Contemporary Language Liturgies for the Ordinariates

On the blog Ordinariate Expats, a post entitled "Ordinariates need a decision on Eucharistic Liturgy sooner rather than later" was published on Michaelmas. I call your attention to the comments, including my own (posting as "cav513") below.

Rev22:17 says:
October 2, 2012 at 2:11 am
David,

You wrote: As the Ordinariates are beginning to establish themselves and find their footing in large areas of the English-speaking world, it is becoming ever clearer that some kind of agreement needs to be found as soon as possible on what constitutes Anglican (or Anglo-Catholic) liturgical patrimony and which forms of Eucharistic liturgy should be offered by Ordinariate communities and parishes.

The unfortunate reality is that the ordinariates in North America and Australia are still in relatively early stages of formation, with many of their initial members still awaiting reception into the Catholic Church and many of their original clergy still awaiting reception. Realistically, they do not have the resources to participate in the process as yet. Thus, a good portion of the work of the pontifical commission organized to develop the ordinariate liturgy thus must await their ability to contribute to the process. The commission probably will not be able to move forward on that portion of its work for another year or more.

Of course, the other side of this issue is that there apparently are some liturgical issues that are unique to the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham. It’s very reasonable for work to proceed on those issues — and this undoubtedly is what the commission is now doing.

You wrote: Apart from the Ordinary and Extraordinary forms of the Roman Rite…

There’s a significant linguestic nit here. It is unfortunate that some Traditionalists wrongly refer to the Tridentine form of the liturgy as the extraordinary form, as though there were no other. Rather, any use other than the current “ordinary form” (also correctly called the “Pauline” form) of the Roman liturgy within the Roman Catholic Church is an extraordinary form — and today there are several, including the “Anglican Use” here in the United States, for which Pope John Paul II gave permission by approving the Book of Divine Worship in 1983, the use of the Mozarabic Rite preserved by a small community in Toledo, Spain, and the continued use of the Ambrosian Rite within the Archdiocese of Milan, Italy. Thus, when Pope Benedict XVI promulgated a statement to clarify his intention with regard to the future direction of the liturgy, he was very careful to say that the Tridentine form of the liturgy will remain an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite.

You wrote: there are basically two traditionally Anglican or Anglo-Catholic liturgical forms which clearly offer themselves:
1. A “Romanised” version of the Prayer Book Communion Service, with texts by Cranmer and Coverdale
2. The more traditional Sarum Use and its English-language manifestations, as in the English, Anglican or American Missals (i.e. the Tridentine Mass with Sarum variations, translated into Cranmeresque English and with generous inclusion of Prayer Book elements)

My understanding is that the Sarum Use had substantially fallen into disuse throughout Anglican Christendom centuries ago, and that its use is not within the experience of any of those coming to the ordinariates, but that many of the so-called “Anglo-Catholic” parishes within the Church of England had adopted newer missals created during the Oxford Movement even though proper authorities of the Church of England never officially authorized them. As such, it makes sense for the Book of Common Prayer to form the heart of the liturgy for the ordinariates. Of course, this does not preclude inclusion of a mass adapted from the missal tradition, as currently or recently in use, as an alternate form of mass in the new prayer book (which presumably will be called the Book of Divine Worship). Note that the present Book of Divine Worship actually provides two forms for mass, designated “Form I” and “Form II,” and there’s absolutely no reason why the revision could not also provide a “Form III.” On the other hand, reversion to an older form of Anglican worship that is not within the experience of those coming to the ordinariates does not make much sense from a pastoral perspective: it will not be familiar those coming to the ordinariates, either now or in the future, and thus will not make them feel at home within the Catholic Church — which is the very purpose of authorizing an Anglican form of the liturgy for the ordinariates in the first place.

You wrote: As Monsignor Andrew Burnham has pointed out there is no need for a modern English rival to the Novus Ordo, especially after the, admittedly limited, sacralisation achieved in the new translation.

There’s another linguistic nit here. Many traditionalists also refer to the current ordinary form of the Roman Rite as “Novus Ordo,” but this also is not an official designation. Rather, the term novus ordo is simply the Latin phrase meaning “new order” (of mass, etc.) — a term used when the revision was in process to distinguish from the Tridentine form, which was then the ordinary form. Official Catholic documents instead refer either to the “Pauline form” or to the “ordinary form” when they wish to distinguish between the current ordinary form and any other.

Having said that, I’m not sure whether to agree or disagree with Msgr. Burnham’s statement. There are prayers in the Anglican form of the liturgy such as the “Prayer for Humble Access” and other elements such as a second penitential rite that are not present in either the Tridentine form or the current ordinary form of the Roman Rite. It clearly does not make sense to force ordinariate parishes to use Shakespearian English, which few would understand correctly, in order to use a form of the liturgy that includes those elements. On the other hand, I think that it does make sense to adopt the translations in the present ordinary form of the Roman Rite for elements that are common to both or that, for whatever reason, require conformity.

Norm.


Ordinariate Support Group for Expats in Europe says:
October 6, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Norm,

Thank you for your comment, which is, as ever, very detailed, displaying a profound knowledge of the subject matter.

Regarding the 1962 Roman Missal, generally referred to as “the” Extraordinary Form, I have taken the trouble to consult the original Motu Proprio “Summorum Pontificum” as well as the Instruction “Universae Ecclesiae” on the implementation of the Motu Proprio. As you rightly state, the English translation of Summorum Pontificum speaks of “an” extraordinary expression of the Roman Rite. However, the Vatican website gives only the Latin original as the authoritative text, and because of the absence of “a” and “the” in Latin, the exact meaning is inconclusive. The Instruction refers in the approved English and German texts repeatedly to “the/die” Extraordinary Form, as does the accompanying “Note” also. All three texts refer to “TWO” forms of the Roman Rite liturgy. So, I feel I must beg to differ from you in this matter.

As Mgr. Burnham has informed me personally, it is more correct to speak of the Ambrosian Use, the Dominican Use, the Sarum Use, the Anglican Use of the Roman Rite, and not call these “forms” or, as often occurs, “rites”.

You refer to the particular issues of the Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham (these being in particular the widespread use of the Ordinary Form and not of an Anglican Use liturgy). This is one of the main reasons why I believe a decision on the normative liturgy (for ALL Ordinariates) should be made as soon as possible, so that the UK Ordinariate communities can begin to use one of the new forms of the Anglican Use as their standard liturgical expression. Using the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite as a “statement of catholicity” while still in the Anglican Church might make sense, but the role of the Ordinariates is another, namely to bring typically Anglican liturgical elements into the Catholic Church, thus enriching the diversity of the Church.

I accept your comments on the Sarum Use and admit that its revival would be a matter of nostalgia.

However, I very much disagree with your statement that making new Catholics feel at home in the Catholic Church is “the very purpose of authorizing an Anglican form of the liturgy for the ordinariates in the first place”.

As I see it, and the Holy Father too, I dare to add, bringing elements of Anglican liturgical patrimony into the Church has the primary purpose of “enriching” the Catholic Church, opening it to a church of the Reformation, broadening its diversity. The Anglican liturgy is seen as a “gift” to the Church.

David Murphy

cav513 says:
October 6, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Norm,

I'm not sure that it does make sense to adopt the new translation of the Pauline Missal instead of the contemporary language translation of the BCP found in Rite 2 of the Book of Divine Worship. In addition to the loss of elements such as the the prayer of Humble Access which you mentioned, I don't think the new English version of the Roman Missal (certainly an improvement over the 1973 version, if only because it is a translation and not a paraphrase) is superior to the Rite 2 prayers, being based on the Prayer Book versions, are superior in the main.

For example, here is the collect from this past Sunday, which is based on the same Latin original (not always the case between the BDW and the Roman Missal).

Book of Common Prayer, 1928
11th Sunday after Trinity
O GOD, who declarest thy almighty power chiefly in showing mercy and pity; Mercifully grant unto us such a measure of thy grace, that we, running the way of thy commandments, may obtain thy gracious promises, and be made partakers of thy heavenly treasure; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Book of Divine Worship
Proper 21 (Sunday closest to September 28)
Rite 1
O God, who declarest thy almighty power chiefly in showing mercy and pity: Mercifully grant unto us such a measure of thy grace, that we, running to obtain thy promises, may be made partakers of thy heavenly treasure; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Rite 2
O God, you declare your almighty power chiefly in showing mercy and pity: Grant us the fullness of your grace, that we, running to obtain your promises, may become partakers of your heavenly treasure; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Roman Missal (2002, new translation)
26th Week in Ordinary Time

O God, who manifest your almighty power above all by pardoning and showing mercy, bestow, we pray, your grace abundantly upon us and make those hastening to attain your promises heirs to the treasures of heaven. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Clearly, the Rite 2 version in the BDW retains the cadences and structure of the Rite 1 prayer, which is close to the original Prayer Book version. The Prayer Book version is based directly on the original prayer appointed for the 10th Sunday after Pentecost (11th after Trinity in Anglican and Northern European reckoning) in both ancient sources and the 1962 Roman Missal (as discussed on Fr. Z's What Does the Prayer Really Say? site). It strikes me that the Anglican Patrimony has to be a bit more focused than just the general principal of vernacular language, accurately translated and reverently prayed. It should also draw from the actual prayers of the tradition, which prayers drew down God's grace and impelled the brethren toward communion.

In the prayers for an upcoming feast,* there's a greater contrast.

Book of Divine Worship
St. Luke, October 18

Rite 1
Almighty God, who didst inspire thy servant Luke the physician to set forth in the Gospel the love and healing power of thy Son: Graciously continue in thy Church the like love and power to heal, to the praise and glory of thy Name; through the same thy Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

Rite 2
Almighty God, who inspired your servant Luke the physician to set forth in the Gospel the love and healing power of your Son: Graciously continue in your Church this love and power to heal, to the praise and glory of your Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

Roman Missal (2002, new translation)
St. Luke, October 18

Lord God, who chose Saint Luke to reveal by his preaching and writings the mystery of your love for the poor, grant that those who already glory in your name may persevere as one heart and one soul and that all nations may merit to see your salvation. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with your in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Here, we have two very different prayers. The BDW version recalls the tradition of St. Luke as being St. Paul's "beloved physician" (Col. 4:14), both directly and in recalling the "healing power" of Jesus; these two elements are absent the Roman Missal version. (And both of these are quite different from the 1962 Missal version, which is, in good Roman fashion, quite terse.*) There is nothing wrong, of course, with either version of the prayer.

If the various ordinariate communities are using prayers in traditional language and others are using contemporary language, but essentially the same prayers, there will be a unity fostered among them. But if the traditional and contemporary language groups are using entirely different prayers, we now have a split in the very language of prayer. I think this would be unfortunate, and akin to the problem faced in contemporary times with different Bible translations; there are so many translations, each with their own strengths and weakness, that there is no longer a common Bible. This has led to people being unfamiliar with the Scriptures, as it makes memorization, or even just strong acquaintance, all that much harder. The same could occur with the liturgy, which would be a real loss. We should hope that the words of the liturgy will permeate our thinking and speech.

Of course, the Committee that is hashing out what form the Ordinariate Liturgy will take its cue from the Roman Authorities but I do hope the Committee will fight for the patrimonial prayers, just as Fr. Phillips did when the BDW was being assembled.

------

*(for comparison, here is the 1962 version of the collect for St. Luke, Latin and my rough English translation:

Interveniat pro nobis, quaesumus, Domine, sanctus tuus Lucas Evangelista: qui crucis mortificationem iugiter in suo corpore, pro tui nominis honore, portavit.

O Lord, we beseech thee that your holy evangelist Luke, who bore the sufferings of the cross in his body for the honor of thy Name, may intercede for us.)