Rorate Caeli

More on the upcoming liturgy of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham


The "Ordinariate Portal" has belatedly published Part III of Aidan Nichols' talk on The Pope, the Ordinariates and the Liturgy. (Part 1 and Part 2. Rorate posted on the first two parts here; see this as well.) Part III includes the following description of the draft Ordinariate liturgy that was submitted to Rome in March of this year:



"...when with the promulgation of Anglicanorum coetibus a small liturgical commission was established, with responsibility from the Congregation of Divine Worship and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, to see to the needs of a new situation, some difficulty was experienced in establishing a template likely to be acceptable to all and sundry. Overwhelmingly, English Anglicans had abandoned both the Prayer Book Eucharist and that of the English Missal tradition. They had accepted the reformed Roman liturgy, often with a few variations (such as the placing of the Sign of Peace before the Offertory) supplied from modern Church of England liturgical revision, as well as, typically, including the most beloved of such short Cranmerian texts as the Prayer of Humble Access.

"The English members of the commission were thus faced with a quandary so far as the Eucharistic rite of the Ordinariate was concerned. Although Anglicanorum coetibus conceded that the Ordinariate’s members could make use of the Roman books, the emphasis of the text lay on the provision of ‘books proper to the Anglican tradition’, once these had received approval from the Holy See (thus Anglicanorum coetibus III). But for the Eucharistic rite, there was for English Anglo-Catholics no suitable book that came to hand. This is why it was proposed to produce an Order generated by the same principles that had animated, in the Roman liturgy, the redaction of the Missal of Pope Paul VI. The principles are often labelled, not inaccurately, ressourcement, ‘going back to the sources’, and aggiornamento, ‘bringing up to date’. The English Prayer Book tradition was to be Catholicised by reference to its own principal ancient source – the Use of Sarum – while at the same time taking into account the best elements of contemporary worship available, whether from the Roman Missal of 1969 (but now in its third edition) or from modern Church of England best practice. In this process, what was objectionably Protestant about the Prayer Book Eucharist would vanish away, yet what would remain would still testify to ‘Anglican patrimony’, albeit in the new context of canonical as well as doctrinal and sacramental union with the Latin church. This describes, then, the draft forwarded in March 2011 for recognitio by the Holy See."

***

"The setting up of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham (altogether freed from State supervision and united with Rome) created just the conditions in which substantial elements of the English Liturgy of the pre-Reformation period could be married with those features of the Prayer Book that still held the affection of many, together with the best products of Roman rite revision and its Church of England counterpart. The result may be considered the sort of Eucharistic Order Cranmer might well have established had he been doctrinally orthodox (and lived in the twentieth century).

"There were no comparable difficulties attached to the other texts in the proposed English book: the daily Offices of Mattins and Evensong (to which, following the example of the 1928 proposed Prayer Book, an Office of Compline and a Day Hour were added; the Litany; the Lectionary (for the Office as well as for the Mass), and rites for marriage and funerals – though the inclusion in the latter of explicit prayer for the departed (and not simply for the bereaved) was strengthened by the addition of the Sarum rites for the commendation of the dead person which followed on the Requiem Mass. The calendar proposed was the current seasonal calendar of the Church of England, itself of Sarum origin, together with the cycle of festivals as found in the 1970 General Calendar of the Roman rite, and a number of English or British commemorations, in excess of those in the National Calendar for England and Wales (though not necessarily exceeding the total number if saints in the local calendars of English and Welsh [and Scottish] dioceses were to be added together). There was one unusual feature of the Office of Mattins. Following contemporary Church of England precedent, the second reading at Mattins could be drawn from post-biblical sources. In the context of the Latin church, the Roman rite Office of Readings is an obvious source for these, but the book drafted for the English Ordinariate contains an alternative cycle for Sundays and feasts taken from insular sources. A number of these are taken from patristic writers (Bede, Aldhelm), mediaeval sources (John of Ford, Mother Julian, Nicholas Love), and English Catholic martyrs (Fisher, More, Campion), but the larger number derive from the Anglican patrimony (the Caroline divines and their Restoration successors, the Tractarians with particular reference to Newman, and a selection of later Anglo-Catholic writers). It is, as it were, a testimony to what might have been had the English Reformation proceeded on Catholic lines, as did the Catholic Reformation in much of Continental Europe. No Baptismal liturgy or liturgy for Confirmation has been provided, on the twofold ground that Anglicanism has not produced a version of such a liturgy which has endeared itself to its faithful, and also that there is something especially fitting about the use in an Ordinariate of the rites of the Roman liturgy for Christian initiation, as a sign of belonging to the wider Latin church (and thus to the Catholic Church as a whole). The same congruence might well be ascribed to the use of the Ordination rites of the mainstream Latin church."

36 comments:

Anonymous said...

Just as long as it does not contain any remnant of Protestantism will be fine.

Anonymous said...

Instead of going to the Novus Ordo , how about them doing the Old Latin Mass in English sort of as a concession like Rome did in certain dioceses in Croatia by allowing the Galgothic Mass , the old Latin Mass in Old Slavonic.

HenricusVIII said...

"This is why it was proposed to produce an Order generated by the same principles that had animated, in the Roman liturgy, the redaction of the Missal of Pope Paul VI. The principles are often labelled, not inaccurately, ressourcement, ‘going back to the sources’, and aggiornamento, ‘bringing up to date’. The English Prayer Book tradition was to be Catholicised by reference to its own principal ancient source – the Use of Sarum – while at the same time taking into account the best elements of contemporary worship available, whether from the Roman Missal of 1969 (but now in its third edition) or from modern Church of England best practice"

Would it be an exaggeration to summarize this as "the liturgy of the Ordinariate will be the Sarum Novus Ordo?"

HenricusVIII said...

"Just as long as it does not contain any remnant of Protestantism"

Depends on how you define "Protestant." The new liturgy will clearly have elements of the Book of Common Prayer and of contemporary Anglican worship (!!!), and the alternative cycle of readings for Mattins will draw from Anglican theologians in even greater measure than from Catholic Fathers and Doctors.

LeonG said...

Anonymous said.

The fact that the NO model is vernacular; has the emphasis more on the Scripture readings than the "sacrificial" aspect; is staged ad hominem and continues to invite changes, makes it protestant by its very fabricated nature.

Is this really what the ex-Anglicans want?

Sixupman said...

Prior to Vatican II, Anglo-Catholics published a Missal in the vernacular an exact copy of the Missal of The Old Mass. The only way you could tell it was not Roman was its reference to the Pope as Pastor Inter Pares and lack of Imprimatur. Fr. Black of SSPX could elucidate further on that situation.

Latterly, Anglicans appear to have been more NOM orientated, or, 'Prayer Book'.

If they adopted the 1962 Missal in the vernacular that would certainly get up the nose of the Diocesan commissars.

Andris Amoliņš said...

"Caroline divines ... Anglo-Catholic writers" - How is it possible to include in official Catholic liturgical books readings from theologians who died as members of a heretical organization (i.e., extra ecclesiam)? If a larger group of Lutherans decide to swim Tiber, why not produce a version of Liturgia Horarum containing select pieces from the continental "patrimony" - Luther, Swedenborg, Pelikan, Bonhoeffer? Europe has other great theologians as well - Hus, Calvin, Zinzendorf, Barth. They, too, are "patrimony", aren't they?

Lee Lovelock said...

This sounds like nothing more than a Protestant mess reminiscent of that mess called Vatican II albeit with loads of smells and bells. Sorry by coming from the CofE recently, this is nothing but another ugly head of post Vatican II mess.

New Catholic said...

It looks a little bit like a nightmare. I hope I am wrong.

Anonymous said...

We get this gem from Nichols:

"This is why it was proposed to produce an Order generated by the same principles that had animated, in the Roman liturgy, the redaction of the Missal of Pope Paul VI. The principles are often labelled, not inaccurately, ressourcement, ‘going back to the sources’, and aggiornamento, ‘bringing up to date’"

Whatever may have "animated" Bugnini the Barbarian and his Consilium of Modernists and Marxists, the outcome had little to do with 'ressourcement'. The New Roman Offertory takes NOTHING from any established Offertory of any period; instead, it is very loosely based on a Jewish passover prayer and largely an invention of the liturgical revolutionaries of the 1960s. What it amounts to is a 'berakh'. The problem is that the Last Supper was only secondarly that; it was primarily an unbloody sacrifice as anticipation or pre-presentation of Calvary. The primary meaning has been removed.

As for the revolutionaries' E.P. No. 2, it was based only loosely on the Canon of Hippolytus for which, in turn, there is no direct evidence of actual liturgical usage (not to mention that Hippolytus was a heretic). So much for ressourcement. What this really means is the rooting about of radicals for excuses for major departures from organic development. The purpose of these departures is to serve as vehicles for a theology that is heretical.

The fathers of the Council, protected by the Holy Ghost, would not permit an heretical Offertory or Canon. Therefore, to the Consilium, the next best thing was an Offertory and Canon that was at least open to an heretical interpretation; in fact, it implies that interpretation by its departures from what was established (e.g. removal of all references to a Divine Victim: where there is no propitiatory Sacrifice, there is no Divine Victim!).

What I see from Nichols here is the worst of what I feared: he is preparing to saddle the English Ordinariate with a Mass text that borrows from the Novus Ordo trainwreck. He wishes to help the three monsignori from FiF design a structrue strictly for Novus Ordo Anglicans. Prayerbook Anglicans and Missal Anglicans are not to be welcomed. Anglo-papalists and Anglican traditionalists can get lost.

Please, everyone, pray hard for the TAC in England and for the few Missal Anglicans from the FiF. At least two of them have already been blocked from ordination. As for the TAC--Bishop Mercer and his 24 men--they are so far not in the Ordinariate at all. No doubt they are waiting to see if provision will be made for them. According to Abp. Hepworth and Nichols himself, there will be a very different Mass text proposed for the 'rest of the world'. Will it also be authorised for use in England? If not, will they be able to join one of the other ordinariats and yet minister in England (a possibility under A.C.) or to have their own deanery in England or even a separate ordinariate?

Meanwhile, the American ordinariate is being planned with the 1983 B.D.W. for its Mass, and that also has the N.O. Offertory. So far, then, the score is this:

Liberals, Modernists and Bolsheviks, 2; traditionalists, 0. Blessed are You [sic/sick] Lord God of all spiritual drinks".

Notice, of course, how we are being prepared for the disaster. Nichols is not revealing yet what parts of his Mass text will hale from Bugnini.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

By the way, the TAC priests in England are more eligible to be Catholic priests than are the FiF Anglican ministers because the latter have been thoroughly trained in heresy at Anglican theological colleges. The original purpose of these colleges was to create Protestant ministers. In recent years, they have even gone beyond that.

So the TAC men have much less to unlearn than have the FiF men. The TAC men have not been miseducated and maleducated as thoroughly as have the FiF men.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Why not just resurrect the Sarum Rite?

Anonymous said...

I ask everyone here to say one Rosary for the real hero of Anglo-Catholic traditionalism in England: Bishop Robert Mercer of the TAC with his 24 men. So far, there is no room for them at the Inn. Perhaps it's a good thing. This Walsingham Inn is turning into a third-rate L-shaped motel from Vegas. Pray that another one can be build in the same street, one that has a chapel built by Pugin.

P.K.T.P.

Hugo Mendez said...

P. K. T. P.

I believe you meant "St. Hippolytus." Hippolytus did not die a heretic.

Anonymous said...

What did the Sarum Rite look like? Was it similar to the Tridentine Latin Mass or the Roman Rite?

I know it is nothing like the Novus Ordo mess.

Athelstane said...

...while at the same time taking into account the best elements of contemporary worship available, whether from the Roman Missal of 1969 (but now in its third edition) or from modern Church of England best practice.

That would have to be one of the world's shortest lists.

Anonymous said...

@Hugo Mendez & P.K.T.P.

St. Hippolytus of Rome was never a heretic to begin with, but a schismatic. In point of fact, until his election as antipope, his career had rather resembled that of modern icons of Tradition such as Abp. Lefebvre and the Abbé de Nantes.

Earlier, he had accused Pope St. Zephyrinus of Modalism, and his advisor and successor St. Callixtus I of Sabellianism. Further scandalized by a relaxation in penitential discipline, he encouraged (or at least allowed) a small group of followers to declare Callixtus deposed for heresy and for imposing laws contrary to Apostolic Tradition, and to elect himself to the Holy See instead. However, unlike Tertullian, he did not go over to the Montanists or other heretics. After nearly two deacades of schism, he was eventually reconciled to Pope St. Pontian when they were exiled to Sardinia together, under Maximinus Thrax, shortly before they were both martyred.

Some later accounts (including an inscription placed on his tomb by Pope St. Damasus I in the late IVth century) describe Hippolytus as a reformed Novatianist, but this is apparently due to confusion with another IIIrd century martyr of the same name (St. Hippolytus of Porto), as his martyrdom predates Novatian's schism by some fifteen years. Scholarship in the wake of the XVIIIth century discovery of his Philosophumena (alias Refutation of All Heresies), finally exploded the story of him being a Novatianist.

The old Catholic Encyclopedia describes St. Hippolytus as "the most important theologian...of the Roman Church in the pre-Constantinian era," though few of his writings are intact. While his theology was not perfect - in his oppostion to Modalism, he approached dangerously close to Ditheism, and he shared the Subordinationism of several other Ante-Nicene fathers (e.g., Origen and SS. Irenaeus & Justin Martyr) - he was nevertheless a steadfast opponent of the major heresies of his day, when the popes themselves seemed to be wavering. In attempting to depose a legitimate pope, he erred, but he seems never to have departed from orthodox doctrine.

All that being said, the integrity and liturgical worth of the purported "Canon of St. Hippolytus" (alias Eucharistic Prayer II) are open to dispute. It is an acknowledged scholarly reconstruction, based on sometimes doubtful sources, and has also been deliberately rearranged and rephrased in places. For my own part, I fail to see any advantage in it.

Jeremiah Methuselah said...

Look, I have a problem with (some) of these new coverts to the One, True, Holy, Roman Catholic Faith. Of course we rejoice in their courageous decision to witness the Roman Catholic Church as the ONLY means to Salvation, but do they enter our Church in humility, as we did, or do they come with conditions ? Welcome me, welcome my rite.

Why bring with their own-inspired services with ? Are our own, long established ways of worship not enough ? Do we honestly need more novelty ?

What are they "converting to" ?

Please, will some kind soul explain to me ?

And, while I am about it, why is it that the Rev Keith looks to me rather like a (married) bishop ?

JM

Anonymous said...

Wow! I made one slip on St. Hippolytus and the eagles dive for me eyes! Still, I welcome the correction. But as the Anonymous poster admits, he was at one time a schismatic and he was for a time suspected of heresy, even if through confusion with another Hippoltus. My main point had been that there is no clear evidence that his Canon was ever used in Masses. So why it would be an item of interest for 'ressourcement' liberals is an exceelent question.

Fr. Aidan Nichols claims that the Consilium's members were animated by ressourcement and aggiornamento. If you look at what they did when they concocted a Mass mostly out of thier perfervid imaginations, there is more evidence that they were 'inspired' by the spirit of Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and Cranmer and of the Modernist heretics.

'Ressourcement' does not mean going back to any source. Frandkly, the whole idea smacks of the archæologism condemned by Pius XII in 1948 in "Mediator Dei", and it reminds me of what the primitivist Puritans did in the sixteenth century. Ah, let us sweep away these mediæval liturgical cobwebs and return to a primitive purity. It usually means a puritan's conception of how things must have been rather than what reliable sources indicate.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 19.12:

Sarum was a Use of the Traditional Latin Rite and is similar to it. Like many mediæval uses, it has only the skeleton of our Offertory, which was developed at Rome late in the fourteenth century. There are some florid Gallican bits which most of us would like, such as the priest's pryaer of reception.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Why not resurrect Sarum, asks one here:

1. We have lost a complete set of the ancient rubrics.

2. It must be sung and has at least seven servers, so it is unpractical today for constant use in parishes.

3. It would not preserve the beautiful prayers of the Anglican patrimony, which are a literary treasure and are beneficial insofar as they have been deCranmerised.

I do favour adopting the Sarum priest's prayer of reception and the Prayer to the Heavenly Father in the Sarum private prayers of the priest before Holy Communion.

But Sarum has only the opening and closing prayers of our Offertory, which needs to be there. That Offertory is an especially valuable set of prayers inimicable to Protestant theology. It was not particularly useful to fight Protestant error when it was devised because there were no Protestants then (except for the Hussites).

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Here we go again! "Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it." What is not being said here, is that the Vatican Secretariat of State and the local Roman bishops are fighting to the death to prevent the spread of the Traditional Roman Rite of the Sacred Liturgy in *any* language.

That is why, as evidenced by the above article, the Traditional Anglican Communion and related groups are being hindered at every turn, against the will of the Pope, because they understand and want to practise the Traditional Catholic Faith, not some namby-pamby, Freemasonic-inspired substitution for the same, imposed by the Lavender Mafia.

The double-speak in the article is so egregious and so factually distorted as to be one huge lie regarding the liturgical Tradition. But because the Forward in Faith groupings--who are nothing but liberals--are in tight with the Lavender Mafia and hate the Traditional Roman Liturgy, they are the favoured children.

Meanwhile, the truly traditional Anglicans seeking reunion are harassed and left standing before the door of the True Church by the false bishops inside.

Perhaps it is time for the TAC and like-minded Anglicans to make a "Credo" pilgrimage to Rome, much like the FSSPX did, so many years ago.

May God deliver us from those traitors within the gates, who seek to destroy the One True Church by replacing her with the New World Order of Ecumenism-of-no-return, Homosexualism, and Freemasonry--er, Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality.

Error non gaudet jus.

Gideon Ertner said...

"How is it possible to include in official Catholic liturgical books readings from theologians who died as members of a heretical organization?"

Believe it or not, this kind of thing is not exactly unprecendented. Eastern Churches that reconciled with Rome have been allowed to retain thdeir veneration of saints who died outside of Catholic communion.

And even many years before the Council, hymns written by Protestants were accepted into official Catholic hymnbooks in northern Europe.

Finally, the Anglican Use liturgy already contains a lot of Cranmer's texts, though of course only those that are consistent with the Faith.

Gideon Ertner said...

New Catholic, I am not sure this is as monstrous as it might sound to some.

As I read it, the Ordinariate liturgy will be the Book of Common Prayer supplied with some more Sarum material (thus producing a more 'traditional' BCP) and topped up with a few references to the contemporary Roman Rite in its 'FiF Use'. But let's see. We only have Fr. Nichols' word for this.

I take comfort in the fact that the people whom I have heard are working on this - Mgr Elliot, Mgr Burnham - have great respect for the traditional Roman Rite and seem like genuine good eggs.

Anonymous said...

I just don't get why ROme keeps turning its' back on fostering the Traditional Liturgies. Why not take the Sarum RIte, of ancient use and slightly modify it to meet current possibilites and limitations. (If they don't or can't find 7 ministers). At least it is part of history and would become again familiar with folk throughout England and the world. It just seems wrong at this historic opportunity to not use something so beautiful and invaluable that exists, waiting to be rediscovered. The Sarum Rite.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Ertner:

I fail to see why you are so confident. The FiF men are mostly those who are Novus Ordo Anglicans. Of the few who are not, at least one has abandoned entry while the ordination of the other has been "deferred". I have detailed information sent to me privately regarding the unnamed man, a 'Missal Anglican' from the FiF. What I conclude from his remarks is that Msgr. Newton and Bishop Alan Hopes have been weeding out candidates who are not N.O. men or those who want to 'keep their Anglican patrimony'. Newton and Hopes interview each candidate and, from what I'm hearing, they make non-N.O. men unwelcome.

Meanwhile, Bishop Mercer holds back with his 24 men and waits. It is said that he is waiting for his people to make up their minds. What are they all really waiting for? They are waiting to see if the liberal bastards from the magic circle in England will try to shove parts of the N.O. down their throats, especially its Freemasonic Offertory and its Protestant E.P. No. 2. I don't blame them.

I ask everyone to pray ardently for Bishop Mercer and the TAC people in England. We know from experience what they are up against. You do know that, don't you, Mr. Ertner? You do know how low a liberal will stoop. Have you heard about the 'reChristened' statue of St. Pius X in Buenos Aires? The liberals are such low scum that they actually chiselled off the face of St. Pius X and replaced it with a marble 'mask'--of the face of John Paul II! How appropriate, as they have replaced the true face of the Catholic Faith with a pale reflection of it. Don't forget for one second what we are dealing with here. It has a sulphorous odour.

P.K.T.P.

P.S. When I heawrd about the Buenois Aires case in the minor basilica there, I knew instantly that we are dealing with insects.

DefensorFidei said...

"Of the few who are not, at least one has abandoned entry while the ordination of the other has been 'deferred'"

P.K.T.P, I know that the one whose ordination has been deferred is John Hunwicke, but who is the other one who has abandoned entry?

Anonymous said...

Allowing Cranmerian texts to be used is just insane. What are they thinking of! Texts conceived in heresy by a heretic with the intent to plant heresy in catholic minds. There was and is plenty of scope to help the English feel "English" as well as Catholic, but this is crossing the line! Giving heed to the invented liturgical works of heretics! Unlike the schismatic "orthodox" their liturgical patrimony is NOT apostolic!

Bernonensis said...

"... the sort of Eucharistic Order Cranmer might well have established had he been doctrinally orthodox (and lived in the twentieth century."

Had he been doctrinally orthodox he would not have dared to tamper with the existing "Eucharistic Order".

Albertus said...

If Father Aidan's account is correct, then the new ''ex-anglican patrimonial'' liturgy will be a mishmash of Cranmerian invention, Bugninian invention with some echoes of the Sarum Use and of the Roman Rite. It will not be an authentic, handed down Rite. But isn't that opposed to the Orthodox and Catholic concept of handed-down, organically developed liturgy, which is itself a living reflexion of the Divine and Aostolic Tradition? Doesn't this go against the happily rediscovered liturgical insights of the present pontificate? Didn't Cardinal Ratzinger write agaisnt committe-fabricated liturgy? What is wrong with reviving the Sarum Use? Are seven servers impossible to find? (where the need is made known, the need is usually supplied.) Must the Mass be quickly read rather than solemnly chanted, even on Sundays and Feastdays? And why not translate the Traditional Roman Rite into a sacred vernacular style for alternative use by former Anglo-Catholics and even Roman-Rite Cathlics? Indeed, i too think that what the Church does not need is one more confusing liturgical novelty.

Bernonensis said...

The Sarum use is not alone in calling for more resources than the ordinary parish can muster. Has a team of seven priests ever made a sick call in your local hospital? That's what the Byzantine liturgy prescribes for the anointing of the sick. Since that kind of clerical manpower is unavailable outside of monasteries, the parish priest goes alone, just as he regularly sings the parts of the Liturgy that belong to the deacon and the choir when they are absent. What he doesn't do, and what the Church doesn't do for him, is toss the traditional rite aside for something more convenient.

Anonymous said...

Why is it that so many people thought Anglicanorum Coetibus would help the cause of the traditional Roman litury?

The reality is surely that the opposite will be achieved with groups of people who are perfectly content to celebrate the Novus Ordo, in the vernacular. The nett effect will be strengthening of the 'conservative' agenda and a weaking of the traditional position.

Anonymous said...

Anon. 16.22:

You are confused. Most of the incomers internationally are NOT Novus Ordo Anglicans and are therefore NOT content to celebrate the N.O. The problem is that Rome is bringing in the N.O. Anglicans and, so far, excluding the non-N.O. Anglicans who want to come in. Read carefully.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I agree that a mishmash is not 'organic development'.

The purpose of the ordinariates, however, is one of preservation, not concoction. The idea that Cranmerian liturgy is out since Cranmer was a heretic is mistaken. Heretics and schismatics have had an effect on traditional liturgy in the past. One may be a heretic in some things and orhtodox in others. The Cranmerian liturgy used by continuers has long ago been purged of heresy. The only remaining problem is its association with heresy but this is dissipating as the Canterburian Anglicans divorce themselves from their own past.

The TAC incomers are orthodox in belief but are also attached to the liturgical patrimony of their childhood and families. That patrimony happens to include treasures of English language and hymnody of the same value as the plays of Shakespeare and the rhyming couplets of Alexander Pope. H.H. is trying to help these people Some of them will no doubt be offering the T.L.M. under their own ordinaries as well, such as Fr. Chris Lepage of Prince Edward Island in Canada. At this point, the hope is that the right sort will not be subjected to Novus Ordo Anglican conservatives. Let's withhold our ignorance and judgementalism and pray for the TAC people. They have been persecuted from all sides now for over thirty years. We know the feeling, so we can appreciate the problem. They are being pounced on by exactly the same people-and for the same reasons--as we. Please let that sink in a bit.

P.K.T.P.

Anonymous said...

One problem with reviving Sarum after 470 years (and no copy of its complete rubrics) is that it is completely divorced from the culture of the incomers and even from that of English recusants, who switched to the Roman Mass under the influence of the Jesuit missionaries in the ages of persecution.

The idea here is to preserve the Anglican patrimony insofar as it is not Protestant. A non-Protestant Anglican liturgy is already developed but is wanting in places. This need mainly to be wedded to the Roman Offertory and Roman Canon. Such a marriage helps to supply what is missing or wanting in the incomers' liturgy *in light of* the Protestant heresies which have been rejected. This is why I oppose restoration of the Sarum Offertory. That mediæval Offertory was abolished in its formative period. It had the opening and closing prayers of our Traditional Roman Offertory but not the others. In light of the heresies that were to come, the other prayers of the Roman version are really needed. What was needful theologically in 1350 is not what is needful after 1600. In the Byzantine Rite, prayers were added to clarify a rejection of particular heresies after they arose.

In some important places, I do favour restoration of Sarum prayers where the Anglican parts are wanting. This could be done in particular in the Communion. So I'd recommend this fusion:

1. Mainly an Anglican prayerbook Mass from opening to Offertory.

2. The Traditional (pre-conciliar) Roman Offertory and Canon.

3. The Communion would combine elements from the prayerbook tradition and the Sarum Use.

It does require an arrangement but not a concoction. There would be no composition of new prayers.

P.K.T.P.

P.K.T.P.

Albertus said...

'It does require an arrangement but not a concoction. There would be no composition of new prayers.''
SOMETHING LIKE THIS might indeed work, and, as you say, would only be an arrangment of traditional elements, rather than a conconction by a comittee of diubious orthodoxy and liturgical talent. It would draw from both traditional Roman and Sarum uses, and would thus have an authentically English flavour to it. However, i fear that this would be considerd too good of a thing for the post-conciliar Vatican burocrats to even consider.