The new texts for marriage and burial rites for the Ordinariates have been approved. Seems very similar to what we have in the Canadian Book of Common Prayer, though I have not read through it all. Here’s the text and the beautiful opening.
Dearly beloved, we are gathered here in the sight of God and in the
presence of this congregation, to witness the joining together of this
man and this woman in Holy Matrimony; which is an honourable
estate, instituted of God himself, signifying unto us the mystical union
that is betwixt Christ and his Church; which holy estate Christ
adorned and beautified with his presence, and first miracle that he
wrought, in Cana of Galilee, and is commended in Holy Writ to be
honourable among all men; and therefore is not by any to be
enterprised, nor taken in hand, unadvisedly, lightly, or wantonly; but
reverently, discreetly, soberly, and in the fear of God, duly considering
the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.
First, it was ordained for the increase of mankind according to the will
of God, and that children might be brought up in the fear and nurture
of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.
Lovely!
By the way, I’ve been posting quite a bit at The Anglo-Catholic. Sorry for the light blogging here.
Here’s Msgr. Andrew Burnham who is chairman? of the international commission working on a consistent Ordinariate liturgy.
Order for Marriage from UKOrdinariate on Vimeo.
Order for Funerals from UKOrdinariate on Vimeo.
Foolishness to the world 
I shall miss “in the face of this congregation” – a beautiful phrase lost!
I realise that I am asking quite a bit here, but I wonder if someone who is knowledgeable on this could comment on the sources used for this marriage ritual. Does it come from any one prayerbook, whether English, Canadian, American, Australian? Are bits of it from different places? How much of it is a fresh recension or redaction? How much is composed to make other parts fit together. Such things always interest me very much.
P.K.T.P.
Peter,
You asked: I realise that I am asking quite a bit here, but I wonder if someone who is knowledgeable on this could comment on the sources used for this marriage ritual. Does it come from any one prayerbook, whether English, Canadian, American, Australian? Are bits of it from different places? How much of it is a fresh recension or redaction? How much is composed to make other parts fit together. Such things always interest me very much.
The press release from the Personal Ordianariate of the Chair of St. Peter speaks to these issues, though perhaps not in as much detail as you might like.
Norm.
I think that “bits of it” do come from different places, and that is a potential problem. No former Anglican, including those who have worshipped at an American Anglican Use parish for years, will find here the exact rite with which he/she is familiar. Under the usual circumstances of conversion, one would expect to find that things were done differently in the Catholic church. But AC has created a false expectation of continuity in the minds of many. When they discover that “their” version of a rite or office is no longer an option, I think there will be disappointment, or worse. Of course one could see this coming when the initial discussions of what constituted the Anglican Patrimony appeared in response to AC. While no two people had the same ideas on the subject—not a good sign in itself—a lot of people mentioned “language”. Familiar phrases will not be surrendered easily, I suspect.
What worries me, Norm (although it is only a worry, not a judgement), is that members of the committee will come to see themselves, well, not as authors–I wouldn’t go that far–but at least as arrangers of texts rather than as faithful transmitters.
Here is a suggestion I throw out there for comment. Why not allow allow the previous marriage ritual proper to each country, altered only insofar as this may be necessary to make it conform to Catholic belief (which may mean no reforms at all)? I can imagine a certain disquiet in the pews as people lose cherished prayers. We face the same thing in the Traditional Latin Rite, as Rome contemplates adding Prefaces from the New Mass. These Prefaces will likely be optional, and I am already hearing from fellow traditionalists, including some priests, who have sworn that they will opt not to use them!
I don’t mean to disparage what the committee has done in the case of the A.U., as this is not something I have any real knowledge about yet, and it is not my patrimony, so I don’t have a clear sense of what’s at stake.
P.K.T.P.
Peter,
You wrote: What worries me, Norm (although it is only a worry, not a judgement), is that members of the committee will come to see themselves, well, not as authors–I wouldn’t go that far–but at least as arrangers of texts rather than as faithful transmitters.
It appears that the Vatican has made a serious effort to include enough Anglican experts on the committee, including the pastor of one of the “Anglican Use” parishes here in the States and Msgr. Andrew Burnham from the Personal Ordiariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, so this should not be a significant problem. The more serious problem would be whatever disparities may exist among the various Anglican provinces and “Continuing Anglican” communities. If there are significant disparities of this type, it would be possible to accommodate them by providing multiple options within one rite.
You wrote: I can imagine a certain disquiet in the pews as people lose cherished prayers.
It’s more likely that the differences within Anglicanism involve different translations of the same prayers — the difference between Shakespearian English and modern English, for example — or potential references to the British Monarch as titular head of the church in the version used by the Church of England that other provinces may have removed. But if the reactions to the liturgy of the Book of Divine Worship celebrated at the various informational conferences are any indication, this won’t be much of a problem: those in attendance generally reported back that the liturgy felt genuinely Anglican.
You wrote: We face the same thing in the Traditional Latin Rite, as Rome contemplates adding Prefaces from the New Mass. These Prefaces will likely be optional, and I am already hearing from fellow traditionalists, including some priests, who have sworn that they will opt not to use them!
There seem to be two different situations here. One situation is that there may be a provision of more options within the Tridentine form of the mass, and these prayer texts and prefaces will indeed be optional. The other situation is that some celebrations that have come into the general Roman calendar and the proper calendars of various nations and dioceses since the Second Vatican Council. Where there are proper collects and prefaces for these occasions, they may become obligatory within the mass of that occasion.
Norm.
Deborah,
You wrote: The new texts for marriage and burial rites for the Ordinariates have been approved. Seems very similar to what we have in the Canadian Book of Common Prayer, though I have not read through it all. Here’s the text and the beautiful opening. (links removed)
Yes, this is a major step forward for the Anglican Use and the ordinariates. What’s unclear is whether “Anglican Use” parishes that do not move to the ordinariates also may use the new rites, though I doubt that they will catch any flack for using those rites even if technically not canonically authorized to do so.
On a related note, did you notice the following item in last Monday’s bulletin from the Vatican Information Service?
We should anticipate another consistory in the very near future, and perhaps as early as this fall. In addition to recent appointment of several new prefects of congregations and presidents of pontifical commissions and councils who are nearly certain to become cardinals at the next consistory, there are several archepiscopal sees traditionally led by cardinals that have new archbishops. Here in the North America, Archbishop William Lori of Baltimore, Archbishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit, Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles, Archbishop Christian Lépine of Montréal, Archbishop Gérald Lacroix, and Archbishop Charles Chaput of Philadelphia are likely candidates and Archbishop Robert Carlson of St. Louis, Archbishop Terrance Pendergrast of Ottawa, and Archbishop Michael Miller of Vancouver have an outside shot. The Calgary area has also seen tremendous growth over recent decades, but I can’t include the Bishop of Calgary on these lists because Calgary is not an archepiscopal see. Thus, Calgary won’t get a cardinal until there’s a realignment of ecclesiastical provinces.
Norm.
Dear Norm:
Yes, I am very much aware of the plans to make changes to the 1962 Missal. I cannot oppose calendar changes on prinicple, since the constant tradition was to update the calendar over the decades but keep the Ordinary mostly the same. I do object to calendar changes on the grounds that, given the turmoil over the last forty years, an aftermath to a revolution would be a very dangerous time to make them. So I favour a very brief delay of fifty more years. On the prefaces, there will be objections and resistance.
But the focus here is the Anglican Use customary. I understand that it is not just a differnce between sacral and vulgar English. No, each country had its own separate prayerbook tradition. That would suggest to me that each prayerbook (in sacral English) will have distinct features. Is this correct? If so, those on the cmte. will presumably need to use a selection process and possibly even compose compromise versions anew. So this could lead to some disquiet in the pews, as cherished forms disappear. I wonder if others here, some who are knowledgeable about Anglican Liturgy, would care to comment.
P.K.T.P.
In response to Norm’s first comment, it is not adequate to say that “Anglican experts” have been included so everything will be okay. You must have grasped by now that “Anglican liturgy” is a hundred-headed Hydra. Andrew Burnham is regarded by some as part of the problem, not the solution, and of course it is not a question of different “translations” since all the national Books of Common Prayer for the Anglican churches of the UK, the US, and Australia, and the BDW used in the American Anglican Use parishes, are based on versions of the BCP authored in English by Thomas Cranmer. It is one thing to be positive about a one-off service that “feels Anglican”. As we saw from Mrs Gyapong’s response to “sins of the world”, it is quite another thing to sit in the pew week after week and wonder why a familiar phrase, “the fellowship of the Holy Ghost”, say, has been altered to “the communion of the Holy Spirit”. Trouble ahead, IMHO.
EPMS,
You wrote: In response to Norm’s first comment, it is not adequate to say that “Anglican experts” have been included so everything will be okay. You must have grasped by now that “Anglican liturgy” is a hundred-headed Hydra.
Yes, but the hundred heads come from a common source so they are much more similar than different. Also, the Anglican experts come from several of those “heads” so we don’t expect any one of them to control the process.
You wrote: Andrew Burnham is regarded by some as part of the problem…
How so?
You wrote: As we saw from Mrs Gyapong’s response to “sins of the world”, it is quite another thing to sit in the pew week after week and wonder why a familiar phrase, “the fellowship of the Holy Ghost”, say, has been altered to “the communion of the Holy Spirit”. Trouble ahead, IMHO.
Here, a couple points seem very relevant.
>> 1. Each province of the Anglican Communion has adopted revisions to its Book of Common Prayer from time to time. The most significant change typically is that of updating language to adopt contemporary use. Thus, it seems unlikely that a change in language will be objectionable, though there certainly will be some period of adjustment (as in the recent adoption of a new translation of the Roman Missal).
>> 2. The explanation that all of the ordinariates will use the same version of the prayer book to ensure that everything will be substantially the same if one visits an ordinariate parish in another country will satisfy any curiosity about the reasons for the change.
If this were the mass, morning prayer, or evensong, celebrated every week, the new version would become familiar within a few months. In the case of ritual masses celebrated much less frequently, however, it obviously will take somewhat longer to achieve the same degree of familiarity with the newly adopted rites.
Norm.
Yes, I pondered the loss of “the fellowship of the Holy Ghost” and what happened to “children’s children”? However, on a lighter note ,I can only congratulate them on the rephrasing of “godly matron”. To all true Brits of a certain age this phrase will always conjure up a picture of Hattie Jacques in full regalia!
Peter,
You wrote: So I favour a very brief delay of fifty more years.
For better or worse, the present pope obviously has decided against that, on advice of the present magisterium. The enhancements to the 1962 missal promulgated by Pope John XXIII obviously are going to happen in the near future, whether we like them or not. The only uncertainty is how extensive they will be.
But in reality, I expect that most of these enhancements will be both minor. They also will be optional, except those pertaining to new obligatory memorials, feasts, and solemnities in proper liturgical calendars.
You wrote: But the focus here is the Anglican Use customary. I understand that it is not just a differnce between sacral and vulgar English. No, each country had its own separate prayerbook tradition. That would suggest to me that each prayerbook (in sacral English) will have distinct features. Is this correct? If so, those on the cmte. will presumably need to use a selection process and possibly even compose compromise versions anew. So this could lead to some disquiet in the pews, as cherished forms disappear. I wonder if others here, some who are knowledgeable about Anglican Liturgy, would care to comment.
Here, I think that “EPMS” hit the cogent point that all of the current editions of the Book of Common Prayer derive from Cranmer’s edition. I don’t foresee the problems that “EPMS” claims to foresee. There will be some period of adjustment, but I doubt that it will be any more difficult than that caused by adoption of the new English translation of the Roman Missal in existing Catholic parishes. Also, I would think that an explanation that all of the ordinariates will use the same version of the “prayer book” would satisfy curiosity about the reasons for the “change” in wording.
Norm.
In retrospect I regretted the phrase “trouble ahead” which was possibly inaccurate and certainly unhelpful. Your views on the subject seem entirely plausible, on mature reflection. My comment about Mgr Burnham derived from reading a lengthy post on Tonus Peregrinus on this same subject.
PS. It is not accurate, however, to say that complete uniformity is a goal. The Canadian version of the BDW Eucharistic rite currently approved for most Canadian groups uses the offertory prayers found in the English Missal. Celebrants for the groups in the Archdiocese of Toronto, however, are required to use the NO offertory prayers as found in the American BDW.
EPMS,
You wrote: PS. It is not accurate, however, to say that complete uniformity is a goal. The Canadian version of the BDW Eucharistic rite currently approved for most Canadian groups uses the offertory prayers found in the English Missal. Celebrants for the groups in the Archdiocese of Toronto, however, are required to use the NO offertory prayers as found in the American BDW.
Canonically, all ordinariate groups are required to use either the Roman Rite or the Anglican liturgy as the competent Catholic authoities have approved it. This is not optional.
Now, what is happening in practice is another matter.
>> 1. It’s entirely possible that a congregation may have requested and received an indult (official permission) to use a different version of the Anglican liturgy due to some pastoral circumstance that Anglicanorum coetibus did not foresee. If so, that permission applies only to the congregation(s) that have obtained such indults. Further, such an indult would persist even if the competent authority promulgates a revision to the Anglican liturgy that completely supercedes the previous version, unless the competent authority explicitly rescinds it.
>> 2. But the more likely situation, if there is some other use, is that it simply has not been corrected yet. It sometimes takes a while for Catholic authorities to discover such abuses, but correction is usually pretty swift once the abuses come to light.
Before the Vatican gave formal permission for women to serve mass, many parishes here in the States had “altar girls” as well as “altar boys” — but you may rest assured that the pastors ensured that the “altar girls” never served any mass that the bishop or his assistants would attend. So long as the bishop did not know of the situation, it continued unchecked. Something similar may be happening here.
Norm.
No, the “Canadian” version has been given the go-ahead by competent authorities, I gather. The Toronto situation reflects the pastoral concerns of Cardinal Collins.
Pingback: Dearly beloved . . . | Catholic Canada