EF, Latin OF, And BDW

Once I learned that there's such a thing as an Ordinary Form mass in Latin, celebrated at OLA, it raised a lot of questions. I went to Google, I didn't find a good single explanation of the differences, but this one is closest. The bottom line seems to be that it's the master Latin version of the vernacular OF mass.

This means there are numerous differences with the EF, including the beginning prayers, the canon, and the Last Gospel and prayer to St Michael at the end. Prayers and rites in the OF are streamlined. Communion in the EF is in one kind. The roles of the EMs are apparently preserved in the OF, while in the EF communion is distributed exclusively by priests. I'm still not clear on whether ad populum celebration is at least OK in the Latin OF. If the roles of the EMs are preserved, I also assume it's OK to receive communion standing and in the hand -- but this may all depend on local usage.

If someone can make this clearer, I will greatly appreciate it!

I raise this in connection with yesterday's reference to Msgr Steenson's dissociation of the OCSP from the EF mass. The question comes up whether this extends to an OF Latin mass, and whether, if OLA went into the OCSP, the Sunday evening OF Latin mass could continue. Here is Steenson's original announcement, apparently now gone from the OCSP site but available elsewhere:

In response to certain questions that have been asked about the use of the Latin Mass in its Extraordinary Form in the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter, Monsignor Jeffrey N. Steenson, Ordinary, issued this statement:

"We rejoice in the liturgical richness of the Catholic Church. We in the Anglican tradition certainly welcome the Holy Father's concern that the Mass be understood as a living, continuous tradition. The communio sanctorum compels us to read and engage with the Church's tradition with a hermeneutic of continuity.

"The particular mission of the Ordinariate is to bring into the fuller life of the Catholic Church those enduring elements of the Anglican liturgical patrimony which are oriented to Catholic truth. This liturgical identity seeks to balance two historic principles -- that Christian prayer and proclamation should be offered in the vernacular and that the language of worship should be sacral. This is what Anglicans understand when they speak of the prayer book tradition.

"The liturgy of the Ordinariate is superintended by an inter-dicasterial working group (of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) and the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments (CDW)). At the time the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter was established, the CDW provided important guidance for our liturgical use: The Book of Divine Worship Rite I should be amended to bring it into conformity with the Roman Missal 3rd edition, particularly the words of Consecration. For those congregations that prefer a contemporary idiom, the Roman Missal 3rd edition could be used.

"We have therefore asked that the congregations of the Ordinariate follow this direction. Some of our clergy want to learn also how to celebrate according to the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite. They are certainly encouraged to do so, under the provisions ofSummorum Pontificum and under the supervision of the local bishop, to assist in those stable communities that use the Extraordinary Form. But as the Extrordinary Form is not integral to the Anglican patrimony, it is not properly used in our communities. The Ordinariate will remain focused on bringing Christians in the Anglican tradition into full communion with the Catholic Church. We also are pleased that the Church has provided for the continuing use of the Extraordinary Form, particularly as a pastoral response to traditional Catholics, and regard all of this as a well-ordered symphony of praise to the Blessed Trinity." 

I'm not sure if Msgr Steenson was even aware of a celebrated Latin OF mass. Certainly his implication was "that Christian prayer and proclamation should be offered in the vernacular". It appears from yesterday's account by a visitor that Fr Phillips was concerned that the EF devotees had become a club-within-a-club at OLA, and an appearance of exclusivity -- separate, not just unique -- continues to be an issue with former Anglicans.

But I'm not sure how anyone can differentiate here. The BDW mass appears, at minimum, to endorse the idea of communion distributed exclusively by priests, at the communion rail, communicants kneeling. This in itself is close to the EF mass, along with non-streamlined contents and archaic additional prayers, in fact patterned by Anglo-Catholic liturgists from the early 20th century with the Tridentine mass in mind. But that's OK, at least it isn't in Latin!

So is the problem with the EF that it's in Latin? Then why wouldn't this also be a problem with the Latin OF? Is the problem that the TLM folks are too exclusive? Then why isn't this a problem with the whole OCSP or the BDW? And the Latin OF mass has been a big draw for OLA, by my visitor's account. If it were dropped, that could hurt OLA's numbers. I'm not sure if anyone in San Antonio or Houston has thought everything through here -- but I think it goes against any knee-jerk interpretation that OLA and the OCSP automatically belong together.