Rorate Caeli

The upcoming liturgy of the Ordinariate

From the Ordinariate Portal, citing the Tablet:
The special Missal and prayer books to be used by the personal ordinariate of England and Wales have been completed and are now awaiting approval from Rome. Former Anglican worshippers in the ordinariate can expect “something quite different” from their new sacramentary, Mgr Keith Newton, the group’s leader told The Tablet. He had hoped the new liturgy would be in place in time for Pentecost on 11 June, when 54 former Anglican priests who have joined the ordinariate will be ordained Catholic priests, but that now seems unlikely and they will use the Roman rite in the meantime.

36 comments:

Cruise the Groove. said...

“something quite different”

Uh-Oh

New Catholic said...

Curious, I thought they would wait for other ordinariates to be established in other nations/continents before this action.

Martial said...

What a wonderful surprise it would be if it were the English Missal.

Jeremiah Methuselah said...

"What a wonderful surprise it would be if it were the English Missal."

Even more wonderful, for me at any rate, if it were in Latin, then the meaning would never be in doubt.

shane said...

Solution: Sarum

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2010/05/future-liturgy-of-anglican-ordinariate_15.html

Anonymous said...

"Former Anglican worshippers in the ordinariate can expect 'something quite different' from their new sacramentary"

This is rather confusing as worded. "[T]heir new sacramentary"? But they don't have yet a 'new sacramentary!' They have only just entered the Church. Unless it is a reference to the recent Ordinary form Missal translation as 'their new sacramentary.' Since they are now, indeed, Roman Rite Catholics.

This seems to be borne out by the title of the article in the Tablet which is "Ordinariate Liturgy Will Have Anglican Flavour."

Well, we shall know soon.

Podatus

Anonymous said...

Will they get to have a handshake of peace?
cm

Johnny Domer said...

It took ICEL 9 years to get a new TRANSLATION of the Novus Ordo done and approved, but the Ordinariates already have their liturgical rites prepared in less than a year. It yet again goes to show that committees, much like mosquitos, are sent by God as punishment for original sin.

rodrigo said...

Won't be the English Missal. Having heard from a friend of one of those who is helping in the preparation of the new liturgy, I understand it'll be a mix of the Book of Common Prayer and other things. I imagine it'll be similar to the Book of Divine Worship.

That said, many of the English members of the Ordinariate will probably continue to use either the Novus Ordo or the EF of the Roman Rite, since Anglo-Catholicism in England seems to be less Prayer Book-oriented.

Bro. Jason said...

Another liturgy written at what I am sure was an antique desk in the Vatican.

Anonymous said...

This is quite troubling to me. This liturgy cmte. is headed by Msgr. Andrew Burnham, one of the former FiF Anglican bishops. The FiF has taken control of the Ordinariate, and the TAC priests of England are not among those 54 who have now been ordained deacon and will soon be ordained priest. Where is Bishop Mercer and the 24 TAC applicants to join the English Ordinariate? They were supposed to come across at Easter. There is no sign of them yet.


The TAC men are the true Anglo-Catholic Traditionalists. Among the FiF, a very small number are of the same orientation; the rest are just Novus Ordo Anglicans.

From what I have heard, the new creature, written over the last two months and no longer, will be like the Book of Divine Worship. I fear that it will include that horrid N.O. Offertory but perhaps in sacral English. It will have some different lectionary, some prayerbook parts, and likely some N.O. parts. In other words, there is not much hope for a decent liturgy, as it likely borrows from the N.O.M.

The TAC bishops submitted their proposal, which likely IS worthy of consideration, last Pentecost. Eleven months have passed and we have not heard a peep from Rome. Yet again, the TAC is treated as second-class, whereas the FiF people, who were part of the Church of England establishment, get all the perks and everything they want. These are people who preferred to be Anglican and only crossed the Tiber when even the smallest concessions from the Archdruid of Cantuar were not forthcoming.

The TAC men, on the other hand, are the men of principle, who lived on almost nothing for the past 30 years and more. They left everything and separated themselves from the diseased Canterbury body way back in the 1970s and 1980s, coming together from such successions in 1991. They knocked on Rome's door for years before the FiF people did in 2006. They get treated poorly because they have little money, no tradining in august 'Anglican theological colleges', and they are not part of the establishment.

I would think that advanced training in an Anglican theological college would only mean especially thorough training in how to be a heretic. At any rate, many of these 'colleges' are hotbeds of the very worst heresies. So the TAC men, if anything, are better off for not having attended them.

The TAC is to Canterbury what the S.S.P.X is to Rome. Therefore, it dies in exile. I ask everyone here to pray for the TAC, that the Novus Ordo wolves don't devour it. The TAC men are good men and, having crossed the Tiber, many of them will make solid traditionalists. The Forward in Faith (FiF) people, on the other hand, are mostly Novus Ordo neo-cons. All we need: more worshiippers of John Paul the Small who do the N.O. in 'conservative' ways. No thanks.

P.K.T.P.

Bernonensis said...

Does anybody else find this business troubling? Reading the comments of some of the people, both clergy and laity, who have joined the Ordinariate or plan to join, I find it hard to escape the conclusion that a number of them are not Catholics so much as Anglicans who reject female bishops and are ecumenically-minded enough to want to make liturgical commemorations of the Pope.
Troubling also is the creation of a special "Anglican use." For years we lovers of the traditional liturgy have argued that, as even Vatican II recognized, liturgical forms must grow organically from earlier forms of the living traditions of Catholic worship; that the problem with the Novus Ordo is the way it was contrived to make it acceptable to non-Catholics. Now, here we have a new "Anglican use," which properly speaking will not be a "use" at all, but something entirely new in Catholic worship, cobbled together from the Novus Ordo and the Book of Common Prayer. Far better that the Church should revive one of the genuine English uses (e.g. Sarum) and leave Cranmer's anti-Catholic book to perish with the false church he founded.

Bernonensis said...

P.K.T.P.,
Thanks for answering my last post even as I was still typing it.

Anonymous said...

I'll try to put things in stark terms, at the obvious risk of being inaccurate. The Anglican prayerbook liturgy is a princeless cultural treasure of the English language. The TAC favours cleansing it of any hint of heresy and marrying it to sections of the pre-conciliar Roman Mass, all to be done in liturgical English (God is a Thou, not hey, you). The Roman parts will no doubt be the Canon and the Offertory.

Most of the FiF people use the N.O. but say it very reverently. They want to marry that to some of that Anglian patrimony, again, all in sacral English.

The TAC direction is beneficial to those who were raised in a High Anglican culture, because, in the sacrifical parts, it brings them in to the spirit of the Roman Mass. The FiF direction would borrow fron the N.O. where the N.O. is most scandalous: the same sacrifical parts. The N.O. Offertory is Protestant and Freemasonic in spirit and E.P. II is cut from the same cloth.

The FiF men get all the perks because they were part of the Church of England esTABlishment. There might even be a lord or two among them (or maybe just a baronet or some lowly knight). That makes them worthy when they knock on the door of the Church. The Pope opens the door and welcomes them. He kisses them as if they are the Qu'ran itself.

When the TAC knock on the door, as they did years ago, they are literally left outside in the hot Roman sun. Knock, and the door shall be slammed in your face. The problem is that, since 1970, the porter at the door has been a Modernist.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

" The Pope opens the door and welcomes them. He kisses them as if they are the Qu'ran itself. "

PKTP, usually I appreciate your comments, even when acerbic, and read them to the end, even when long. But now bitter you may be, but this one goes too far. Withdraw it.

AM

LeonG said...

Nothing surprises me with this NO regime in Rome. It is liberal modernist to the core. I anticipate worse to come from England yet.

LeonG said...

In any case, we have all heard from Koch what is in the liturgical mind medium term - blend the pot pourri further and come out with the hybrid version. Ultimately, what the Anglicans will receive is going to be conceived in this spirit of compromise. It ois this which will determine the outcome, yet more fudge and fiddle.

New Catholic said...

Really inappropriate, PKTP.

Ben Vallejo said...

The new sacramentary appears to refer to the Common Worship of the Church of England.

I don't think the new liturgy will be the English Missal but something closer to the Book of Divine Worship.

Woody said...

Well, I, for one, have been assisting at Mass with the Book of Divine Worship since 1995 or so, coming over from the SSPX (you can more easily calculate the date once they get those years of "The Angelus" online, as my last article for that worthy publication, to which I still subscribe, was shortly before I switched) and find it quite acceptable even as it is, although one recognizes that improvements could be made, and there has been some talk of revision that allows us to hope that the improvements will be there.

As for the sacrifical part, and again agreeing that the N.O. offertory is less than ideal, don't forget that little respond after the Fraction:

V. [Alleluia] Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.
R. Therefore let us keep the feats. [Alleluia.]

The biggest problem with the official BDW to date (besides the fact that it is out of print) is that physically it is so big, with two complete psalters and printed on thick paper, such that it is very difficult to hold in one's hand. Hopefully the newer books will correct this.

My guess is that if the E&W books turn out to be rather like the BDW (which has been more or less widely known in Rome and even sold at the "Ancora" bookstore that Cardinal Ratzinger used to frequent), the real reason for the newness for the Ordinariate folks will be that most of them have been using the regular O.F. books.

Woody said...

That's "feast", of course; from 1 Cor. 5:7-8.

Anonymous said...

Dear Woody:

I suggest that the B.D.W. is poor on several grounds and Fr. Christoper Phllips, who was involved in arranging it in the early 1980s, has admitted as much. But the inclusino of the N.O. Offertory and in non-sacral English was the major problem. That makes it flat-out unacceptable as sound Catholic liturgy.

He and others tried to get the pre-conciliar Offertory but Rome at that time would not hear of it. Times have changed since then. These days, post 2007, one could argue that the pre-conciliar Offertory is part of our 'living' liturgy.

The B.D.W. also has an optional Ektenia of Peace, mixing Byzantine forms with Western. There are other problems with it.

People are still angry over the Qu'ran remark? It was just a joke. Good grief!

P.K.T.P.

Woody said...

Thanks for your good thoughts, Peter. I, too, am hoping that the old offertory will be reinstituted in whatever book we get in the Ordinariate for the US, whether it is revised BDW or something else. We never "do" Rite Two at Our Lady of Walsingham so I don't get exposed to the N.O. forms as part of the AU liturgy very much (only when I visit Our Lady of the Atonement, in fact). Presumably some of the BDW revisions (if that is still ongoing) will update the N.O. (Rite Two) parts to at least incorporate the new translations. I know this will not satisfy you, but it should certainly be better than the current situation.

Keep up the good work up there in Canada and don't be discouraged by the currentf things for the Ordinariate there. I trust it will all work out well in the end (even if it takes some time after the Ordinariate is erected for things to sort out well).

BTW, I have been reading some of George Grant's thoughts and finding them interesting. I am sure you have done so, too?

Woody said...

Well, another further clarification: of the course the objectionable offertory is in Rite One also, as that was what Rome told us we had to use back in the late 1980's when the BDW was being approved. I don't like it either and usually try to say the old prayers quietly at that point, myself, as, even though only a layman, maybe it helps. It helps me,anyway. As I have mentioned before, Saint Josemaria used to tell his priests to do this when they celebrtaed the N.O., supposedly for their own spiritual edification (one may wonder if there was something more to it than that, though, yes? no?). All the best.

Anonymous said...

PTKP : yes, they are. I am, anyway. It was a "joke" in impossibly poor taste, and at the Holy Father's expense, which means it was also wide of any mark it might have been aimed at.

AM

Anonymous said...

After a gazillion Rorate Caeli blog comments that "tell it like it is", people are upset with P.K.T.P's "Qu'ran remark" !! -- that is a joke.

Anonymous said...

Mr. McFarland:

You would have the TACers convert as individuals to the Brave New Church, or perhaps to the S.S.P.X? But they might be honestly unaware of why they should join the S.S.P.X.

By converting as individuals, they will get the N.O. and only the T.L.M. in some places where it is available. God does indeed work in mysterious ways and the fact is that Crsnmer, heresiarch that he was, also arranged a liturgy which is a treasure of the English tongue, and for all ages. A deProtestantised Anglicaln text with T.L.M. Offertory and Canon is incomparably better than the N.O.M. They were raised in the prayerbook tradition and they will not just jump from what they know to Masses entirely in Latin. I don't judge them for that.

You misread my own position. While I prefer the TAC's liturgical preferences to the N.O., it is inferior not only to the T.L.M. but to all the ancient Eastern Divine Liturgies as well. But one can rarely get a Divine Liturgy in its lingua sacra these days. The rot, Mr. McFarland, is nearly everywhere. The TAC people are good souls and they have the right orientation. They will make fine Catholics. I'd rather leave the rest up to God.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

There was absolutely no need to make up a new liturgy , the Catholic Church had a liturgy they were using when they broke from Rome. Just return to that and send all these busybody"liturgists" continually making things up back to parish work!

Anonymous said...

Is the Ordinate considered part of the Latin Church? If that is the case, will the Ordinate offer the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin?

Bill

New Catholic said...

Yes, it is a particular Church within the Latin Church.

John Hudson said...

PKTP, I think Rome is wary of the TAC because the latter took the path of schism from Canterbury before they took the path of seeking union with Rome. Yes, they have spent years in the wilderness with few resources as you say, outside of any establishment, but that is because they chose to do so. They didn't seek a home in the Catholic Church as the members of the new ordinariate did: they struck out to try to form their own church and then tried to negotiate union with Rome on their own terms (including, according to one TAC clergyman I spoke with, only conditional re-ordinations). Rome are doubtless also wary of the fact that John Hepworth was ordained a Catholic, left to become an Anglican, and then left Anglicanism to be a TAC bishop. Altogether, I can see how the TAC may be suspected of a schismatic mentality and its leader of personal instability.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Hudson:

Despite the comments re Archbishop Hepworth, the TAC worked most assiduously for union with Rome from its very foundantion in 1991. Conditional ordination is a touchy subject but I note that Anglican Bishop Graham Leonard received it. Most of the TAC men have solid episcopal lines and have fixed their Ordinal as well, and they have a fully sacrifical notion of priesthood for their intent. I'm not saying that this should mean that they must get conditional ordination but there was at least an argument there.

I repeat: the FiF people stayed in the Church of England until the last dog was hung and even sought special arrangements there to 2010. They would rather be Anglican and they have accepted the Catholic Church as their second choice, when all accommodation for them in the C. of E. was made impossible. Ask yourself this: how many of them would be crossing into the ordinariate today if Rowan Williams the Druid had offered them personal jurisdictions within the Church of England. You could count the number on one hand.

Certainly, I agree that they would rather be both Anglican and Catholic at the same time but they are attached to those old country parish churches, those old buildings, and the social establishment of England. The TAC men put their faith first and absolutely refused to live in the same house as women dressed up as priests. To do so, they had to live as paupers and they lost all the old buildings where they worshipped and were Baptized. They *sacrificed* to become Catholic. Therefore, the TAC men are the real McCoy, not the others.

It sickens me that Rome has chosen to ignore the TAC and give all the perks to the FiF men from the Church of England. It seems that money and priviledge are all that count for Conciliar Rome, just as they are all that count for the Church of England.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Dear Bill:

Believe it or not, one of the English Prayerbooks actually exists in a Latin translation. Some of these people are odder than you might think! I can't imagine who might use the Prayerbook in Latin. There are also Lutheran service books in Latin.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

N.C.

There is some confusion over the 'particular church' designation but it is governed as a particular church. The Decree of Erection refers directly to Canon 372.2, which, in turn, pertains to particular churches. But one of the Italian canonists who advised on its creation said somewhere that it is not a particular church but is cumulative with the dioceses. Technically, there is a limitation in that the personal ordinary must inform the local bishop when he wants to create an ordinariate parish. But while this notice must be given, the local bishop has no power to prevent the act.

P.K.T.P.

John Hudson said...

PKTP, re. 'those old country parish churches, those old buildings, and the social establishment of England': any English person who becomes a Catholic gives up those things. The new ordinariate clergy and people are not keeping their Anglican churches, and the clergy are not even guaranteed the usual income of diocesan Catholic priests.

But I think you have missed my point: I am trying to suggest the grounds on which Rome might find the TAC suspect, not suggesting that I find them so. From a curial perspective, there might be something to be said for men who stayed the course in their institutional 'ecclesial community' despite watching it drift further and further away from what they believed, as against those who split at the first sign of something that offended their principles. Unity is a principle in itself, and Rome may be reassured by those who have demonstrated a commitment to it against those who preferred to go their own way and, even, switched allegiances more than once.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Hudson:

I realilsed fully that you were only suggesting what Rome might find to be worrying. So I am arguing against that perspective, not against yours.

I also realise that the FiF people will also have to give up their own parish churches. My point was that they resisted this for as long as possible: they would have taken a deal from Canterbury but, really, no concession at all was offered to them in the end. They approached Rome when there was no honourable option left open to them. In contrast, the TAC leaders have long sought union with Rome (even if not all their laity has).

P.K.T.P.