Msgr. Keith Newton, Ordinary of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, issued “Guidelines for the celebration of the Holy Eucharist in the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham” this Easter.
Here are some interesting items.
Recommended: Ad orientem (priest not facing the people); Eucharistic Prayer I (and not only on Sundays); plainchant (ICEL English, Latin Mass ordinary, Latin Marian antiphons); priests and deacons singing their liturgical texts; sung Gospel reading; retrieving propers but hymns are part of Anglican tradition; communion rail with kneeling communicants.
Required: RSV translation of lectionary (but see #24 on Jerusalem Bible with diocesan congregations); Communion in both forms (recommended: minister holds on to chalice).
Permitted: omitting the response of the Responsorial Psalm; collect from Book of Divine Worship or from Roman Missal (but not with “re-traditionalized” wording); Communion in hand (with “throne” bringing the Host to the mouth).
awr
I think a discussion of what is “Anglican patrimony” – concretely, and beyond hymns, or “sacral English” and so forth – is somewhat overdue. Half the things I read from the Ordinariate seem simply an Anglo-Papalism of a certain century, and basically adopting portions/customs of the unrevised Roman liturgy of a certain era. By itself, I wouldn’t object, but I wonder how much can really be classified as “Anglican Patrimony”.
@Joshua Vas – comment #1:
100 % right!
Anglican patrimony means George Herbert, JOhn Donne, the BCP itself, William Temple, Percy Dearmer, and many more.
Mark Miller
I know there are certain cradle Catholics who look longingly at what the Ordinariate do.
And I know many, many Anglicans who do not identify in any way with what some chose to label “Anglican Patrimony.”
On the whole, this seems like an exercise in micro management, down to commending certain Mass settings. I suppose it’s not unlike diocese that mandated certain Mass settings for the new Missal translation. Maybe this is what is needed to identify that elusive beast, the Anglican Patrimony.
Where it is possible, Sundays, solemnities, and some feasts (e.g.
Candlemas, Ash Wednesday, Annunciation, Visitation, Transfiguration, Holy Cross, Blessed John Henry Newman, All Souls) should be celebrated in a more solemn form, with the use of incense and music.
This is a rather stronger requirement for the use of incense than has been seen anywhere in the ordinary form since 1970.
It also suggests this needed more editing, as Annunciation is actually a solemnity and not a feast according to their calendar.
Saying that there are large numbers of Anglicans who don’t identify with (indeed, vociferously reject) what we refer to as the Anglican Patrimony is not news. Equally, though, there are large numbers of Anglicans who reject a ‘low church’ or a ‘broad church’ praxis and tradition. Great numbers identify strongly with only one of these strains, while others are comfortable with any or all of them. From the time that Henry’s experiment in what in his mind was a national catholic church (probably not unlike the autocephalous churches of the East) went quite sour, there have (as all know) been these extremes within the Anglican ‘via media.’ One might reflect and appreciate, though, that those of us who are blessed with the ordinariates sought safe harbour not only for the ‘externals’ of our Anglican Patrimony, but of the substance of the Catholic faith which has in recent times been more and more repudiated by the Anglican church at large.
That isn’t to say that some ‘papalist’ practices have not manifested themselves in the ordinariates. At Walsingham, in Houston, for instance, we receive kneeling (which is consistent with our tradition), but we receive not on the throne made with the hands, but by intinction and on the tongue, which is far from our tradition and which I resent deeply.
We do not have what I refer to as mongrel masses, liturgical pastiches, which consist of this done in English and that done in Latin. We have, in fact, only one Eucharistic Prayer in the BDW, and it is the Roman Canon. We sing all three readings only on Solemnities. Otherwise, save for the homily, every last thing is sung. Our priests wear that popish headgear, the biretta (consistent with most high church history), when I would prefer them to wear the Canterbury cap. Mass is celebrated ‘ad orientem’, which is consistent with our tradition. I myself am rather ambivilanet about orientem vs. populum. I appreciate them both and do not share the strong feelings that many have with regard to one or the other.
It is a mistake, and, I think, an unkind one, to think of our liturgical patrimony as merely warmed over popishness of a bygone age. What may contribute to this impression is the fact that our masses are absent the musical and ritual abuses of the 60s and 70s (which remain persistent and widespread). This is not an exercise in antiquarian liturgy, but, rather, an exercise in liturgy that is timeless. Our music ranges from chant to anthems by the most modern composers – and, one understands that I draw a very genuine distinction between music that is truly modern and that artless broadway-, pop-, rock-, and other-inspired stuff that goes by the name ‘contemporary.’ What some perceive to be a journey into the past is really a very modern churchmanship absent the baggage of the late XX. century.
@M. Jackson Osborn – comment #6:
MJ, my apologies if my comments were harsh – it was not intended in that way. What I meant to say express was the need for some clarification as to what constitutes the Anglican Patrimony. The reference to Anglo-Papalism was only intended to identify the “upper” section of the Anglo-Catholic movement that was more ecclesiastically Roman.
To be honest, when people speak of the Anglican Use liturgy, I ask myself: what is it that is being preserved? It seems (to me) that it has to be something more than a merely choral tradition, because the roman liturgy as it exists at present is sufficient to allow for that. But then what is it?
Is it the fruits of the Liturgical Movement that produced some of the newer BCPs in various parts of the Communion? But what is particularly “Anglican” about those liturgical insights?
Is it some of the more structural changes made in the liturgy after the break with Rome? But then the question would seem to be: were those structural (or other) changes made for doctrinal reasons (that are now obsolete) and do they best align with the classical shape of Eucharistic practice?
Now when I see things like the Ordinariate adopting parts of the older Roman liturgy but in English for things like funerals, or Eucharistic Prayer I, it seems that what the-powers-that-be are leaning to is even older: a kind of pre-BCP rite. But that was merely a usage of the Roman Rite, which does make me wonder: quite aside from the question of language, is it completely justified to revert to something that the Roman Church has revised? Beyond that – why not avail of existing permissions to use the older form of the Roman liturgy? Lastly, even if one acknowledges this hybrid liturgical form, why should it be termed “Anglican”?
The two biggest areas are the two that most of us into the “renewal in continuity” would love to see for our current Roman Missal. The Anglican Ordinariate commends (but doesn’t mandate) ad orientem but for altars that face the congregation the “Benedictine arrangement” with the crucifix dead center, similar to what Pope Francis has maintained thus far.
The second is Holy Communion and I think the Anglican method is most edifying, that of kneeling at the railing and their tradition of communion in the hand, which the broader Latin Rite would do well to imitate. The Chalice minister holding onto the chalice I’ve seen work very well during Episcopal Eucharists and is very reverential.
The other things do seem a bit like micro management. If there are other Eucharistic Prayers permissible, I think that should be up to the celebrant to select. In terms of plain chant or what is in the missal, I think it would do us all well if every Catholic knew these and that these were used at Cathedral liturgies of a diocesan type, and then let parishes pick what they want. I would like to see a “national” narrowing of choices in the vernacular so that we all know the same settings for normal Sunday celebrations.
I am surprised that neither the opening post nor any of the comments has picked up on a very strong requirement (not an option) in the guidelines:
As I read the BDW (downloaded from this page), “Rite One” is a bizarre mixture of older and newer language – thee and thou for the most part, with the third person of the Trinity sometimes referred to as the Holy Spirit, sometimes as the Holy Ghost. And yet at the offertory of “Rite One” the priest says, “Blessed are you, Lord our God…”.
Something similar seems to have happened to the book itself. The BDW that I downloaded was put together with the same uncluttered and elegant design and clean typeface of its apparent predecessor, the 1979 American Book of Common Prayer. But, just after the table of contents, someone has inserted a rather gaudy engraving, with “The Book of Divine Worship” in ugly “olde style” gothic letters. It reminds me of nothing so much as a faux-Tudor restaurant at a motorway rest stop with a sign above the door, “Greetinges all ye wayfarerf”.
Is the requirement for older language (but inconsistently so) and the inserted engraving an attempt to “trad up” something that would otherwise look overly “modernist”? Is there another reason or avoiding “Rite Two”? What is going on here? I hope some of our Ordinariate friends can shed some light on this.
@Jonathan Day – comment #8:
I know the engraving of which you speak and think that it is hideous. Too, I agree with you about the not-very-handsome typeface used with it.
As for some of the inconsistencies of grammatical style which you point out. These, I too find unexcusably jarring (not to mention down-right amateurish). It is my understanding that they resulted from items from the Roman missal which were insisted on by Rome. We are fortunate that we got the Roman canon in Tudor English!
As far as rite one vs. rite two, it seems a little extreme to me that our English cousins would legislate in this matter… although nearly all our parishes in the US use rite one exclusively, and, I am glad of it. The presence of rite two in the BDW was another thing that Rome insisted on because it was, they thought, consistent with current Anglican usage.
It may inerest you to know that a more permanent successor to the BDW is being worked on, one that will be used by all the ordinariates in their respective countries.
@M. Jackson Osborn – comment #9:
MJO:
The presence of rite two in the BDW was another thing that Rome insisted on because it was, they thought, consistent with current Anglican usage.
Among other reasons.
It may interest you to know that a more permanent successor to the BDW is being worked on, one that will be used by all the ordinariates in their respective countries.
Which, we hope, will be issued by the interdicasterial commission by the end of the year. On all accounts it will reflect an older embodiment of the Prayer Book liturgical tradition – a welcome development.
@Jonathan Day – comment #8:
The BDW’s use is being conceded to the Ordinariates until a liturgical book that is in preparation for all the Ordinariates is complete. It is not thought of as an ideal book even by the Anglican Use parishes that have been using it for nearly 30 years.
The BDW’s Rite I contains contemporary language because that was required by the powers that be in Rome during the 1980s when it was approved. Most of the Anglican Use parishes would have preferred traditional language throughout, and we certainly hope that that will be what emerges from the interdicasterial commission charged with compiling the Ordinariate liturgical books.
Rite II of the BDW is prohibited, not only by the Ordinariate in the UK, but by directive of the CDW in Rome, as was noted by US Ordinary Msgr. Steenson some time ago.
The use of both terms, Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit is not a mixture of old and new. Both terms were used historically.
@Steve Cavanaugh – comment #26:
The “traditional language” issue in the Anglican Ordinariates confuses me and perhaps you, or someone else here, could clarify:
It’s my understanding that Anglicanorum coetibus allows for the formation of ordinariates anywhere in the world. If that is so, it follows that the liturgical books for the ordinariates in, say, a Spanish- or Portuguese-speaking country would be translated into those languages. But how would English “traditional language” be translated or even conveyed? Or is this an important aspect of the Anglican patrimony only to English speakers, and other language groups are to content themselves with what you call “contemporary language?” I ask this in all seriousness, because it seems to me that advocating for “traditional language” in the English language ordinariate liturgical books is to say that this aspect of the Anglican Patrimony is not universally valued, or at least not an essential element of an Anglican Ordinariate’s liturgical identity.
As expected, the Anglican Ordinariate is turning out to be fifth column for the anti-progressive liturgical agenda for which the pontificate of Benedict XVI is known. A requirement for old language, imperfectly grasped and reproduced, insertion of “ye olde” (anachronistic) artwork, ruling out Rite Two…
Those who think that the minister holding onto the chalice is an elegant way of receiving communion are dreaming.
@Rita Ferrone – comment #10:
Reverential not elegant.
@Fr. Allan J. McDonald – comment #11:
Agree with Rita re: the minister holding onto the chalice.
Allan, why is this “reverential?” And in your previous comment, you applaud “the Anglican method” of receiving the eucharistic bread kneeling and in the hand. I thought you were in favor of intinction. Isn’t that what you do at your parish?
@Damian LaPorte – comment #15:
I am in favor of intinction well modeled by Pope Francis to deacons of his Mass, who kneel before him. However, I am, believe or not, quite liberal and we have offered Holy Communion by intinction which was very well received. But at all our Masses, daily and Sunday it is the common chalice, which the communicant takes from the EM and drinks from.
@Rita Ferrone – comment #10:
Can’t agree about the Cup. WE have done that in most every Episcopal church for years and years, and it works, and is reverential, and indeed “elegant” or let us just say seemly and simple. Having done it for 40 years as a “minister” and receiving for 50, I claim a bit of “authority” to assert this. 🙂
@Rita Ferrone – comment #10:
With respect, I think that your assessment of the Anglican Ordinariates is unkind and does not respect the reality that Anglicans treasure an heiratic English that they have been using for centuries and don’t think of it as anachronistic, or ‘ye olde’, let alone the accoutrements of some fifth-column anti-progressiveness. I am surprised at you that you seem to be expressing a rather narrow vision of what is modern, as well as an unappreciative swipe at a beautiful liturgical language which many of us think of as quite alive and normal. As I commented at no. 6 above, the absence of baggage from late XX. century liturgical and musical abuse is not identical to a lack of genuine progressiveness. It is a breath of fresh air! Too, I would have hoped that you would have some glimmer of appreciation for the message of Benedict XVI., even though he admittedly might well have delivered it with better taste.
@M. Jackson Osborn – comment #14:
MJO, it’s more unkind to be used as a pawn in the game, which, I am sorry, is what I think granting of the Ordinariate was.
I don’t doubt your sincerity. But it remains true that this is not the much-vaunted ecumenical step people claimed it was at the time. It meant leaving behind most Anglicans, and don’t you think it was foreseen *which* Anglicans would be left behind? You yourself expressed some surprise that Rite Two is being legislated out, because you yourself are innocent of this. MJO, you ARE innocent, it seems to me, and I mean that in the best sense. To suggest that innocent people are being used is something I’ve hesitated to say on the blog, but I’ve had it, this is how it looks to me. Argue against it if you will, and I am sure you will, but please know that I do not say any of this to be unkind or disrespectful, but rather because I care about people like yourself, who deserve better.
My original statement is not against preserving old language. I am sorry if it read that way. I appreciate old language, and am not against it. I was rather taking into account the odd mixtures that Jonathan pointed out, which always seem to me to suggest politicization.
@Rita Ferrone – comment #19:
Sympathize with your experience. Have watched our parish accept (if that is the word to use when the pastor/bishop want this done and don’t explain the situation to parishioners – but suddenly we have a paid staff member)…he continues to say daily mass and run adult education.
His monthly parish newsletter articles are *embarrassing* – a mixture of *old* Baltimore Catechism approach; pre-Vatican II pieties, and his own Anglican spirituality. And some folks think it is wonderful because father is *allowed* to be married and have a family.
What a mixed message going forward and the local process was anything but transparent and open. (in fact, most parishioners have no idea that he is a former Anglican priest)
@Rita Ferrone – comment #10:
In my experience (in the past I have attended Episcopal liturgies) it is awkward, but maybe that is just me. In reference to Fr. Allan, in his comment #11, as a result, it was not reverent. Then again, I also have a challenge with kneeling and reverence seen in the same light. Keep in mind that I worship in a diocese that is not known for kneeling. (Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, NY)
@Rita Ferrone – comment #10:
A good number of Anglican churches seem to do it without a problem, and I think in some ways, comfort-level is determined by what people are used to. Communicants who grew up with that seem more comfortable with it.
Before the GIRM was made more specific on the communicant taking the chalice, there were not a few liturgical books that suggested that the minister hold on to the chalice while the communicant simply ‘manipulate’ the angle/tilt. I distinctly remember reading this in at least one of those books (maybe Hovda or Kavanaugh or Keifer or one of the people from that era).
@Joshua Vas – comment #32:
Some of the Anglican liturgies I’ve attended use the 1979 rite with communion distributed in the standing position, but with the communicant, as you say, “tilting” the base of the chalice.
As for intinction, this is still rarely used in the Episcopal churches I’ve been to.
@Brian Duffy – comment #27:
I also suspect that the Pope will allow real Anglican Eucharistic Prayers with proper revisions for use at traditional services.
When I was an unofficial Anglican, I often wondered if the Prayer of Consecration (eucharistic prayer) from the 1662 Prayer Book could be used by the Ordinariate. Many Anglo-Catholics consider this eucharistic prayer to be Catholic in tradition. Some Episcopalian converts to the Antiochian Orthodox Church use the 1928 American BCP with almost no modification save the St. John Chrysostom anaphora epiclesis.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a variety of opinion in the Ordinariate over this question. As has been noted many times, many English Ordinariate converts had simply used the OF in its entirety before swimming the Tiber. Some English Anglo-Catholics use Common Prayer with one of the OF eucharistic prayers. It’s a jumble, really.
With regard to the 1662 Prayer of Consecration, maybe Rome would okay it as an option if the unde et memores (anamnesis) from the Roman Canon were inserted after the words of institution. The translation could be taken from the English Missal. I agree with Rita Ferrone at #10 that “a requirement for old language, imperfectly grasped and reproduced” […] (my ellipsis) here entails a faux-Elizabethan translation of an excerpt of the Roman Canon. I likely disagree with Rita so far as I do not believe that the Roman Canon should be translated at all, but I agree with her opinion that this particular endeavor would be anachronistic.
insertion of “ye olde” (anachronistic) artwork,
Considering that the art work was published before Benedict was even elected pope and before the Ordinariates existed, it can hardly have be a symptom of the fact that “the Anglican Ordinariate is turning out to be fifth column for the anti-progressive liturgical agenda.”
A requirement for old language, imperfectly grasped and reproduced,
My understanding is that the people who produced the BDW understood and reproduced the 1928 Book of Common Prayer language quite well, but were required by the curia to insert modern language at certain points. So it really is nothing like you’re describing it.
Furthermore, this “old language” is not the only allowed rite.
@Samuel J. Howard – comment #13:
Samuel, you wrote, “Furthermore, this “old language” is not the only allowed rite.”
But according to Mgr Newton, it is: Rite Two is not permitted for use by clergy and faithful of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. That is from the document linked at the top of the post. It seems definite enough to me: “not permitted for use”.
Why would this particular part of the Ordinariate rule out contemporary language, especially when the American Ordinariate seems to allow it?
@Jonathan Day – comment #18:
It’s certainly definite, but it’s also moot. The other rite that is permitted is the Roman Missal, not Rite 2.
The Rite 1 BDW is used because it is available (this is not a permanent solution, they’re working on permanent books) and they had to have something as an interim solution. The Rite 2 is based on the 1979 American Book of Common Prayer and that may be important in the decision not to use it in this Ordinariate, which is in England. Furthermore, my understanding is that Ordinariate groups in England who use more contemporary language (e.g. not “thee” and “thy” etc.) tend to use the Roman Missal anyways, which is the other rite to which I was referring. Furthermore, my understanding is that Rite 2 of the BDW is little used in the United States and where it is used it is often in congregations of mixed Anglican Use/Ordinariate and ordinary Roman Catholics. Given the greater usage of the ordinary Roman Rite in the UK by Ordinariate groups, in those cases it appears they judged that it makes more sense in those situations to just have them use the Roman Rite. (Certainly it makes things simpler to organize/follow/participate in if one has two rites instead of three.)
Why the micromanagement?
It’s the ordinariate, let them tend to their Liturgy.
It seems that Msgr Newton, the ordinary, is getting some pressure to make changes?
Now, MJO may be shocked, but I think they should be left alone.
If they have been receiving in the hand then they should be allowed to continue, same goes w/ other aspects of their liturgy.
Like so many aspects of Benedict’s pontificate, these changes being foisted upon us and the ordinariate are distracting, whether it’s suppressing communion in the hand of the members of the ordinariate or the Roman missal translation…
The ordinariates will learn to beware who their friends are when dealing w/ Benedicts men….
BTW intinction is an unhealthy and unhygienic way of receiving communion. Worse is when communicants intinct their own host. Fecal matter/ E coli has been cultured when the practice has been studied.
Why the micromanagement?
It’s the ordinariate, let them tend to their Liturgy.
This is the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham tending to their liturgy.
It seems that Msgr Newton, the ordinary, is getting some pressure to make changes?
Is that anything besides baseless speculation? What makes you say that this comes from “pressure.”
@Samuel J. Howard – comment #17:
Hold on MJO, I was responding to your complaining… as you stated:
“That isn’t to say that some ‘papalist’ practices have not manifested themselves in the ordinariate… which is far from our tradition and which I resent deeply.”
and
“…Our priests wear that popish headgear, the biretta (consistent with most high church history), when I would prefer them to wear the Canterbury cap..”
So the speculation is not as baseless as you claim that it seems that there is some influence/pressure for these things.
Remember, you MJO are the one b.tch..ing not me.
Well, I’m not MJO and I wasn’t complaining about Anglican Use practice.
So the speculation is not as baseless as you claim that it seems that there is some influence/pressure for these things.
They’ve been wearing birettas at MJO’s parish longer than the Ordinariate has existed. Your post suggested that Msgr. Newton was getting external pressure to make changes, “micromanagement,” from his managers. That someone in the U.S. has been wearing a biretta doesn’t seem relevant.
I wonder if parts of these norms aren’t already obsolete in the light of Pope Francis’ predilections for simpler liturgy. I can’t imagine him forbidding Rite II or other modern forms based on Common Worship. We shall see.
I also suspect that the Pope will allow real Anglican Eucharistic Prayers with proper revisions for use at traditional services.
I have to admit that I’ve had a fantasy of this Pope celebrating the Holy Communion from the north end of the high altar in S. Peter’s. This would be Anglican Patrimony at its finest, IMHO.
Thanks to Samuel and Steve for clarification. So, Ordinariate communities that want to celebrate Mass in contemporary language are to use the Roman Missal (new translation) rather than Rite Two from the BDW. And, if I understand Samuel correctly, the prohibition is intended to limit the multiplication of liturgical options.
Steve says that this is a result of a directive from the CDW. Can you point to the source, Steve? I don’t doubt you, but I would like to read the directive.
I am aware that “Holy Ghost” and “Holy Spirit” were used historically (though the latter was rare in the KJV and Douay-Rheims translations). But “Holy Ghost” doesn’t appear in the Roman Missal. It strikes me as archaic and easily misunderstood. It has also become a traditionalist shibboleth, like saying that you “assisted” at Mass.
@Jonathan Day – comment #28:
I’ve heard “Holy Ghost” used by non-Catholics and it appears in older hymns enough that I don’t see how it has become all that archaic and misunderstood. Rejecting the term seems to be a shibboleth amongst progressive Catholics.
“Come Holy Ghost” is probably the most well known Catholic hymn to the Holy Spirit, and there’s the very very famous Doxology hymn set to Old One Hundreth (I think Anglican in origin), where we “praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.”
@Jonathan Day – comment #28:
Or that you ‘heard’ Mass.
Early on, before the Ordinariate provinces were set in motion, vigorous debates about the “Anglican patrimony” (What is it? they asked) settled with a broad consensus that it was MATRIMONY ! For clergy.
This current Ordinariate appears to be a club for Pope Benedict’s men, though it does seem rather a caricature of PEBXVI to saddle him with such a following.
@Mary Wood – comment #33:
The program of preparation of Anglican-Episcopal priests who are desirous of becoming Catholic priests has a very steady flow of converts. Many of them have made great sacrifices in this spiritual journey. Most of them are single and know full well that they will remain that way. I speak of the program based at St Mary’s Seminary in Houston, graciously made available by Cardinal DiNardo and directed by Msgr Steenson.
Mr. Zarembo’s comment on the Canon reminds me of an old Anglican practice which goes right back to the time of Cranmer. Of course that was to interpolate portions of the Roman Canon around The English Eucharistic Prayer in Latin or English. The SSJE Altar Missal contains examples of this method amongst others.
It is interesting to note that Field praised the text of the Roman Canon as being faithful to the rule of Protestants.. The problem was with the ceremonies incorporated into it by the medievals.
As has already been pointed out, this is a temporary measure until an equivalent of the Book of Divine Worship (which is a complete dog’s dinner) is imposed by Rome. It will be interesting to see what happens then, since the interpretation of “Anglican patrimony” has varied widely and will no doubt continue to do so.
Of those who came across in the first wave, some used BCP, others used the 1973 ICEL translation of the Roman Missal, yet others did their own thing, sometimes making it up as they went along. Since then, some of the 1973 Missal people have converted to the 2010 Roman Missal, but many have not and have continued with whatever it was they were doing previously.
The point is that they all have a tradition of doing what they feel like doing, since central governance of liturgy in the Church of England is pretty well non-existent in practice compared with the Roman way of doing things. I suspect that, when faced with the discipline of having to conform to whatever the new book is that Rome eventually decides to give them, some will knuckle under, others will rebel or continue to use BCP, and yet others I suspect will leave the Ordinariate altogether and return to the Anglican fold.
@Paul Inwood – comment #39:
“The point is that they all have a tradition of doing what they feel like doing, since central governance of liturgy in the Church of England is pretty well non-existent in practice compared with the Roman way of doing things.”
LOL. Just substitute ‘Church in America’ for ‘Church of England’ and you’ve said a mouthful.
Why does this need to be revised? The paranthecis could also be read as pointing not only to “some feasts” but to the whole sentence “Sundays, solemnities, and some feasts.”
I wish to comment on the argument, which has been used above, along the lines of ‘Well, why not let the Ordinariate explain, if they wish to do so, their patrimony; their recommendations and their requirements?’.
The problem with this argument, is that the Anglican patrimony is also being imposed on the ‘diocesan congregations’ with whom their groups have been ‘merged’. I write as a member of a Parish in England – where we received, some 19 months ago, a group comprising the Anglican priest plus about 10 of his flock.
Already, the effect on the Parish has been very divisive – even though, as I know, the priest (in his charity perhaps) has been trying NOT to enforce all his Anglican preferences. Must he do so now?
The only concession to us, the previous Parishioners, which I can see in these Guidelines, is at number 24 – where the priest is told that the Jerusalem Bible ‘may be used’.
So I would ask you please to consider (also) how all these ‘Anglican patrimony’ recommendations and requirements might look to a still largely ‘diocesan congregation’? How would YOU like them?
(Sorry about the CAPS, but I can’t work out how to do italic script for emphasis. Doh!)
In fact, there’s a good deal of diversity in the incoming Ordinariate parishes. That is the nature of the beast in the contemporary Anglican world.
In England, most come from the Forward in Faith milieu of the Anglican Church, and often were already celebrating Mass according to the Missal of Paul VI.
In the U.S. and Australia, the liturgical trends have been somewhat more high church – but, again, with some significant diversity.
I think it is not quite fair to characterize these guidelines as “Anglo-Papalism,” so much as an effort to address this modern Anglican disposition toward liturgical and theological fragmentation (Which is after all a part of what they are fleeing). English Ordinariate parishes are not celebrating the Extraordinary Form, or even for that matter the English Missal.
In the first place, there isn’t much enthusiasm for Rite II in the U.S. or Australian Ordinariates.
In the second place, the understanding has been that if a parish wishes to have a contemporary language liturgy should make use of the OF: “[C]ongregations wishing to use contemporary language are directed to use the Roman Missal, third edition, in the translation released in 2011.” (Customary of Our Lady of Walsingham)
Which may be a debatable decision, even from a nosebleed high church perspective (such as mine); Rite II is generally more noble in its language than the RM3, and at least has the virtue of having an Anglican liturgical identity. But most of the priests in the Ordinariate, to my knowledge, are not fans of Rite II, or the compromises that were required to form it in 1983.
At any rate, it will all be moot anyway when the final Anglican Use Missal (the Revised Book of Divine Worship) is issued later this year.
#45
While it may be a ‘welcome development’ for you, it will not be welcome for the ‘diocesan congregations’ with whom the Ordinariate groups have been merged.
We respect your patrimony, but it is not our patrimony and we do not wish to acquire it, and so its imposition on us will have the effect of forcing us to seek other Parishes.
Some 30+ people from my Parish (it was a small one to start with) have left already, to go to the nearest ‘regular’ (by which I mean non-Ordinariate) RC Parish. And, with the implementation of various points in these Guidelines, others will follow them.
@Mark O’Meara – comment #46:
Hello Mark,
While it may be a ‘welcome development’ for you, it will not be welcome for the ‘diocesan congregations’ with whom the Ordinariate groups have been merged.
I’m sorry to hear about how this has worked out in England, Mark. I keep forgetting that. In America, congregations coming in have mostly had their own property coming with them – that was the case with mine (though it cost a hefty payout to the Episcopal Diocese from our endowment). Obviously, that’s more difficult for incoming Anglicans in England & Wales given the difficulty of alienating state church property.
And the ideal should be that they *do* have their own churches, ultimately. I think it will be hard for them to develop their own identity so long as they are “merged” with existing diocesan parishes.
I’m curious if you could spell out exactly how this is working out in your parish a little more. Is there both a regular diocesan pastor and an Ordinariate pastor? It almost sounds as if the Ordinariate effectively took over your parish. Are there no longer any regular N.O. Masses in the parish? If so, are they modified in some way?
I would think it preferable to to transfer closed or about-to-close churches to the Ordinariate, but I realize that there are not nearly so many of those as there are in the Northeast and Midwest of the U.S..
On another discussion board — one with lots of Anglicans and some Orthodox — there was a spirited debate about the opening words of both Rite I and Rite II:
V. Blessed be God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
R. And blessed be his kingdom, now and forever. Amen.
One Orthodox complained, very loudly, that this was modalistic, and that any proper reference to “God” had to be tied explicitly to the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit. There was no “God” superordinate to each of the three.
And hence the Divine Liturgy of St John Chrysostom begins
Blessed be the kingdom of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, now and forever and from all ages to all ages.
In any event, the beginning of the BDW sounds very different from its equivalent in any Catholic Mass I know, and indeed from the beginning of the old Prayer Book.
Can anyone shed light on this?
@Jonathan Day – comment #47:
At celebrations of the Eucharist according to the Book of Alternative Services of the Anglican Church of Canada (very similar to the Episcopalian Rite II), the priest, ministers, and people will make the sign of the cross at this point. Certainly, this does not answer the question of modalism, but I do not suspect that modalism is intended.
Perhaps the revision of the BDW will include the option for the simple greeting “the Lord be with you”, just as is optional in the ordinary form. This would obviate any question of modalism or other perceived errors in a future revision. The permission for the simple greeting would allow priests who disagree with a reworked trinitarian greeting to avoid its use.
I suspect the charge of “modalism” is simply a repetition of a standard Eastern trope regarding Western trinitarian theology, though the pronoun “his,” with the presumed antecedent “God” might give you some traction for arguing that it suggests a single divine person who appears in three forms. But it also seems to me that we typically use a singular pronoun when God is the antecedent and nobody gets too fussed about it. I think most people would think it sounds strange to say “We must do the will of God and hope for the coming of their kingdom.”
More interesting to me is whether this opening should be considered part of the “Anglican patrimony.” To my knowledge, it arose only in the 1970s, having been borrowed and modified from the Byzantine liturgy, and is peculiar to North American Anglicans. So it will be interesting to see if it is used in the forthcoming Ordinatiate Eucharistic liturgy.
@Fritz Bauerschmidt – comment #50:
The late Peter Toon was an advocate of modifying it to “Blessed be God, THE Father AND THE Son AND THE Holy Spirit” to avoid any modalism suggested by the colon in the structure and absence of definite articles.
Jordan, Fritz and Joshua, thank you. I suspect that the Orthodox commenter I mentioned would have levelled the same charge at Peter Toon’s formulation, because of the comma after “God”. “Blessed be God the Father; and God the Son; and God the Holy Spirit” might have passed muster.
Fritz’s second paragraph strikes me as an important question. What constitutes “Anglican patrimony”? For example: I hear a great deal of inclusive language in Church of England services. I believe it is also prevalent in the Episcopal Church. Does that make it part of Anglican “patrimony”? Or perhaps it is “patri-matrimony”.
Richard, thank you for your reply and comments at #48. I see that this Post is now archived, and I don’t wish to prolong it unnecessarily. However, in reply to your questions:-
Our Parish now only has an Ordinariate Priest, and Yes it feels as if we have been ‘taken over’.
I am by no means a liturgical expert (as you will have surmised), although my experiences over the past year and a half have obliged me to try to inform myself, not least via this forum. Subject to that caveat, I would say that our Parish Masses are now as follows:-
On weekdays (Monday to Saturday) our Masses are ‘regular N.O. Masses’, to use your phrase, although even here there have been small changes made to suit the Anglican patrimony. On Thursdays, one bigger change is included: this Mass is said ad orientem.
On Sundays and Holydays we have a solemn Mass which is an Ordinariate service, and is labelled as such. To date it has been said versus populum. Some elements (such as sung Gospel) have been tried a couple of times and then discarded. Having, as I say, informed myself to some extent, I had already worked out that our Sunday/Holyday service is not yet the ‘full works’ – by which I mean the whole package as we now see it spelled out in these latest Guidelines.
On structure:- I understand that the Ordinariate now owns one church building in London, but otherwise I think that all the Ordinariate groups in England who joined our church do follow the pattern of having merged into/with a ‘diocesan’ Parish.
BTW, I don’t wish to stop or interfere with the process of the Ordinariate developing and enforcing its own preferred liturgy. Also, I welcome the arrival of new brothers and sisters in the Church. My point was simply to suggest that, in a ‘shared’ Parish, one outcome of any attempt to strengthen the Anglican patrimony may be to perplex and alienate some of the previous parishioners.