Wednesday, April 8, 2020

"Outliers . . . Don't Work And Play Well With Others"

My regular correspondent raised two issues over yesterday's post:
Your thesis exactly accords with my observations on the Ordinariates from the beginning, and I mean back to the days of The Anglo-Catholic. They have attracted primarily those who were outliers, and while they may have tried to frame the narrative as one of wanderers at last coming in to a safe haven, in fact many of them don’t work and play well with others in the Church any more than they did in their previous denomination. Mr [redacted], of course, is now SSPX and occasionally lobs a grenade into the Anglican Ordinariates Informal Conversation Forum, making points not unlike your own ie that the Ordinariates lack liturgical integrity and consistent discipline.
There's a double problem with how Anglicanorum coetibus has shaken out in the US. The first is that it hasn't attracted many Anglicans, either in absolute numbers or, even worse, relative numbers. The ACNA has been far more effective in providing a more "orthodox" (at least from an overall Christian perspective insofar as it shares traditional teachings on marriage and sexuality) alternative to The Episcopal Church.

But there's another problem even here, since more centrist Anglicans have always been suspicious of Anglo-Catholics since the start of the Oxford Movement, specifically on the grounds of sexuality. It's hard to avoid a concern not fully expressed out of decorum in the low-church tract I quoted yesterday, that there was an agenda behind the Anglican missal movement of the 1920s to bring toleration of Anglo-Catholic sexuality into the larger Episcopal Church.

A key complaint in the tract is that the Anglican missal advocates claim they're adding Roman theology to Anglican liturgy in the name of Church unity, when in fact the missal movement is highly divisive in parishes when it gains a foothold. This is a cousin of the 21st century secular alphabet agenda, which insists that bizarrely deviant sexual expression be accepted on the basis of tolerance, when, once it's tolerated, it becomes the basis for proselytism -- witness drag queen story hours and mandatory same-sex ed for elementary students.

The second issue, and I think it's related, is that the uniate missal is an innovation, pure and simple -- it dates from no earlier than the 20th century. But ordinariate apologists fuzz this over, for instance on the website of the St John Henry Newman group in Victoria, BC:

Our Ordinariate Form of the Roman Rite, Divine Worship, approved by the Holy See, is rooted in the liturgical and spiritual patrimony of the English and Anglican traditions as found in the Use of Sarum, the various editions of the Book of Common Prayer, and the English and Anglican Missals.
This is similar to what Bp Lopes said in his 2017 Vienna address:
The search for the authentic faith of the Church within Anglican worship allows us to situate Divine Worship firmly within the shape and context of the Roman Rite so that it might be approached in a manner which respects its own integrity and authority.
Except that all that's been done has been to take the Book of Common Prayer, pretty much snip out the part of the mass between the Creed and the Agnus Dei, and replace it with an archaized Roman Canon. Sarum Use has nothing do to do with it. It's like the lady at the counter at Taco Bell who asks you if you want Swiss or American cheese on your taco. It doesn't matter if they wear sombreros on Cinco de Mayo, this is not authentic, and there's no integrity.

The outlier part concerns me, too. It's increasingly clear that the North American ordinariate isn't even attracting many Anglicans. The angry visitor whom I'd characterized as a Catholic turned Anglican turned Catholic again corrected me: in the period he'd attended mass at the "affirming" St Clement's parish in Philadelphia, he'd remained a cradle Catholic and attended a proper Sacrament on Sunday before then betaking himself to St Clement's, where apparently for some years he gave the impression that he was a communicant, but he wasn't. Or something.

A certain contingent of members, cradle Catholics, appear to be attracted by features like de facto compulsory reception of the Sacrament kneeling, on the tongue, when in the US, for a priest to force a communicant to do this is a canonical violation, and reception in the hand is actually the "Anglican patrimony". Again, we're looking at a movement that's pushing the limits of opposing authority, and in fact at least two priests insisted they would administer only on the tongue in the face of recent health advice that this was dangerous.

Whatever the frequency, Kenneth, it's not very Anglican, and not all that Catholic, either. It isn't even prudent from a secular perspective, which ought to be troubling.

I continue to think that the combination of suspended public meetings, the financial precariousness of the ordinariate and most of its communities, and changing health awareness in the population will make these matters largely moot as we recover from the virus threat. That this strange episode should simply die out would, I think, be the most desirable outcome.

Tuesday, April 7, 2020

The Anglican Missals In Context

We've seen that the interdicasterial commission Anglicanae Traditiones, whose representative from the CDF was now-Bp Lopes, selected a version of the uniate missal, variously called the Anglican or English Missal, as the chief model for the Divine Worship Missal. Beyond that, we know very little, as in his 2017 address, Bp Lopes suggested there were things he would not be allowed to say about the process.

However, in the Wikipedia entries for Anglican Missal and English Missal, we can at least learn that the idea of a uniate missal that combined translations of the Roman Canon with passages from the Book of Common Prayer took root in the early 20th century. Something called The English Missal was published by W. Knott & Son Limited in 1912. I've already referred to The Anglican Missal, first produced in England in 1921 by the Society of SS. Peter and Paul.

There have been other variations on the idea. None has ever been adopted officially by any Anglican denomination. The adoption of a redacted version by Anglicanae Traditiones and its use under the auspices of Anglicanorum coetibus is certainly a belated development. However, we know nothing of which of the several versions was the point of departure, nor the nature of the deliberations that took place in making the decision or decisions. All we know is that the commission met three times per year over a five-year period, which suggests only that few details entered the debate, and it mostly ratified staff proposals on a perfunctory basis.

The belatedness of the Church's ratification of the idea is striking. The Anglican missal movement began a century before the adoption of the DWM, but among Anglicans it was highly controversial, and after the peak of Anglo-Catholicism in the 1920s and 30s, it seems to have become something of a specialized cult, similar in its way to vegetarianism, and as that sort of cult, it probably attracted devotees of other eccentric cults.

The Wikipedia entry for Anglican Missal contains a link to a low-Church Episcopalian tract on the American Missal edition that's undated but must date fairly close to its US publication in the 1920s. It contains reproductions of pages from the actual missal that look quite a bit like the pages of the DWM, another indication of its inspiration. Here's a passage from the tract:

The most candid and serious defense of the book has been put forth in The Churchman, by one of the Missal's editors, Dr. Douglas. It is worthy of the most thoughtful consideration. He claims that its purpose was to check the use of frankly Roman uses. Here is his exact language:

"Two new foreign publications found their way to American altars, The English Missal and the Anglican Missal. The latter claimed to contain the American rite, but did so only in a garbled and imperfect form. Both books were frankly Roman; rearranging the order of the Eucharist more Romano, interpolating the Canon of the Roman Mass before the Prayer of Consecration, and adopting the Roman Calendar even to such feasts as those of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin and of St. Peter's Chair at Rome. To many of us these books seemed alien in manner, inadequate in preparation, and disloyal not only to our formularies, but to our whole morale as a Church." To check this evil he agreed to co-operate with Bishop Ivins "in the preparation of an altar book not open to these grave objections." What an admission! This book that we find "so disloyal not only to our formularies but to our whole morale as a Church," to use Dr. Douglas's own language, with its propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass, its prayers to the Virgin and the Saints, its feast of the Conception of the Virgin and of the Chains, if not of the Chair of St. Peter, with its directions for signs of the Cross, holy water, incensing, genuflecting, kissing hands, with requiem masses for the dead and absolution for the dead, is, it is revealed to us, an effort on the part of the more conservative Anglo-Catholics to control their more [57/58] extreme brethren. These are the uses that have been practiced and are being recommended by the more moderate Anglo-Catholics. It is no wonder that the inauguration of an Anglo-Catholic rector is followed by the disruption of his parish and the secession from the parish of people grounded in the teachings of the Prayer Book.

How can the General Convention ignore the existence of such conditions, or the Bishops consent to visit in their Episcopal capacity parishes whose rectors are using such garbled and disloyal renditions of our Communion office? Bishop Parsons, one of our most liberal bishops, and an influential exponent of the mind of our Church at the Lausanne Conference, puts the case in a nutshell:

"Every congregation of this Church has the right to be protected from the individualism of the priest. We are not a conglomerate of. independent congregations but a church organized with a code of law."

We look to the General Convention to make those words good. If such overt lawlessness and disloyalty to the spirit of our Church escapes censure, we might as well give up legislating and abandon the pretence of having any discipline.

Those who defended the Roman style missals suggested they could be used as private supplements to the BCP liturgy, or that by adopting them, TEC could appease the Anglo-Catholic faction and prevent even worse abuse.

The low-church response had some merit, even if in an Anglican context it was unrealistic:

When an organization discards certain things by law it is sheer anarchy to permit their re-introduction without legal warrant. Mariolatry, Invocation of Saints and the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass were taken out of the devotions of the English Church at the Reformation and repudiated in the Articles. The omission is of itself sufficient to rule them out of the devotions, but the repudiation in the Articles double-locks the door. The prevalence of the Missal would mean that in an age which needs to be taught respect for law, the Church disregards its own law. The advocates of the Missal claim to be exponents of the claims of authority: their book is a manifestation of lawlessness and extreme individualism.
Frederick Kinsman's resignation as TEC Bishop of Delaware, though, was still fairly recent in the time of this debate, and he left TEC specifically because it had already proven itself unable to enforce authority.

But I keep coming back to the insights of Cardinal Mahony, faced with the petition of the Anglo-Catholic St Mary of the Angels parish to enter his archdiocese in 1986: if the parish had shown it couldn't adhere to Episcopalian authority -- which it hadn't, since it seceded from TEC -- what assurance could it give that it would conform to Roman Catholic authority? More than three decades later, we can see by that parish's subsequent record that Mahony was prescient. But the record of Fr Phillips and the Our Lady of the Atonement parish has been little different.

So I still wonder what the Church has brought in by encouraging a form of exclusive cultishness that had its origin in an anti-authoritarian movement. Keep in mind, if the people who favored a Roman Catholic liturgy in a Protestant denomination had actually been so sympathetic to Rome, they always had the door open to simple conversion. Why did they insist on remaining a faction? And why do they want in effect to continue as a faction, a special case, once they've actually made the move to Rome?

I continue to think Cardinal Mahony's had a bad rap.

Monday, April 6, 2020

Kenneth, What Is The Frequency?

Among the questions that have come to mind over the last few days is exactly why the Anglican project dropped the Book of Divine Worship in favor of an entirely new Divine Worship Missal, especially since, as it's been related to me, the BDW had a version of Eucharistic Prayer III, intended for general use in Sunday masses. while the DWM has none.

Some web searches, plus input from the angry visitor who's been my informant in these matters,. provide an answer. The shift from the BDW to the DWM reflected a major change in the focus behind the Anglican project, or maybe the frequency on which it transmits.

The Wikipedia entry for the Book of Divine Worship is informative:

The Book of Divine Worship (BDW) was an adaptation of the American Book of Common Prayer (BCP) by the Roman Catholic Church. It was used primarily by former members of the Episcopal Church within Anglican Use parishes of the Pastoral Provision and the Personal Ordinariates. It has been replaced by a new book to be used worldwide, titled Divine Worship: The Missal.

. . . When use of the revised English translation of the Novus Ordo Mass went into effect on 27 November 2011, use of the "Rite II" modern language version of the Holy Eucharist in the Book of Divine Worship was suppressed, and parishes had the option of using the "Rite I" traditional language Anglican Use liturgy or conforming to the Novus Ordo liturgy used in parishes not part of the Pastoral Provision.

. . . The Book of Divine Worship contained elements of the 1928 and 1979 American editions of the Book of Common Prayer as well as the 1970 Roman Missal, Missale Romanum.

The Book of Divine Worship was seen as US-centric and was not used in parishes of the Personal Ordinariates outside the USA, but was instrumental in the joint development of a new liturgy by the Interdicasterial Commission Anglicanae Traditiones. . . . Beginning in 2013, as Pastoral Provision aka Anglican Use parishes in the United States migrated from their geographic dioceses into the Ordinariate and as new parishes were established within the Ordinariate, any parishes using the Book of Divine Worship transitioned to the new ordinariate liturgy. As of November 2015 all but two Anglican Use parishes had migrated from their local diocese into the Ordinariate and use of the Book of Divine Worship for the Holy Eucharist had almost entirely ceased. As of 1 January 2016, the Vatican withdrew permission for use of the book in public worship.

The passages from Bp Lopes's 2017 address that I quoted yesterday provide a slightly different perspective:
When we speak of the “Anglican patrimony” preserved in the Ordinariates, certainly liturgical expression is the most tangible expression of patrimony and the most distinctive feature of Catholic life in the Ordinariates. . . . The search for the authentic faith of the Church within Anglican worship allows us to situate Divine Worship firmly within the shape and context of the Roman Rite so that it might be approached in a manner which respects its own integrity and authority.
I take this to imply, in a very roundabout and clumsy way, that Anglicanae Traditiones was going to move the whole focus of the Anglican Use project away from an effort to replicate The Episcopal Church without its controversial elements, such as ordination of women, openly gay bishops, and gay marriage, as a clone that was otherwise recognizably Episcopalian. This in fact was something at which the ACNA has been relatively successful. Instead, Anglicanae Traditiones was going to eliminate the most recognizably Episcopalian element of the Anglican Use project, a liturgy that resembled the US 1979 Book of Common Prayer, and replace it entirely with a 20th century English innovation, the Anglican Missal.

I raised this with the angry visitor who's been my most informative oracle on these issues, as he appears to vibrate on the relevant frequency. He answered,

Why would you think that the Ordinariate was going to basically use the 1979 BCP with the post conciliar Eucharistic prayers? That was clearly never the population that was going to respond to this offer. I have to assume the people who are happy with The 1979 BCP were also happy with the innovations in the Episcopal Church since 1976. Eventually some people got tired of the revisionist agenda and left for the African affiliated Anglican groups but they certainly weren’t looking for Catholic sacramental theology or ecclesiology.
But then he gets to the meat of the problem:
The fact that you continually ask the same question why is the Ordinariate not appealing to more people like you would suggest that there is a large population of people like you, people who like middle of the road liturgy but still expect To come into a separate Ordinariate structure. Why would you bother? Why would your children bother? The part you don’t seem to get is that the vast majority of people who were interested in the Ordinariate know the sort of liturgy that you think is completely esoteric and marginal. Moreover they would argue that that liturgy has formed them deeply and is not merely a small fraction of their day or their lives as Catholics. Prayer shapes belief. I’m sure it is the same case with you.
The question I'm asking is not why the Church doesn't have an ordinariate for 1979 BCP Episcopalians' the question I'm asking is why there is an ordinariate at all, when it's likely that far more Episcopalians already come to diocesan parishes via RCIA than come into the ordinariate in any given year. Those who are attracted to the Anglican Missal style of worship -- a 20th century innovation of highly dubious provenance -- are at best a boutique market.

More to the point, this market has never been able to sustain a diocese-like enterprise. Houston must rely on its bishop's appeal to sustain its own minimal chsncery operations, rather than use it to subsidize schools and parishes like real dioceses.

The only school in the ordinariate, established in a BDW, Anglican Use environment, appears to be on very shaky ground now that its corrupt administration has been purged. Uncertain economic conditions going forward make it unlikely that any but the strongest ordinariate communities can continue. It seems to me that it's hard to argue that the market for a boutique, missal style liturgy can support itself now. Those who support it so vocally, like the angry visitor, strike me as an entitled bunch who want to ride a liturgical first class but won't pay for it. At least the wealthy gilded-age Episcopalians paid for their preference.

My point simply isn't that there needs to be a prelature for middle-of-the-road Episcopalians. My point is that any prelature specifically for Anglicans of any flavor is a make-work project, a boondoggle, a career factory for mediocrities. I suspect the Church will be forced, given economic realities, to recognize this and reabsorb ordinariate communities, or at least the few that survive, into a diocesan structure similar to Latin mass. Or perhaps just drop the project altogether.

Sunday, April 5, 2020

Some Questions, An Answer, And Another Question

I'm grateful to the angry visitor whom I've been quoting over the past few days for leading me to some important questions that, for whatever reason, nobody has asked up to now. I'll have more on my visitor below, but here are some points that have come up in my initial research on the sources for the Divine Worship Missal.

I went back to Bp Lopes's 2017 address to the Institut für Historische Theologie – Liturgiewissenschaft und Sakramententheologie Katholisch-Theologische Fakultät at the University of Vienna, which was an odd, not fully coherent outline of the CDF's role in the Inquisition and how it relates to Anglicaorum coebibus, or something like that. (I'm not exaggerating; read the thing.)

Its final section deals, but doesn't really deal, with liturgy. I re-read Bp Lopes's remarks in the new context that my angry visitor provided, that the DW Missal owes a great deal to the Anglican missal movement, (I'll have more to say about this in another post.) Bp Lopes's remarks are remarkably uninformative:

When we speak of the “Anglican patrimony” preserved in the Ordinariates, certainly liturgical expression is the most tangible expression of patrimony and the most distinctive feature of Catholic life in the Ordinariates.

. . . {In 2010 a}n interdicasterial commission was established and given the name Anglicanae traditiones. . . . I was appointed to represent the CDF as coordinating secretary of the Commission. CDW would appoint another official, and the two Dicasteries together would name a handful of members and consultants. Over the course of the next 5 years, the Commission met about three times a year.

. . . There was—and I suppose there continues to be—great confusion caused by the tremendous variety of liturgical forms in the Anglican world, each of which advances a competing claim to patrimony and to authority as “Anglican use”. Even following the publication of Anglicanorum coetibus, no fewer than six different liturgical books were being used for the celebration of the Eucharist by Ordinariate communities at the time the liturgical Commission began its work.

. . . The search for the authentic faith of the Church within Anglican worship allows us to situate Divine Worship firmly within the shape and context of the Roman Rite so that it might be approached in a manner which respects its own integrity and authority.

. . . There is obviously much more that can be said about the actual working of the Commission and the patrimonial texts involved and, to the extent that I am allowed and able, I may address some of these in a period of questions. But I conclude this lecture . . . (pp 15-17)

Well, this is another example of the bishop's gaseous style. What he seems to be saying is that it would be a big job actually to identify the Anglican patrimony, so, meeting three times a year, the commission wasn't going to do that, and they basically picked a source for the DW Missal. But he implies that he's not really allowed to say what the source is, so he doesn't. If someone asks him exactly the right question, maybe he'll say, maybe not.

So what was the source? The angry visitor gives a possible lead, something called the Anglican Missal, which according to Wikipedia

was first produced in England in 1921 by the Society of SS. Peter and Paul. The book reflected a particular way, drawn from the traditional Roman Rite, of celebrating the Eucharist according to Anglican liturgical use. It was brought to the United States, Canada, and other English-speaking countries over the course of the 20th century.
In an e-mail, he goes on to say that a Fr James Bradley has explained on his blog "just how much of the DW Missal borrows propers from the Anglican Missals and other sources like the plainchant published by the Community of St. Mary the Virgin, Wantage". I ran Fr James Bradley by my regular correspondent, who says
He is the Vice-Chancellor of the UK ordinariate, despite being based in the US, as a newly-appointed professor of Canon Law at Catholic University. Maybe in line to be bishop of the OOLW when Msgr Newton retires?
So another question comes to mind, which is that the DW Missal is normally attributed to a Herr Professor Doktor Feulner in Vienna, but apparently he's just the guy who identified what to copy and paste or something. Clearly there's more to learn here. Browsing Fr Bradley's blog, I find little more than the usual weepy grandiosity we read from people like Fr Bengry. If others can provide insight, I'll appreciate it.

Another visitor provided information on the angry visitor who's been feeding me these leads. While he's asked me not to publish his name, it turns out the other visitor could identify him and tells me he's "a Catholic-turned-Anglican-turned-Catholic-again, who in his Anglican days hung out at St. Clement's, Philadelphia, at one time the only 'out and proud' Anglo-Papalist parish in PECUSA."

So I have a question for the angry visitor. What led you to leave the Catholic Church to become Anglican -- in particular, not a run-of-the-mill 1979 BCP parish, but a drive across the river to one of the leading "affirming" missal parishes? And what then led you to leave the "affirming" parish to return to the Church -- but of course, not to any run-of-the-mill OF parish, but to an ordinariate community? What was special about it that made you feel you could return to the Church?

And what's the source of your clear contempt for all your fellow Catholics in OF parishes?

Saturday, April 4, 2020

There Are Actually Two Threads To The Anglican Prelature Story

This blog, heavily influenced by the published accounts of figures like Fr Barker and Msgr Stetson, has dwelt on the administrative history for Anglicanorum coetibus, seeing its start with the 1976 Episcopalian General Convention, the secessionist movement that resulted, then-Bp Law's work to form the Pastoral Provision, its imperfect record, and the 1993 proposal for an Anglican personal prelature that came to fruition under Benedict.

However, the angry visitor who's been sending me e-mails over the past couple of weeks is helping me focus on a second, and I think probably older, thread in the story, the uniate mass that became the basis for the Divine Worship Missal, which I'll call the liturgical thread as opposed to the administrative thread.

One issue I'm working through is that we're Catholics 24/7/365. Even if we go to daily mass -- in fact, even if we're priests -- we spend only a small fraction of that total time in liturgy. The rest is occupied with developing habits of virtue, constructive labor, acts of charity, study and reflection, recreation, and so forth. If I'm traveling, I still need to find a Sunday mass, whether that new parish is happy-clappy or not. Celebrating just exactly the right liturgy is pretty far down on my list of daily priorities, even as a serious Catholic.

I think this points to the visitor whom I quoted yesterday, who found that a diocesan parish was preferable to an ordinariate parish if he was going to prioritize issues like stability or support for a family. That again leaves me shaking my head over what the priorities are for angry guys like the other correspondent I quoted in yesterday's post. He went beyond what I quoted then to ask

[T]he only person who seems to think he was sold a bill of goods is the one person who seems not to have understood any of the goods he apparently witnessed at St Mary. Did you actually attend Mass there? Were you paying attention at all?
I assume the "goods" he's referring to are the uniate liturgy that was celebrated there, which was very close to what emerged in the Divine Worship Missal. It was the same over-the-top mixture of 1928 BCP, Roman Canon, Last Gospel, and communion on the tongue. Like the DW Missal, it incorporated non-Anglican features in the name of Anglican patrimony. At this point in history, I don't think anyone knows exactly when this started at St Mary of the Angels. The best Fr Kelley could come up with was that former parishioners who remembered the time about 1960 said such a mass had been in use there at the time.

It was generally understood when I was at that parish that a high mass using that liturgy took two hours. A number of us thought that was too long, and we mentioned it to Fr Kelley as something to be addressed in our plans to enter the ordinariate. I recognize that other people claim a DW high mass can be done in 1:15 or so, but this will inevitably vary with the parish, and two hours in my own experience is realistic.

But the angry visitor is clearly puzzled that I don't see this as a feature rather than a bug, and he takes it for granted that I'm misunderstanding the whole program if I think the point of Anglicanorum coetibus is to make Episcopalians want to become Catholic. In an earlier angry e-mail, he said

Again, these arguments require a grounding in history. Fond du Lac and Eau Claire had a majority of Missal parishes, and not just Douglas's fastidious non-Romish version but the full SSPP Anglican Missal at the altars. This was done with the full approbation of their bishops. Talking about middle of the road, Broad Church, Howard Johnson Rite II as somehow "patrimonial" requires us to act like a rite promulgated in 1976 bears the weight of tradition. The vast majority of Anglicans who took the Ordinariate offer seriously came from parishes with a history of Missal use, and who continued to use either one of the Missals (as did your own parish!) or Rite I with Roman enrichments like the Orate Fratres, the Domine, non sum dignus, and horror of horrors the Prayers at the Foot and the Last Gospel. These were not all "campy" aberrations, these were fairly mainstream Anglo-Catholic parishes. Your own favorite AC priest, Fr Moyer, used many of these enrichments as found in the privately printed Anglican Service Book at GSR. You should get a copy after you read more about actual Anglo Catholicism.

This idea that middle of the road suburban Anglicans that were happy with the ipsissima verba of the 1979 BCP would have been in anything approaching the majority of Anglicans in the US who advocated for the Ordinariate is risible. The idea that current or aspiring Ordinariate members should be scandalized that Fr Ousley is putting on a rite clearly indebted to the long history of Missalized liturgy in Anglicanism is . . . misguided, to say the least.

Except that uniate liturgies like the ones he mentions date from the early 20th century and were never authorized by any denomination. This was a persistent problem with Anglicanism, equivalent in its day to New Age Catholic priests inviting the laity to hold hands around the altar.

The missalized liturgy movement itself is something that as far as I'm aware hasn't been well documented, and we know still less about how it found its way into the process that led to Anglicanorum coetibus. What makes me uncomfortable is that the Anglo-Catholic or Anglican Papalist movement in the UK, which is where the angry visitor clearly traces its origins, was a hothouse version of Anglicanism that fully incorporated non-Catholic features like occultism and intergalactic amounts of same-sex attraction.

Exactly what precious treasures of the Anglican spiritual patrimony are we actually bringing in here? My spidey sense says there's an agenda. Yeah, if you want to support a family in a Catholic context, the ordinariate may well not be your best option.

Friday, April 3, 2020

______orum Coetibus?

I had this e-mail from a visitor a few days ago:
I'm a former high-church Episcopalian-turned-RC via the Ordinariate, who now worships in my local diocesan parish. I'm very sympathetic to your questions about what problems the Ordinariate is trying to solve. That's. . . not really clear, which is part of why I'm at a diocesan parish with resources for families, stability, and a proper religious education program.

I couldn't help but notice a significant and perhaps revealing error in the excerpt you reprinted from the Mt Calvary website:

Why do you receive Communion on the tongue at Mount Calvary? Can I receive Communion in the hand?

We encourage communicants to consider the example of Masses celebrated by Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis, where the faithful receive the Host directly on the tongue. Reception on the tongue is an ancient and honored practice in both the Divine Worship and the Roman Rite. As with the Roman Rite, communicants have the right to receive the Host either on the tongue or in the hand.

As Bishop Lopes himself has stated, the Ordinariate Use is:
. . . the Roman Rite as it was taken up and developed within an Anglican context and now reintegrated into Catholic worship...It is understandable that the nuances and accents would perhaps be different, but the basic shape and structure of the Mass remains the same. The Holy See has given the name 'Divine Worship' to our liturgical and sacramental rites, so we worship according to the 'Divine Worship' form of the Roman Rite.
The Ordinariate web site reinforces this:
Is the Ordinariate a separate Rite within the Catholic Church? No. The Ordinariate exists entirely within the context of the Roman Catholic Church. Its worship, while distinctive, is a form of the Roman Rite. Ordinariate parishes celebrate Mass using Divine Worship: The Missal, a definitive book of liturgical texts promulgated by the Vatican in Advent 2015. This missal uses Prayer Book English — language derived from the classic books of the Anglican liturgical tradition — that is fully Catholic in content and expression.
Whether it's a careless mistake or something else, its just inaccurate as a factual matter to draw a distinction between the Roman Rite and the Ordinariate Use as though they are on par, instead of the latter being a subset of the former. At worst, this also risks reinforcing a boutique or ghetto mentality (we're this but not that), which is already present in some quarters.

Just my two cents.

An angry visitor asked me yesterday,
who among the Ordinariate's potential members is looking for Rite II with EP III, especially considering the fact that the revision of the English Mass in 2011 supersedes the ICEL translations used in the 1979? Do you really think there is a large group of potential TEC converts to the Ordinariate who are looking for a plain vanilla Rite II with EP III? Why would they bother?
But the first visitor characterizes himself as a high-church Episcopalian (I assume he at least tolerated Rite Two) who found, on balance, that an EP III diocesan parish had more to offer a Catholic family than the ordinariate, He questions whether the ordinariate is in fact setting itself up as something separate, and of course better than, the diocesan Church.

And this goes to the reports I periodically hear that the CDF has been carefully edging away from terms like "Anglican Use" or "Anglican Ordinariates", as the people in them are no longer (or have never been) Anglican, and it could be ecumenically touchy to use the term. So now we see people on Facebook and elsewhere describing themselves as "Ordinariate Catholics". But why not, like the visitor himself here, just say they're a "former high-church Episcopalian turned RC"?

Doesn't the angry visitor just above help make his point? He's saying a normal 1979 BCP Episcopalian won't be interested in the ordinariates, and he's basically calling me a dummy for thinking that was ever the case. He feels the ordinariates are for those select people who want over-the-top, not just high church Episcopalian, not just the Roman Canon, but something infinitely, sublimely better!

I'll leave aside the question of how many people will be, or are, attracted to this enterprise if we drop 1979 BCP Episcopalians.

But what do we do? Delete the Anglican from Anglicanorum coetibus? What happened to if you like your Anglican, you can keep your Anglican? What happened to the precious spiritual treasures of the Anglican patrimony? What do you replace the blank with in ______orum coetibus?

Thursday, April 2, 2020

More On The Divine Worship Missal vs The Roman Canon

I'm going to postpone the post I'd originally intended to put up today until tomorrow, because I've had several thought-provoking comments on the Roman Canon as discussed in yesterday's post. I'm beginning to realize that we're in not fully explored territory when we try to compare the Roman Canon as a eucharistic prayer, one of four options in the OF English mass, with the Divine Worship Missal, which effectively contains the Roman Canon as the only option for Sunday mass. (I don't know what would happen if an ordinariate priest used the version of EP II in the DW Missal for a Sunday mass, but it would presumably create some type of problem.)

A visitor comments,

When you wrote "the pre-Conciliar Roman Canon took about an hour and a half on Sunday" I think you mean that the whole High Mass took about an hour and a half on Sunday, not the Roman Canon itself. That is, admittedly, a long prayer, whether you begin it, as was done in the Middle Ages, with the "Te igitur" after the Sanctus, or whether (in both pre-Medieval and post-Vatican II manner) with the dialogue, preface and Sanctus, and so on - but I doubt if it would take much more than 8 to 10 minutes (and possibly a bit less) if recited silently or sotto voce in Latin and maybe 10 to 11 minutes if recited aloud but briskly in English.
Yes, on reflection, there's a problem with pulling the Roman Canon out of its contexts, which I'll discuss below.

Another visitor comments,

In reality, the length of mass depends on how quickly the priest can get through it. I know priests who can say the Roman Canon reverently on a Sunday, but fly through the same Roman Canon on the weekday, in Latin. . . . Remember also "Eucharistic Prayer I" is a direct translation of the Roman Canon, they didn't add or subtract anything. The Post Conciliar reforms did make some parts "optional", but those options have fallen by the wayside and most priests include the optional parts. A quick read of the DW Roman Canon and it appears that they didn't add anything, they sprinkled it liberally with "thees" and "thous"
But the Divine Worship Roman canon can't be separated from the rest of the mass as presented in the DW Missal. A visitor does point out,
I decided to take up your challenge and compare the lengths of three Eucharistic Prayers: Eucharistic Prayer I (the Roman Canon, 2011 translation), Eucharistic Prayer II (the shortest), and the Roman Canon used in Divine Worship. The word counts begin immediately after the Preface and end at the Amen immediately prior to the Lord's Prayer.

The results:
EP I:2011 clocks in at 744 words.
II:2011 at 525 words.
I:DW at 831 words.

I:DW has 87 (12%) more words than EP I:2011, and 306 (58%) more words than EP II
I:2011 has 250 (48%) more words than EP II.

EP III:2011 and EP IV:2011 doubtless fall somewhere between these extremes. I leave it to you as an exercise to work out how long it takes to read aloud 87, 219 or 306 words, but I think you will find all of them to be between one and three minutes, even at the deliberate pace of a Catholic priest saying Mass.

You can't just interchange the DW Roman canon into the rest of the OF mass, as you can with the OF eucharistic prayers. If you use the DW Roman Canon, you are also using the rest of the DW mass. So although they aren't in the part of the mass specifically designated the Roman Canon, which as the visitor says begins "immediately after the Preface and end[s] at the Amen immediately prior to the Lord's Prayer", if you want the thees and thous and the extra 87 words in the DW Roman Canon, you are inevitably stuck with the following other parts of a full DW mass:
  • The Comfortable Words
  • The Penitential Rite
  • The Prayer of Humble Access
  • The Prayer of Thanksgiving
  • The Last Gospel (optional in the EF; I'm not sure if it's optional in DW.)
I may have left something out here; let me know if I have. It isn't possible to establish the exact length of any theoretical mass, since the readings vary from day to day, parts of the readings are optional, the collects and prefaces vary, the length of the homilies varies, the music varies, and the length of the announcements varies. So although as the visitor points out, the Roman Canon in the DW missal is 12% longer than that in the OF English mass, the use of the DW Roman Canon implies a considerable additional length for the rest of the DW mass -- leaving aside, as both visitors acknowledge, the individual speed or not of the priest.

But it's hard to avoid the extra pieces that are in the DW missal but not in either the OF English mass or Books of Common Prayer. I think most middle-of-the-road Episcopalians who've come into the Catholic Church are familiar with 1979 BCP masses that take about an hour, as they are with OF EP III English masses, reverent and with good music, that take about the same. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a DW mass conducted with music and ordinary purpose to take close to two hours.

It's a matter of taste. I like to ride trains, but I don't like it when a train is four hours late. I know people who like riding trains so much that if the train is four hours late, they're delighted that they got four extra hours on the train.