In the transitional period until the final approbation and confirmation of an entire liturgical order for the Personal Ordinariates with their own liturgical books (Anglican Use Liturgy), next to the allowable use of the Roman Rite (in both its forms), it is possible in the United States to celebrate the Eucharist, Baptism, Matrimony, Funerals, and the Daily Office according to the BDW (with a few additions and corrections)—but only in the form of Rite One with its traditional “Prayer Book English.”Except that, as we've seen, the "Prayer Book English" isn't even that, but a Jurassic Park reconstruction of grammar and usage as of 1662, as if the text had come from then (but it hasn't), although typically, the commenter I cited yesterday who approves of this erroneously calls it "Tudor". In 1662, it should be "Stuart", or maybe "Restoration", but that wouldn't have the proper God-wotter ring.
The problem, which we're coming to see only in bits and snatches, is that apparently not all that many people like this "Rite I" liturgy. (Properly speaking, of course, "Rite I" is a creature of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer, borrowed by the 2003 Book of Divine Worship; in 1662 nobody thought of a "Rite I".) The 1928 Book of Common Prayer Eucharist, and the 1979 Rite I, do not contain threefold repetitions, kissings of the altar, or a Last Gospel, but my Texas correspondent reported the presence of all three, a situation that sends him to diocesan parishes for relief, since without a Rite II, those without the time or patience for the Ordinariate form must use the Novus Ordo.
Ordinariate News links to the current issue of the UK-Australian Ordinariate publication The Portal, which on pp 11-12 contains a report from the UK Salisbury Ordinariate group. Their pastor says,
As you may have found, the Ordinariate Rite is not the wish of the majority of the people in our Group. We used it exclusively through Lent last year, and in the main, most people were relieved when we went back to the Novus Ordo.Last week I linked to another report from the UK, suggesting that the tendency of members to seek out the Ordinary Form damages the cohesion of Ordinariate groups. This could theoretically be a problem even for diocesan parishes, since Ordinariate members might be assumed to pledge to their groups, but many Sundays attend mass at diocesan parishes instead, where their offerings in the basket might not be as substantial as if they pledged as members there -- and their Ordinariate groups would also not be obligated to contribute to diocesan campaigns. The only mitigating factor is that there are so few Ordinariate groups, and their typical membership is so small, that this is not a practical problem for dioceses.
So will there ever be a Rite Two in a finalized Book of Divine Worship? Der Professor schweigt. If not, of course, it's incorrect even to call the present version a Rite I, since it's the only available Ordinariate rite. If one ever appears, it presumably will not be soon. At this point, though, it strikes me as one more peculiar contradiction in how the Ordinariates have been set up: the Anglicans who come over get their own liturgy, but not the one they like. In fact, it's enough of a negative that the fragmentary reports we receive suggest that the made-up "Prayer Book" rite is so cumbersome that, where it's used, it restricts the ability of the Anglicans to stay in their groups during worship.
Instead, they go to Roman rite parishes for relief or use the Roman rite themselves. Wasn't it the point of Anglicanorum coetibus that the Anglicans should retain their own groups in their own style of worship? Except, of course, that a Jurassic Park version of a 1662 mass was never their style of worship.
Many thanks to my anonymous correspondent for the time he has most generously taken to forward links to research materials for this subject.
The Anglican Use Society, by the way, has issued a call for ideas on how they might occupy their time.
