roman usage.

Personally, I find this position at its most extreme puzzling. Why did they not convert to Catholicism the way it was done before Anglicanorum Coetibus? Answer, their marriage and the requirement of celibacy in the Latin Church, though there are many celibate Anglo-Papalists too. There is also the added incentive of a fine church building and perks from being employed by the Church of England. There is also the priest’s friendship with the others of his class and in his diocese and deanery. These are not dishonourable, and are understandable in a world that has become a hard place to live in for priests.

How does an Anglo-Papalist priest using the modern Roman rite, interested in joining a future Ordinariate, define Anglican patrimony? I am precisely talking about those who wish to use the modern Roman rite in an Ordinariate context or think it would be the right thing, and not merely to serve Latin rite Catholic parishes or stand in one Sunday morning for a priest who is sick or absent.

May I make a suggestion for the comments? I suggest we refrain from all polemics against the modern Roman rite, whether coming from Roman Catholics or Anglicans. I suggest we give every opportunity to priests of this tendency to flesh out the bones of what I have written – and enlighten us who are more of the Prayer Book / Sarum “tendency”. I urge all Catholic Anglicans to adopt an attitude of tolerance and understanding, even with those we might believe to be objectively wrong.

Let’s give it a try.

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!

Four Liturgical Forms

Fr. Hunwicke has authored this piece as part of the joint discussion between The New Liturgical Movement and The Anglo-Catholic regarding the future of Anglican liturgy in the personal ordinariates to be erected under Anglicanorum Coetibus.

I would observe that a number of Anglican altar missals similar to the English Missal were produced up until about 1960.  In the Anglican Church in America, the USA province of the TAC, two books in particular are widely used.  The first is the so-called Anglican Missal in the American Edition, a product of the Frank Gavin Liturgical Foundation.  The other is the American Missal, printed by the Society of St. John the Evangelist (the Cowley Fathers).  Both of these would be comparable to the English/Knott Missal.  While our English Anglo-Catholic brethren have largely abandoned the English Missal for the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite (or another modern hybrid), the Anglican Missal remains par for the course in North American parishes.

* * *

Four Liturgical Forms

by Fr. John Hunwicke, SSC
Parish Priest of St. Thomas the Martyr, Oxford

Fr+Hunwicke+6 850x1024 Four Liturgical FormsSome things about the Eucharistic worship of the Ordinariates are already clear. Since Ordinariate clergy will be part of the Roman Rite, they will be able lawfully to use the Ordinary Form in a translation which will have received the recognitio of the Holy See – and I am of course thinking of the new ICEL translation of the Roman Rite. Doubtless many will use this rite, since (particularly in England) very many Anglican Catholic clergy have in the past used the OF. Those who adhered to more 'Anglican' forms – the Alternative Service Book or Common Worship – commonly used Anglican rites in modern English so that they could deftly graft into them Roman elements.

As clergy of the Roman Rite, Ordinariate clergy will also lawfully be able to make use of the provisions of Summorum Pontificum. This may surprise some Roman Catholics. There are those who have been nervous that the Ordinariate scheme would mean that some dubious semi-Protestants would be squeezing into full communion with the Holy See. Nothing could be further from the truth. Amid the diversity with which Roman Catholics are familiar, Anglican Catholic clergy are very much within what you might call the New Liturgical Movement end of the spectrum. I myself use the Extraordinary Form most mornings of the week. Since I feel that the disadvantages of being out of full Communion with the Holy See are so painful that there must be some little compensation available to comfort me, I use the Roman Rite, not according to the books of 1962, but as it was at the beginning of the Pontificate of Pius XII. I suppose that if I am admitted to the presbyterate of an Ordinariate, I shall have to come into line with the 1962 liturgical books, but it will be with some regret that I abandon those Octaves and Vigils and Commemorations and Last Gospels and so on.

So that's the two Forms of the Roman Rite. A third, in my view, should be the OF liturgical books provided in an English which is either taken from the Book of Common Prayer (where Cranmer was translating Latin originals) or translated into English of the same style. Half a century ago, the great Christine Mohrmann argued that the Mass should not be translated into vernaculars because modern European languages lacked sacred vernaculars. She demonstrated that liturgical Latin, far from being adopted in order to give Latin speakers a liturgy they could understand, was an intentionally hieratic and sacral dialect, based upon pagan liturgical formulae going back hundreds of years. So, she felt, a similar archaic and sacral dialect was the only appropriate vernacular form which should be given to the Roman Rite. Mohrmann was dead right – except about one detail. There was one European language which did have a sacral dialect venerable with centuries of use: English, as it was used in Anglican worship. It was one of the great tragedies of the post-Conciliar period that Roman Catholics ignored this precious and beautiful heritage; and that so many Anglicans followed suit.

Finally, I believe that it would be valuable for the Holy See to authorise the English Missal, which provides the 'Tridentine' Rite with those parts of it audible to the people translated into Cranmerian English. For half a century, millions of Anglican Catholics worshipped with this rite before the Conciliar changes. Where Cranmer did translate a Latin formula, the English Missal uses his version; where biblical texts appear, they are adapted from the Authorised Version of the Bible; other euchological elements are rendered into English in the same style. This is what I, and many of my generation, were brought up with, and my love for it is second only to my love for the Latin original. There are still hundreds of copies of this book in Anglican Catholic sacristies all over England; dusty perhaps, but just crying to be brought back into use. There may have been clergy who used English forms of the Sarum Rite, but, if so, their numbers were minuscule. It is the English Missal which was – and is – our Patrimony.

That's four forms of the Roman Rite. I firmly believe we should resist calls for 'museum' rites: Sarum, 1549 or the Non-jurors, and should stick to what is manifestly mainstream in the modern Catholic Church (the OF and EF) in forms which either are consistent with the new ICEL texts or which draw upon the linguistic and stylistic liturgical Patrimony of Anglican Catholicism during its glory days. By so doing, I feel that we shall not only be providing for the nostalgia of our own people, but also providing an enrichment of the liturgical spiritualities available to all Catholics. I believe we should be aiming much higher than merely at being a chaplaincy for ex-Anglicans. There is a vacuum out there which we could help to fill.

* * *

Be sure to follow our Moderator at Eccentric Bliss, his personal blog!