At a quick glance, the divergences between the wording of the Collect for Purity and the Penitential Rite in the Divine Worship Mass and the 1928 BCP reflect the fact that in both of those instances the DWM wording is that of the English 1662 BCP - except for the abbreviated version of the latter ("Draw near with faith and make your humble confession to Almighty God, meekly kneeling upon your knees.") which seems to be an innovation peculiar to the DWM. Also, there is no "Summary of the Law" in the English 1662 rite. It was first introduced as a substitute for the decalogue in the Nonjurors' liturgy of 1718. It was taken into the Scottish liturgy of 1764, and from there it was adopted by the first American Prayer Book of 1789 as an alternative to the decalogue.My regular correspondent points out,
The BDW used by PP parishes was based on the 1979 TEC BCP, which had made changes to the wording in Rite 1 and in the Psalter from the 1928 version. The 1962 BCP used by the ACC also differs from the 1928 American version and the 1662 text of the CofE. Presumably there was some discussion about these variations.In that context, let's return to Bp Lopes's remarks in his September interview:
Rather, what we see in Divine Worship is a dual hermeneutic of reform: it’s just that our first reform came in the 16th Century and only later following the Second Vatican Council. It is important to note that the major sources for Divine Worship – the 1549 Book of Common Prayer and the Sarum Missal – are actually older than the Tridentine reform and the Missal of Pius V. So things that “look like” what we Catholics know as Tridentine often predates that form.On one hand, I keep coming back to his strange reference to a "dual hermeneutic of reform" that seems to equate the Anglican revolt with the Councils of Trent and Vatican II and seems to give it just as much authority. And this is in the context of Bp Barron calling Martin Luther a "mystic of grace". But it's increasingly clear that Bp Lopes's reference to 1549 is not meant to cite any particular theological or liturgical stance from that BCP, only to place it as a point in time from which certain Anglican prayers originated. The prayers in the DWM are drawn eclectically from different periods -- all, it would seem, but the 1979 BCP, although the Church has no specific objection to a modern version of a vernacular English mass. I guess that's just not the product it wants to sell here -- think New Coke. Or Edsel.
And in that context, my regular correspondent comments,
The OF can of course be offered with reverence and beauty, accompanied by first rate music and preaching. I am sure that many UK CofE parishes feel they make a successful attempt at this. Those who entered the OOLW from such a parish understandably see little point in DW. A North American Anglican is more likely to have formed the opinion that the typical Catholic mass combines a bald and prosaic text with polyester vestments, servers in running shoes, and trivial music which nobody sings anyway. A bad experience or two of this kind may have provided an effective barrier to giving serious consideration to the claims of the Catholic church. DW is a kind of promise that mass will not be like that. But of course many TEC/ACC parishes use a modern language rite. Would DW be a draw for their parishioners? Or would a well-presented OF mass better meet their needs? As you point out, the "continuing" groups with their insistence on the 1928 BCP are a dwindling and geriatric group. And an OCSP group must compete for younger traddies with any local TLM parishes. Making the OCSP very niche, in other words.and adds,
Not just younger traddies, of course. Among cradle Catholics the OCSP gets a lot of theoretical support from those who remember the pre-Vatican II Church as the good old days. But they mostly attend the TLM, if it's available.But the TLM has the advantage of being actual Church tradition. The DWM mass dates from 2015 and consists of eclectically-edited Protestant prayers grafted onto a 1970 vernacular Catholic mass. Any claim to being "traditional" is spurious. To try to make it a little more so by harkening back to English Protestantism smacks once more of syncretism -- but maybe Bp Lopes sees which way the wind is blowing and has set his sails.
