Okay, so you wanted information about the new liturgy

Here’s the start of a promised detailed series of posts on our new Divine Worship from the Fellowship of St. Alban in Rocherster, New York website:

What’s different and why

The Order of Holy Mass for use by the Ordinariates erected under the auspices of Anglicanorum coetibus was approved and confirmed by the Apostolic See in May 2013. This provision for the Order of Holy Mass represents a substantial revision of the Book of Divine Worship, Holy Eucharist Rite One, as developed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Congregation for Divine Worship in consultation with the Interdicasterial CommissionAnglicanane traditiones. This Order of Mass was designed pursuant to the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum coetibus for a rite of Holy Mass to be fashioned “according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition” insofar as compatible with Catholic doctrine and receiving the approval of the Holy See. Accordingly, this Order was devised in light of the following principles and objectives:

    (a) to preserve in the Catholic Church the worthy Anglican liturgical patrimony, understood as that which has nourished the Catholic faith throughout the history of the Anglican tradition and prompted aspirations towards ecclesial unity;
    (b) to maintain for Catholic worship such features and elements that are representative of the historic Anglican Books of Common Prayer (in the first place) and the Anglican missals (in the second place), in conformity with Catholic doctrinal and liturgical norms;
    (c) to provide an Order of Mass at once distinctively and traditionally Anglican in character, content, and structure, whilst also being clearly and recognizably a form of the Roman Rite, in both its modern and traditional expressions, safeguarding thereby the substantial unity of the Roman Rite;
    (d) to combine, consolidate, and harmonize wherever possible the diversity of Anglican liturgical usage for the sake of assuring the continuity, integrity, and pastoral utility of the rite for the Ordinariates in England and Wales, the United States, Canada, and Australia;
    (e) to minimize the number of options, except where clearly justified by the need for pastoral flexibility in respecting the various constituencies coming together in Catholic unity, to preserve worthy Anglican patrimony, or to suit the dignity of the celebration according to the quality of the day or season;
    (f) to offer an instrument for the sanctification of the faithful who come to the Catholic Church from the Anglican tradition whilst promoting their unity with one another, with their fellow Catholics in the wider Church, and with the See of Peter.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

15 Responses to Okay, so you wanted information about the new liturgy

  1. Andrew N. Jordan says:

    Thanks Deborah for the plug. I thought it would be interesting to dig in a bit to the liturgical changes and explore what was changed and why from the Book of Divine Worship. I plan the next installment in a couple of days since I am up against a grant proposal deadline at the moment.

    • Foolishness says:

      Hi Andrew, I look forward to your series! And any chance some of you might come up from Rochester for our ordinations when we have a date and time?

      • Andrew N. Jordan says:

        Hi Deborah, I think several people in Rochester would be interested in coming for the Ordinations. Please keep us posted on the dates. My post about the introductory rites and the liturgy of the Word is now posted on the FSA site. More soon.

  2. Pingback: Okay, so you wanted information about the new liturgy | Catholic Canada

  3. P.K.T.P. says:

    I have seen the text of the new Ordinariate Mass and it is just splendid. Where there are problems, I can see that these are soluble because there are very good arguments for future improvements over time. The cmte. which put this together got about 85 to 90 per cent of what should have been attained, including the important items. I am also impressed by how well it fits together, given the diversity of sources. This text should make the Ordinariate people sing for joy. That’s the effect it is having on me.

    Congratulations to everyone on the cmte. for this, to Archbishop Di Noia and to the C.D.F. and the Pope.

    P.K.T.P.

    • P.K.T.P. says:

      I have received a copy of the text from a gentleman who, in turn, found it at a leaked source. Out of respect for the Ordinariate, I’ve decided not to publish it on-line, and my source has also agreed to this. I can comment on some features, however, as a promise I made in that regard expired on 21st October.

      There is one small but important victory for traditionalists (both Latin and Anglo-Catholic) but, to raise this, I’d have to open a can of worms,and I’d rather not do so. So I’ll wait to see if others notice it. While I love this text, I might as well mention one or two minor problems. I don’t like the Cranmerian term “spiritual food” as found in the Anglican prayer following the communication of the people. Mr. Norm, would you please hold back on reacting to this comment? I know all the arguments on this in very great detail and I don’t want to have to waste my time explaining them to you. Suffice it to say that the term is open to an orthodox interpretation but was given that form at least to imply a merely spiritual presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Similarly, I don’t like the Scripturally-correct term “our only Mediator and Advocate” in Intercession I; however, I note that those celebrants who do not like this expression can avoid it by using one of the other Intercessions. Not all of them have it.

      The largest problem with this Ordinariate Liturgy is that, unfortunately, it uses the NewMass Consecration Formula, with the Words always preferred by Protestants (from I Corinthians)–and for good theological reason–rather than the traditional Roman form from the Gospel according to St. Matthew. The NewMass form has the longer Consecration of the bread (with the added relative clause in the future tense, thereby casting the Consecration as a past action to be memorialised) and the “mysterium fidei” removed from its traditional place where it had referred to the miracle of the Real Presence and moved so that it refers to other miracles of our Lord mentioned in the intruded Memorial Acclamation.

      Yes, Mr. Norm, I am aware of the arguments for and against having a Memorial Acclamation. But if the idea is not foreign to Western rites (a matter of gauging whcih acclamations were actually used and when and not only noting them as proposals), it is certainly not traditional in them. In any event, Bugnini’s purpose in intruding it was to divert attention away from the Real Presence and lavish it on miracles which Christians overall can agree on: the Resurrection, the force of the Sacred Passion, the Second Coming.

      One major problem which I expect will be rectified in time is that the lections are to be rendered in a non-sacral idiom, whereas the Ordinary is in sacral English, thereby creating a discontinuity of style. I expect that, in time, however, the non-sacral Catholic edn. of the R.S.V. will be replaced by a sacral text, perhaps the Douai-Rheims for an interval and then, finally, a Catholic King James.

      I put my complaints first to get them out of the way. The good things are too numerous to mention in a short post and 95% of this text calls for celebration, even wild partying (well, I don’t expect that too many young people party over good liturgies). Except for the Consecration Formula, they get the Roman Canon and, best of all, they get the Traditional Roman Offertory as “Offertory I”. Also approved are the very best of the old Anglican forms, such as the Prayer of Humble Access. The whole liturgy is also fitted together very well–a great achievement given the disparity of sources.

      Now, if we can just get the Ordinariate chaps to kneel for the Sanctus . . . .

      P.K.T.P.

      P.K.T.P.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        P. K. T. P.,

        You asked: I don’t like the Cranmerian term “spiritual food” as found in the Anglican prayer following the communication of the people. Mr. Norm, would you please hold back on reacting to this comment?

        There’s really nothing to say about the comment itself. You, and only you, know what you like and what you dislike.

        You wrote: Similarly, I don’t like the Scripturally-correct term “our only Mediator and Advocate”…

        I’m surprised that you dislike this phrase. In addition to being scripturally correct, this term is a direct allusion to the encyclical Mediator Dei promulgated by Pope Pius XII on the subject of sacred liturgy in 1947. Rather curious, indeed!

        You wrote: The largest problem with this Ordinariate Liturgy is that, unfortunately, it uses the NewMass Consecration Formula, with the Words always preferred by Protestants (from I Corinthians)–and for good theological reason–rather than the traditional Roman form from the Gospel according to St. Matthew.

        There are two very well grounded reasons for this change.

        >> 1. This change adopts the wording in most ancient account of the Last Supper. The First Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians, written c. 45 AD, predates the Gospel According to St. Matthew, written c. 75 AD, by about three decades.

        >> 2. This also aligns the words of institution in the anaphora with the scripture readings for the Mass of the Lord’s Supper that marks the beginning of the paschal triduum. In that mass, the gospel reading is that of the mandatum (washing of the apostles’ feet) from the Gospel According to St. John so the account of the institution is taken from the First Letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians, allowing the normal pattern of scripture readings to remain intact, rather than confusing matters by introducing a second gospel reading.

        Of course, the First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians also contains a real curiosity — the apostle writes that he received from the Lord what he handed on, yet Paul was not present at the Last Supper. This begs the question of how Paul received it from the Lord himself.

        But I digress….

        You wrote: One major problem which I expect will be rectified in time is that the lections are to be rendered in a non-sacral idiom, whereas the Ordinary is in sacral English, thereby creating a discontinuity of style.

        Ah, are you confusing the Revised Standard Version (RSV) with the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)? Compare the text of the Lord’s prayer in Matthew 6, for example.

        You wrote: Also approved are the very best of the old Anglican forms, such as the Prayer of Humble Access.

        Yes, those are very important elements of Anglican patrimony — which is precisely why I would like to see an option to use substantially the same liturgy in contemporary English rather than telling ordinariate congregations that prefer contemporary English to use the ordinary form of the Roman Rite instead.

        Norm.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        P. K. T. P.,

        I’m not sure why, but the link to parallel Revised Standard Version (RSV) and New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) translations of Matthew 6 seems to have malfunctioned in the first reply. This one hopefully will work.

        Norm.

      • P.K.T.P. says:

        I note that the horrid E.P. No. 2 of the Novo Disordo has been relegated to an Appendix and is not to be used “on Sundays and Solemnities”. The Roman Canon has been made standard in the Ordinariate Mass (except for the Consecration Formula) and may be used at any time–and must be used on Sundays and major feasts. The Traditional Roman Offertory is there as “Offertory I”, not II, as if the Traditional Latin Mass were to take precedence as a source over the Novus Ordo. The Novus Ordo Offertory, which is surely the worst prayer in the entire New Rite of Mass (even in all of Catholic liturgical praxis), is there in sacral English as Offertory II. I note that this restoration of the Traditional Roman Offertory comes in a Mass in a vernacular tongue, and may perhaps influence future reforms in the Novus Ordo. (Hint, hint: ditch Bugnini’s Offertory altogether in the N.O. and restore the good one from the fourteenth century. This might be done in stages by making them options for a time.)

        The most cherished Anglican prayers are there from the B.C.P. tradition (although, of course, they vary in form from one national prayerbook to the next). I mean the Intercession (“Almighty and everliving God ….), the Invitation (“Ye that do truly and and earnestly repent . . . “), the General Confession which Cranmer modelled on the Roman Confiteor (although it is significantly different from it), the Thanksgiving after communication of the people; some of the Comfortable Words, the Collect for Purity (taken directly from Sarum, of course), and so forth.

        I only know a bit about Anglican liturgy. I wonder if someone could be so kind as to identify the optional Intercessions. The first one, used also as first in the B.D.W. is perhaps taken from the 1979 American B.C.P. The second is a parallel to the Canadian 1962; however, there are significant differences and I’m wondering if it is, in fact, another Prayerbook form; the third is the Ektenia of Peace (adapted) from Byzantine usage. But what of the other four? Some of them look like modern Anglican texts (perhaps from books of alternative services or whatnot). I note that the form at the close of II changes “our only Mediator and Advocate” (as found in the 1962 Canadian B.C.P.) to “our Mediator and Advocate. This was a big issue in the 1983 approval of the B.D.W. In this Ordinariate version, they’ve solved it by approving both and leaving it up to the Celebrant: Intercession I has “only”; Intercession II does not. (The issue is one of theology, of course, over whether or not the angels and saints are intercessors. Cranmer and his friends wanted to insist otherwise but the formula they used is Scriptural. The issue is one of placement and contextualisation.)

        Anyway, this was done so that very Anglo-Catholic celebrant in the Ordinariate can escape most of the pitfalls both from the modern Anglican rites and from the N.O.M. Of course, that cuts both ways. But the relegation of E.P. No. II to an appendix (with a major restriction on its use) and the simple omission of E.P. Nos. III and IV; and then the designation of the T.L.M. Offertory as No. I: all of this does tend to orient this Missal in the traditionalist direction. Also, there are not very many options taken from N.O. novelties or modern Anglican texts, and when they do occur they are usually only options. While Ordinariate priests could simply use the N.O., the disadvantage in that is its liturgical and theological poverty, not to mention its lack of distinctivness for the Ordinariates. Why bother using the N.O. when you could, as a priest, leave the Ordinariate and become incardinated in the local diocese and do the same thing with more financial security? And why just do the N.O.M. when this will not bring to life an Anglican patrimony? The Ordinariates would have little raison d’être were they simply to favour the N.O.M.

        This is all looking rather good, I’d say. Consider that an Ordinariate priest could say the Latin Mass prayers at the Foot to the Collect for Purity and then follow solid traditional Anglican prayers, avoid doing anything at the sedilia (except waiting there during Gloria & Creed), using the Kyrie in Greek (unfortunately, it is sixfold rather than ninefold but that’s an entire post for discussion), omit the reading from the O.T., use Intercession II with its refusal to proclaim Christ as *only* Mediator and Advocate, follow the B.C.P. for Invitation and General Confession and Absolution, minimise use of the Comfortable Words, use Offertory I and the Roman Canon, and so forth. It could be a blending of the best of the Anglican and Roman traditions, with a minimum (but some) influence from the N.O.

        Some may be surprised by my next comment but I actually prefer, in some ways, that the Roman prayers at the Foot not be said but that it follow the traditional Anglican option. The reason is that the Roman prayers at the Foot are largely duplicated later on by the B.C.P. General Confession and Absolution, which are not optional texts. I mean it does seem odd to confess and be absolved twice, once in a Roman way and once in a Canterburian way. By the time you get to the communication, these Ordinariate chaps will be twice as clean as the rest of us!

        I’m also excited at the prospect of some improvements over time. For example, I’d counsel borrowing from the Sarum Use and the Roman Mass (Traditional) to ‘beef up’ (pardon the expression) the paltry prayers now there at the communication of the priest. There should be more in the way of the priest’s private prayers of preparation, and Sarum has some really splendid prayers for this, including one addressed to the Father which is not found in Roman usage. The Sarum prayers of reception for the Priest are also too perfect to leave out and should have been inserted here: “Hail for evermore, most holy Flesh of Christ, to me before all and above all the highest source of joy. The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ be unto me a sinner the Way and the Life, in the Name of the Father + and of the Son,and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. [Here let him receive the Body,making a cross with the same before his mouth….]. How wonderfully and Gemanically florid! But that’s for another day.

        Eventually, there needs to be an Appendix for an ‘extraordinary form’ (how I hate the expression, though) of the Consecration Formula. Why not? Paul VI explained in Missale Romanum, 1970, that this had been disallowed at E.P. No. 1 in order to ensure unity right at the centre of the Mass. However, at the time he spoke, he clearly did not realise that the T.L.M. had not, in fact, been abrogated (as his No. 2 in De Missali Romano, 1971, lacked the authority to effect this). The T.L.M. is alive and well now and uses the pre-conciliar Consecration Formula from St. Matthew, which is theologically miles better than the one the Prots and Bugnini prefer from I Corinthians. Bugnini our friend of Freemasons and heretics, made the change for the same reason the Protestant revolutionaries did in the sixteenth century: to shift attention away from the Sacrifice of Christ in the Mass and towards a memorial of His past Sacrifice at Calvary.

        One thing likely to come and to be welcomed would be a lectionary in SACRAL English to match the idiom used in the rest of this Ordinariate Mass. Notice how there was stylistic dissonance in the B.D.W. (e.g. Eucharistic Prayers lifted right out of the N.O. with its non-sacral forms, not to mention the Offertory) That has all been fixed in this new test: even E.P. No. II is re-presented in sacral English. So why not complete the stylistic consistency and ditch the Catholic edn. of the R.S.V.? A project to come, as the Lectionary can be a separate item. I suggest a Douai-Rheims lectionary pending the completion of a Catholic edn. of the A.V.

        P.K.T.P.

      • Rev22:17 says:

        P. K. T. P.,

        You wrote: The Ordinariates would have little raison d’être were they simply to favour the N.O.M.

        No, not so. Most parishes of the Anglican Communion have a longstanding practice of Morning Prayer and Evensong with substantial participation by the congregation, for example. Although Catholic parishes certainly can — and should! — pray “Morning Prayer” (Lauds), “Evening Prayer” (Vespers), and even “Night Prayer” (Compline) from the Liturgy of the Hours, there are very few that actually do so. Indeed, widespread participation of the laity in the divine office was one of the major objectives of the liturgical reform after the Second Vatican Council that has fallen horridly short. Preservation of these elements of Anglican patrimony will continue to distinguish even ordinariate parishes that adopt the ordinary form of the Roman Rite from nearly all diocesan parishes.

        Norm.

      • William Tighe says:

        An English friend responds:

        I try to understand what it is about the Berakhot that arouses so much dislike. Is it that they are Jewish (and enkindle a residual anti-semitism in some)? But, in that case, they would be enraged by alleluias and amens. Is it that they replace the Gallican Offertory prayers (which people used to complain about because they were ‘unRoman’ in their floridity or because they dramatically displaced the mysteries of sacrifice and consecration)? Is it that they are faux-antique (summoning up some supposed pristine time when things were done as the Lord himself did them)? Or is it because they are a change from what was done (and change is always a bad thing)? I think the Ordinariate Use has got this right. Both sets of Offertory Prayers are available, the one grounded in Anglo-catholic praxis, the other in modern Anglican practice (albeit there with some circumlocution over ‘offer’). Similarly, EP II (with its fake Hippolytan ancestry) is used in the South African Anglican rite and a distant cousin of it has been used in C of E rites since the 1960s. Personally, I would have left it out but, if another Roman EP is necessary, this is the one with some Anglican connection. Keeping it out of sight on Sundays prevents people being misled by its underwhelming theology.

        The Intercessions come from BDW and Common Worship. Erastian ecclesiology – when It appears – is replaced by Catholic. Thus the Pope and Bishop come before the Queen or President. That is the only really significant change. The Common Worship texts include the Gunning Prayer for Allsorts which earlier made it into the UK version of the Divine Office (for a chilly Wednesday I think).

        I can’t get upset about ‘only Mediator and Advocate’. It seems to me that the prayers of the saints are in Christo not vice Christo.

        Mixed Uses are not allowed and the point about the Kyrie seems misplaced. A sixfold Kyrie works much better than a ninefold for recitation. (I remember from my youth servers and congregants saying a fourth Kyrie rather than a first Christe). For musical use a ninefold Kyrie (which works) is allowed. Similarly employing the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar, where the congregation joins in (say at a Low Mass) entails the omission of the Confession and Absolution later. So we are not doubly clean.

        I can’t engage with the change in the dominical words of administration (‘Institution Narrative’). If the Holy See wishes to unify the Latin Rite round one version, that’s fine by me. I was happy with the older form. I am happy with the newer. As a correspondent says, the ‘newer’ is actually ‘older’ than the ‘older’.

        PKTP conducts his normal campaign for the restoration of the AV (or, as second best, the Douai-Rheims). I always understood that the Douai-Rheims was intended as a reproof to and correction of the AV. So he already has his ‘Catholic edition of the AV’. But, having been brought up on the RSV for the Divine Office, since singing as a choirboy from 1956 onwards, I always think of RSV as being in sacral English. We use the 2nd edition in the parish here (i.e. diocese not Ordinariate) and the complaint is that it is too sacral. In the end, it comes down to thou, thee, thine and a few ‘-est’ endings. An Anglicized version of RSV 2nd Catholic Edition would be welcome, however, because there are some changes made to the RSV which would not be necessary in the UK. An example is the systematic replacement of ‘lo’ with ‘behold’. The AV in England is the preserve of fundamentalists who meet in converted dance-halls and shout and clap a lot.

  4. Rev22:17 says:

    Deborah,

    You wrote: Here’s the start of a promised detailed series of posts on our new Divine Worship…

    For those who are interested, there’s also a worthwhile article about this on Page 7 of the November 2013 issue of Porthole Magazine.

    Norm.

    • Rev22:17 says:

      Everybody,

      Sorry about the typo. I meant Page 8 rather than Page 7.

      And there’s also another article about the new rite of mass for the ordinariates on Page 20. I have reservations about the term “ordinariate use,” as my understanding is that this mass is also available to the personal parishes erected under the “Pastoral Provision” here in the States, some of which may never enter an ordinariate.

      Norm.

      • P.K.T.P. says:

        I think it better to call it a use than a rite. Uses can be local or proper but proper uses are those which are employed by religious orders. This would be a proper use but in a new sense. It does seem to fit.

        I have nothing to say about Mr. Norm’s objection on ‘Ordinariate Use’. It continues an interesting debate on terminology.

        P.K.T.P.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s